The 5 conflict management styles
When it comes to conflict, there is no one solution that will work in all
situations. Each situation will be different, from the trigger of the conflict to
the parties involved.
A manager skilled in conflict resolution should be able to take a birds-eye view of
the conflict and apply the conflict management style that is called for in that
specific situation.
1. Accommodating
This style is about simply putting the other parties needs before one's own. You
allow them to �win� and get their way.
Accommodation is for situations where you don�t care as strongly about the issue as
the other person, if prolonging the conflict is not worth your time, or if you
think you might be wrong. This option is about keeping the peace, not putting in
more effort than the issue is worth, and knowing when to pick battles.
While it might seem somewhat weak, accommodation can be the absolute best choice to
resolve a small conflict and move on with more important issues. This style is
highly cooperative on the part of the resolver but can lead to resentment.
Pros: Small disagreements can be handled quickly and easily, with a minimum of
effort. Managers can build a reputation as an easygoing person, and employees will
know that they can speak their mind about problems without reprisal.
Cons: Managers might be viewed as weak if they accommodate too often. Using this
technique with larger or more important issues will not solve any issues in a
meaningful way and should absolutely be avoided.
Example:
In a marketing meeting, the colors for the new spring campaign are being discussed.
Raymond is adamant that choice A is the best choice. Gina thinks that choice B is
slightly better, but decides to let Raymond choose the colors, to avoid arguing
about two choices that she thinks are both fine.
2. Avoiding
This style aims to reduce conflict by ignoring it, removing the conflicted parties,
or evading it in some manner. Team members in conflict can be removed from the
project they are in conflict over, deadlines are pushed, or people are even
reassigned to other departments.
This can be an effective conflict resolution style if there is a chance that a
cool-down period would be helpful or if you need more time to consider your stance
on the conflict itself.
Avoidance should not be a substitute for proper resolution, however; pushing back
conflict indefinitely can and will lead to more (and bigger) conflicts down the
line.
Pros: Giving people time to calm down can solve a surprising amount of issues. Time
and space can give a much-needed perspective to those in conflict, and some issues
will resolve themselves. Managers show that they trust employees to act like adults
and solve issues.
Cons: If used in the wrong situations, this technique will make conflicts worse.
Managers can seem incompetent if they overuse avoidance because employees will
think that they are incapable of handling disagreements.
Example:
Jake and Amy have been collaborating on the new UX design for weeks. The deadline
is looming and they are increasingly unable to agree on changes.
The deadline is pushed back and they both are given the day to work on other
projects. The space to take a break from each other, as well as the extra time to
complete their project, allows them to cool down and resume in a more collaborative
mindset.
3. Compromising
This style seeks to find the middle ground by asking both parties to concede some
aspects of their desires so that a solution can be agreed upon.
This style is sometimes known as lose-lose, in that both parties will have to give
up a few things in order to agree on the larger issue. This is used when there is a
time crunch, or when a solution simply needs to happen, rather than be perfect.
Compromise can lead to resentment, especially if overused as a conflict resolution
tactic, so use sparingly.
Pros: Issues can be resolved quickly, and the parties in conflict will leave
understanding more about the other person�s perspective. Compromise can set the
stage for collaboration down the road, and allows both parties to feel heard.
Managers using this tactic are seen as facilitating agreement, being hands-on and
finding solutions.
Cons: No one leaves completely happy. In some cases, one side might feel as though
they sacrificed too much, and be unwilling to compromise again in the future.
Managers who rely on this technique will burn up their employees goodwill and be
seen as unable to execute collaboration.
Example:
Rosa and Charles are in charge of the advertising budget for the next quarter. Rosa
wants to hire a full-time social media person, while Charles wants to increase
targeted digital ads.
A compromise is reached by hiring a social media person to work part-time, with the
remainder of the budget being spent on digital advertising.
4. Competing
This style rejects compromise and involves not giving in to others viewpoints or
wants.
One party stands firm in what they think is the correct handling of a situation,
and does not back down until they get their way.
This can be in situations where morals dictate that a specific course of action is
taken, when there is no time to try and find a different solution or when there is
an unpopular decision to be made. It can resolve disputes quickly, but there is a
high chance of morale and productivity being lessened.
Note: This is not a style that should be relied upon heavily.
Pros: Managers using this style show that they are strong and will not back down on
their principles. Disputes are solved quickly, as there is no space for any
disagreement or discussion.
Cons: Managers using this style will be seen as unreasonable and authoritarian.
Handling conflicts by crushing any dissent will not lead to happy, productive
employees, nor will it lead to finding the best solutions in most cases.
Example:
Sophia is the head of her department. Within her staff, she has been dealing with
several conflicts. First, Paul and Kevin could not agree on where to hold the
annual team-building activity, she stepped in and decided that the department would
do an escape room.
Second, Cecile and Eduardo have been fighting over which one of them will have to
deal with a particularly difficult client. Neither wants to put in the time and
effort and has been arguing that it is the other�s job to deal with it. Sophia
decides it is Cecile�s job to handle the client, even though it arguably could be
either person�s job.
Third, Alex has come to Sophia several times, asking for permission to change the
management of a project that he is running. He thinks that the changes he proposes
will make the project much more successful. Sophia will not budge on the way the
project is run and tells him to get the job done the way she has ordered him to.
As you can see, in the first example, Sophia made a quick decision to stop a small
conflict from escalating or wasting more time. This is an appropriate use of this
style.
In the second decision, while she solved an issue, she created another one: Cecile
is now resentful. Especially in cases where a boss favors an employee, this type of
unilateral decision making will lead to angry employees.
In the third situation, Sophia should not have used the competing style. Not only
is Alex now upset that he is not being heard, but Sophia is also missing an
opportunity to improve the project.
5. Collaboration
This style produces the best long-term results, at the same time it is often the
most difficult and time-consuming to reach.
Each party�s needs and wants are considered, and a win-win solution is found so
that everyone leaves satisfied. This often involves all parties sitting down
together, talking through the conflict and negotiating a solution together.
This is used when it is vital to preserve the relationship between all parties or
when the solution itself will have a significant impact.
Pros: Everyone leaves happy. A solution that actually solves the problems of the
conflict is found, and the manager who implements this tactic will be seen as
skilled.
Cons: This style of conflict management is time-consuming. Deadlines or production
may have to be delayed while solutions are found, which might take a long time,
depending on the parties involved and can lead to losses.
Example:
Terry and Janet are leading the design of a new prototype. They are having
difficulties, as Terry wants to incorporate a specific set of features. Janet wants
to incorporate a different set of features.
To reach a solution, they sit down, talk through each feature, why it is (or isn�t)
important, and finally reach a solution, incorporating a mix of their features and
some new ones they realized were important as they negotiated.
