One word for conflict resolution

When people work closely together, it’s only natural that they have conflicting ideas on how to approach a task or project. They might also clash due to differences in personalities and beliefs, as well as misguided emotions. As sure as the sun will rise, coworkers will enter into conflicts. So you shouldn’t look for ways to avoid disagreements at all costs — they can even be beneficial.

As you will almost certainly find yourself participating in a conflict, you need to learn how to navigate it. In this article, we’ll tell you why words get you in trouble in conflicts and provide 15 useful phrases (with examples in use) to help you steer any disagreement in a healthy and constructive direction.

Why words get us in trouble in conflicts

Conflicts in the workplace are a normal and expected occurrence. They alone are not harmful by default — it’s how we communicate around them that can result in heated confrontations. According to Linda A. Hill, Ph.D. of Harvard Business School, there are three main reasons that explain why we choose the wrong words in conflicts:

1. The stakes are high when emotions are high — Conflict usually involves negative emotions, and as most of us are not comfortable with them, the discomfort makes us say (mean) things we don’t mean;
2. Our first instinct is to prove we’re right — Our first reaction is to try and prove our position is more valid than the other person’s, instead of focusing on solving the problem together, which is why we can get confrontational or defensive;
3. Misalignment between intent and impact — People often mean to say one thing, but the other person misinterprets it to imply something else.

Once you become aware of these “traps”, you can better notice them in yourself and others. As a result, you’ll be able to avoid letting them sway you into a heated argument — and focus on healthy conflict resolution instead.

Perfect phrases for conflict resolution at work (and those to avoid)

Here, we’ll cover 15 amazing phrases for conflict resolution that skilled communicators use to settle any argument without hostility. We’ll provide additional context for their use, explain why they work, and list some of the alternatives you should avoid at all costs in a given situation.

We’ll also provide examples of each phrase in use in the team chat app Pumble. 

#1 ‘Let’s take a break and get back to this issue when we’ve thought about it and cooled down a bit’

🔶 When to use: You can use this phrase when you notice the argument is getting out of hand, and one or both of you is succumbing to negative emotions. You can also pull this card if you come to an impasse that makes you both impatient for your argument to win.

🔶 Why it works: Taking a break from a confrontation allows you both to cool off and get a fresh perspective on the matter. In most cases, there is a logical solution to the problem, and what’s preventing you from seeing it is your instinct to prove you’re right. However, once you agree to take some time off to think things through, it’s also essential to specify when you’ll get back to the issue so that it doesn’t end up unaddressed in the end and come back to haunt you.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “I can’t deal with this right now.”
• “You’re clearly wrong!”
• “This will never work.”

#2 ‘Help me understand where you’re coming from’

🔶 When to use: When you don’t necessarily agree with what the other person is saying or you don’t understand how they came to the idea they’re advocating, you can say this to elicit more information.

🔶 Why it works: One of the biggest communication challenges among coworkers are negative attitudes, and they can exacerbate a conflict. If someone offers critical feedback to you and you get defensive, you’re missing out on the opportunity to understand where the other person is coming from, even if you don’t agree with them. By asking for clarification, you get further insight into their motives and rationale.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “What exactly are you implying?”
• “That makes no sense.”
• That’s ridiculous!”

#3 ‘Thank you for being honest with me’

🔶 When to use: This phrase is best for situations where someone is being critical of you, especially if it’s a subordinate who’s providing upward feedback. It’s also great to use when a colleague is directing criticism at you and they are upset about the issue at hand.

🔶 Why it works: The phrase is incredibly effective because it lets the other person know that you’ve truly heard them and, more importantly, you appreciate that they chose an assertive communication approach instead of going behind your back. It also allows you to put yourself in a positive frame of mind so that you can consider what they’re saying instead of just getting hurt and passive-aggressive.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “Wow, I didn’t realize you thought so little of me.”
• “I’m ___ (e.g. sloppy)? Look who’s talking!”
• “What’s that supposed to mean?”

