The concept of conflict styles is commonly understood today. Conflict style refers to the action a person is likely to employ in a dispute. Dual-concern models have become popular because they suggest two dimensions to explain the differences. One is concern for self and the second is concern for others. When the two dimensions are visualized as axes, five styles are identified:

1 – Avoiding (sometimes referred to as withdrawing) is low concern for assertiveness and for others. It means denying the conflict exists or otherwise withdrawing from dealing with it. 

2 – Accommodating (sometimes referred to as obliging or smoothing) represents a high degree of concern for the relationship and low concern for self or unassertive. At its extreme, the accommodating style means doing whatever the other party wants in order to maintain the relationship and, in a sense, surrendering power to the other party.  

3 – Competing  (sometimes referred to as dominating or forcing) is assertive with a low concern for the relationship. In competition, we pursue our own goals at the expense of the goals of others. 

4 – Compromising conflict style reflects some intermediate degree of concern for self and for the other. Compromising is being willing to give something in order to get something.  

5 – Collaborating (sometimes referred to as integrating or problem solving) means working together to reach a solution that completely satisfies both parties. The collaborating conflict style reflects a high level of concern for one’s own goals and the goals of others. 

Critical for understanding and using the conflict styles model is to recognize that one is not necessarily the most effective compared to another. The appropriate style depends on the two factors the model identifies—How important is it to win? And How important is maintaining the relationship? 

The popular acceptance of the dual concern model is also limiting. Other conflict styles are commonly used in cultures other than the U.S.

For example, other conflict styles are: 

Superficial Compliance: When personal goals are important the person will appear to smooth over the dispute and appease the other party with face-giving gestures, but privately will pursue goals by covert and indirect means.  

Concessional Obliging: When harmony enhancement is high, one can decide to make concessions graciously and forego discussion and debate that can involve friction.   

Superficial Harmony: Smoothing, face-giving behaviors and some degree of passive noncompliance. The result is a state of superficial harmony in order that the status quo of the relationship be maintained, although the problem may remain unsolved. The underlying motivation is different than in the Western conflict avoidance style.   

So, what is the best conflict style? It all depends on the parties’ objectives.

I’m often asked by students in mediation training programs what are the most important tools a mediator uses to help people resolve their issues. There are many, but if pressed to identify those I think most important, I usually identify tools any of us can use in conflict situations to help with dispute resolution.

1. Establish an objective: Surprisingly many people enter negotiation or mediation without a clear idea of what their objective is. When pressed, many will say something like “I just want to get this resolved.” That’s not an objective. Having one doesn’t mean objectives can’t be amended as the process proceeds, but without an objective the party is, at best, adrift.

2. Establish a clear understanding of the consequences of not settling: Professional negotiators and mediators refer to this as the WATNA or ‘the worst alternative to a negotiated agreement.” To be effective, and to evaluate proposals, the parties must understand the consequences of not settling. Most times, the consequences of not settling isn’t acceptable. The parties must be able to weigh proposals against the consequences of not settling. 

3. Clearly understand real deadline pressures: Most dispute resolution is often brought to a close with a deadline. I often give the example that should I start a neighborhood mediation at 10a.m. in one room and another in different room at 10:30a.m., I guarantee with a high level of confidence that we resolve both before lunch. To be effective, deadlines cannot be arbitrary and should impact both parties. But be aware that some parties attempt to establish arbitrary deadlines just to pressure a settlement. 

4. Recognize that a demand is only one way to solve a problem: Most people enter a negotiation or mediation with a pre-determined solution they feel will solve the problem and they argue strongly their position. The most likely to be successful in negotiation and mediation recognize there is more than one way to solve a problem and are open to alternative proposals. 

There are many other “tools” that can be used in dispute resolution, but I find these to be the most critical.