#4 ‘How can I support you?’

🔶 When to use: This phrase should be a staple of any leader’s vocabulary. You can use it if one of your employees feels upset, hurt, underappreciated, or is coming to you with a complaint. However, the phrase is not reserved for leaders alone — anyone at the workplace can benefit from using it.

🔶 Why it works: It works because you’re showing the other person that you truly care about them and want to do what’s best to ease the situation for them. It also showcases your willingness to actively listen and understand where their pain, stress, or frustration is coming from. By offering support, you disarm them and help them let down their guard.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “What am I supposed to do about it?”
• “That’s a ‘you’ problem.”
• “You’re such a baby!”

#5 ‘What I heard you say is… Did I get that right?’

🔶 When to use: When you’re not sure you’ve understood something correctly, especially if that something has the potential to wreak havoc on your interpersonal relationships at work, it’s best to check if you’ve got the gist of the issue.

🔶 Why it works: One of the most important rules of workplace chat etiquette is to keep the conversation clear and simple so that there’s no danger of it leading to misunderstandings. That’s why asking for clarification is important. If you throw a fit before you’ve checked whether you’ve correctly understood your interlocutor, you risk starting a fight where there needn’t have been one.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “You’re kidding me, right?”
• “I can’t believe you’ve just said that to me!”
• “Can’t you just speak plain English?”

#6 ‘When you said/did that, I felt…’

🔶 When to use: You can use this phrase when you want to confront a coworker about something they said or did that (inadvertently) affected you in a bad way.

🔶 Why it works: Language plays a vital role here. Instead of attacking them with “you made me feel…”, implying they’re directly responsible for your feelings, you take ownership of your emotions (“I felt…”) while letting them know their words or actions were hurtful. So you’re not accusing them of being a bad person, but rather their words/actions of being inappropriate, which makes a world of a difference and is less likely to make them defensive.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “How could you have possibly done that?”
• “You’re a terrible person!”
• “You make me boil with rage!”

#7 ‘I agree with you on…’

🔶 When to use: When you’re having a disagreement with someone at work (usually about the way to proceed on a shared task or project), but there are still some points about which you’re on the same page, it’s best to start from them if you want to diffuse conflict and improve collaboration.

🔶 Why it works: Agreement on some points sets a common ground from which you can build on. Acknowledging the fact that your views on the matter are not entirely opposing can also reduce the frustration that can build up due to your inability to find a solution and focus your minds on the solvability of the problem, rather than leaving you mentally stuck in a stalemate.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “That’s a stupid idea.”
• “I give up! Just do whatever you want.”
• “We’ll do it my way or I’m out!”

#8 ‘Let’s work on this problem together’

🔶 When to use: This phrase can come in handy when you want to avoid finger-pointing and playing the blame game, especially if you’re a manager trying to stop a conflict from escalating. It can also work well if you want to help someone fix a mistake they made, without making them feel under attack.

🔶 Why it works: It’s great because it inspires healthier team communication and team spirit. Also, when you point out an issue this way, you’re setting a safe psychological space to work from instead of making the person feel threatened.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “This is all your fault!”
• “You need to fix this.”
• “We could have avoided this if John didn’t mess up — just saying!”

#9 ‘I see how I’ve contributed to the problem’

🔶 When to use: When someone points out you did something wrong, which you didn’t realize before, but now you see it, it’s best to admit it straight up and start the conversation from there.

🔶 Why it works: Admitting your mistakes is always a good idea — it’s human to make them, but it’s incredibly irresponsible not to admit you’ve made them. What’s more, when you recognize you’ve made a mistake, you’re showing the other person that you’re willing to cooperate and let yourself be vulnerable with them. This vulnerability is bound to dispel negative emotions.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “Why are you always picking on me?”
• “Oh, so everything’s always my fault!”
• “Sure, you’re entitled to your opinion.”

#10 ‘I’m sorry’

🔶 When to use: Building on the previous example, once you’ve realized you’ve made a mistake, especially when you’ve directly wronged the other person, it’s only decent to let go of your ego defenses and apologize.

🔶 Why it works: A sincere apology has the power to mend a relationship in a heartbeat. However, beware that an insincere one can further exacerbate the conflict because it can sound dismissive. So don’t apologize just to stop the argument if you don’t mean it — you’ll produce a countereffect.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “Whatever, my bad, can we just move on?”
• “You’re lying.”
• “I wouldn’t have done it in the first place if you hadn’t ____ (messed up first)!”

#11 ‘What do you suggest we do about this?’

🔶 When to use: This phrase is universally applicable — every conflict involves at least two people, and the best way to de-escalate it is to work together on it.

🔶 Why it works: It’s effective for multiple reasons. The “we” part implies that you’re willing to approach the problem as a team rather than blame each other for it. Furthermore, your asking for their advice lets them know that you value their opinion and input and are taking the issue seriously.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “I really don’t care about this.”
• “That’s not my problem.”
• “Subject closed!”

#12 ‘Let’s see how we can prevent this from happening in the future’

🔶 When to use: You can use this phrase when you want to shift focus from finding someone to blame to figuring out what caused the problem and how you can stop it from happening again. Leaders usually use this when they understand that no single person failed, but it was a flaw in the system as a whole that caused the problem.

🔶 Why it works: This phrase puts the conflicted parties at ease because it pits them against the problem — not against each other. They are encouraged to find the solution instead of finding each other’s faults. The phrase also shows the willingness to solve the problem once and for all and leave it behind.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “Whose ‘brilliant’ idea was this?”
• “Okay, who messed up this time?”
• “Who came up with this stupid plan?”

#13 ‘I hear your point, but I have a different view’

🔶 When to use: This is a great phrase to use to present your arguments while also acknowledging the validity of the other person’s perspective. It’s a nice way to set a respectful tone of the argument from the start, instead of getting impatient and giving in to negative emotions.

🔶 Why it works: Even if the other person was feeling passionate about their point of view and started the argument with the sole purpose of winning, this phrase will help ground them and remind them that it’s not a competition.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “Are you listening to yourself?”
• “That makes no sense.”
• “I don’t care what you think!”

#14 ‘Agree to disagree?’

🔶 When to use: You can resort to this “conclusion” when you’re in the middle of a bitter argument on a subject you really don’t have to agree on, i.e. it’s non-essential for your day-to-day tasks or your relationship with the other person.

🔶 Why it works: Respectfully disagreeing on a non-essential subject can save you from damaging your work relationship over a trivial matter. When you make it clear to the other side that you appreciate the debate and respect their opinion but are unwilling (or unable) to change your stance on the issue, both of you can breathe a sigh of relief and go on with your day without harming your relationship.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.”
• “I don’t understand how you could even think that.”
• “Stop trying to persuade me, it’s never gonna work!”

#15 ‘I recognize your hard work…’

🔶 When to use: This is a good way to start a conversation if you want to provide critical feedback on the results of someone’s work, but let them know you appreciate their efforts. This type of recognition is especially important in downward communication, i.e. from higher-ups to subordinates.

🔶 Why it works: Letting people know you believe they made an effort, even if it was unsuccessful, will put them at ease because it shows them you appreciate them and their work. They won’t feel like you’re placing blame on them, but rather like you are trying to help them grow.

🔶 Use it instead of these phrases:

• “You messed up big time!”
• “You idiot, how could you miss that?”
• “What were you thinking?”

Wrapping up: Fight the problem — not each other

As you can see, conflict at work doesn’t have to result in a catty argument and hurt feelings if you handle it well. The next time you find yourself part of a conflict, we hope some of these phrases will come to mind and help you remember that you’re not in it to win it — you’re there to work together on solving the problem which has led to the argument in the first place.

Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution. Committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs) and by engaging in collective negotiation.^[1] Dimensions of resolution typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed. Cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict, with beliefs, perspectives, understandings and attitudes. Emotional resolution is in the way disputants feel about a conflict, the emotional energy. Behavioral resolution is reflective of how the disputants act, their behavior.^[2] Ultimately a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-arbitration,^[3] diplomacy, and creative peacebuilding.^[4][5]

The term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, where arbitration and litigation processes are critically involved. The concept of conflict resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution.^[6]

Theories and models[edit]

There are a plethora of different theories and models linked to the concept of conflict resolution. A few of them are described below.

Conflict resolution curve[edit]

There are many examples of conflict resolution in history, and there has been a debate about the ways to conflict resolution: whether it should be forced or peaceful. Conflict resolution by peaceful means is generally perceived to be a better option. The conflict resolution curve derived from an analytical model that offers a peaceful solution by motivating conflicting entities.^[7] Forced resolution of conflict might invoke another conflict in the future.

Conflict resolution curve (CRC) separates conflict styles into two separate domains: domain of competing entities and domain of accommodating entities. There is a sort of agreement between targets and aggressors on this curve. Their judgements of badness compared to goodness of each other are analogous on CRC. So, arrival of conflicting entities to some negotiable points on CRC is important before peace building. CRC does not exist (i.e., singular) in reality if the aggression of the aggressor is certain. Under such circumstances it might lead to apocalypse with mutual destruction.^[8]

The curve explains why nonviolent struggles ultimately toppled repressive regimes and sometimes forced leaders to change the nature of governance. Also, this methodology has been applied to capture conflict styles on the Korean Peninsula and dynamics of negotiation processes.^[9]

Dual concern model[edit]

The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (empathy).^[1]

According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection of these two dimensions ultimately leads individuals towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution.^[10] The dual model identifies five conflict resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals.

Avoidance conflict style

Characterized by joking, changing or avoiding the topic, or even denying that a problem exists, the conflict avoidance style is used when an individual has withdrawn in dealing with the other party, when one is uncomfortable with conflict, or due to cultural contexts.^{[nb 1]} During conflict, these avoiders adopt a «wait and see» attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement.^[11] By neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing problems to fester or spin out of control.

Accommodating conflict style

In contrast, yielding, «accommodating», smoothing or suppression conflict styles are characterized by a high level of concern for others and a low level of concern for oneself. This passive pro-social approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction from meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining stable, positive social relationships.^[1] When faced with conflict, individuals with an accommodating conflict style tend to harmonize into others’ demands out of respect for the social relationship. With this sense of yielding to the conflict, individuals fall back to others’ input instead of finding solutions with their own intellectual resolution.^[12]

Competitive conflict style

The competitive, «fighting» or forcing conflict style maximizes individual assertiveness (i.e., concern for self) and minimizes empathy (i.e., concern for others). Groups consisting of competitive members generally enjoy seeking domination over others, and typically see conflict as a «win or lose» predicament.^[1] Fighters tend to force others to accept their personal views by employing competitive power tactics (arguments, insults, accusations or even violence) that foster intimidation.^[13]

Conciliation conflict style

The conciliation, «compromising», bargaining or negotiation conflict style is typical of individuals who possess an intermediate level of concern for both personal and others’ outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take interactions.^[11] By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet them halfway, thus promoting conflict resolution.^[14] This conflict style can be considered an extension of both «yielding» and «cooperative» strategies.^[1]

Cooperation conflict style

Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self behavior, the cooperation, integration, confrontation or problem-solving conflict style is typically used when an individual has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to find an amicable solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals using this type of conflict style tend to be both highly assertive and highly empathetic.^[11] By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a «win-win» solution.^[1] According to the literature on conflict resolution, a cooperative conflict resolution style is recommended above all others. This resolution may be achieved by lowering the aggressor’s guard while raising the ego.^[15][16]

Relational dialectics theory[edit]

Relational dialectics theory (RDT), introduced by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Matgomery (1988),^[17][18] explores the ways in which people in relationships use verbal communication to manage conflict and contradiction as opposed to psychology. This concept focuses on maintaining a relationship even through contradictions that arise and how relationships are managed through coordinated talk. RDT assumes that relationships are composed of opposing tendencies, are constantly changing, and tensions arises from intimate relationships.

The main concepts of RDT are:

• Contradictions – The concept is that the contrary has the characteristics of its opposite. People can seek to be in a relationship but still need their space.
• Totality – The totality comes when the opposites unite. Thus, the relationship is balanced with contradictions and only then it reaches totality
• Process – Comprehended through various social processes. These processes simultaneously continue within a relationship in a recurring manner.
• Praxis – The relationship progresses with experience and both people interact and communicate effectively to meet their needs. Praxis is a concept of practicability in making decisions in a relationship despite opposing wants and needs

Strategy of conflict[edit]

Strategy of conflict, by Thomas Schelling, is the study of negotiation during conflict and strategic behavior that results in the development of «conflict behavior». This idea is based largely on game theory. In «A Reorientation of Game Theory», Schelling discusses ways in which one can redirect the focus of a conflict in order to gain advantage over an opponent.

• Conflict is a contest. Rational behavior, in this contest, is a matter of judgment and perception.
• Strategy makes predictions using «rational behavior – behavior motivated by a serious calculation of advantages, a calculation that in turn is based on an explicit and internally consistent value system».
• Cooperation is always temporary, interests will change.

Conflict resolution in peace and conflict studies[edit]

Definition[edit]

Within peace and conflict studies a definition of conflict resolution is presented in Peter Wallensteen’s book Understanding Conflict Resolution:

Conflict resolution is a social situation where the armed conflicting parties in a (voluntarily) agreement resolve to live peacefully with – and/or dissolve – their basic incompatibilities and henceforth cease to use arms against one another.^[19]

The «conflicting parties» concerned in this definition are formally or informally organized groups engaged in intrastate or interstate conflict.^{[20][21][22][23]}
‘Basic incompatibility’ refers to a severe disagreement between at least two sides where their demands cannot be met by the same resources at the same time.^[24]

Mechanisms[edit]

One theory discussed within the field of peace and conflict studies is conflict resolution mechanisms: independent procedures in which the conflicting parties can have confidence. They can be formal or informal arrangements with the intention of resolving the conflict.^[25] In Understanding Conflict Resolution Wallensteen draws from the works of Lewis A. Coser, Johan Galtung and Thomas Schelling, and presents seven distinct theoretical mechanisms for conflict resolutions:^[26]

1. A shift in priorities for one of the conflicting parties. While it is rare that a party completely changes its basic positions, it can display a shift in to what it gives highest priority. In such an instance new possibilities for conflict resolutions may arise.
2. The contested resource is divided. In essence, this means both conflicting parties display some extent of shift in priorities which then opens up for some form of «meeting the other side halfway» agreement.
3. Horse-trading between the conflicting parties. This means that one side gets all of its demands met on one issue, while the other side gets all of its demands met on another issue.
4. The parties decide to share control, and rule together over the contested resource. It could be permanent, or a temporary arrangement for a transition period that, when over, has led to a transcendence of the conflict.
5. The parties agree to leave control to someone else. In this mechanism the primary parties agree, or accept, that a third party takes control over the contested resource.
6. The parties resort to conflict resolution mechanisms, notably arbitration or other legal procedures. This means finding a procedure for resolving the conflict through some of the previously mentioned five ways, but with the added quality that it is done through a process outside of the parties’ immediate control.
7. Some issues can be left for later. The argument for this is that political conditions and popular attitudes can change, and some issues can gain from being delayed, as their significance may pale with time.

Intrastate and interstate[edit]

According to conflict database Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s definition war may occur between parties who contest an incompatibility. The nature of an incompatibility can be territorial or governmental, but a warring party must be a «government of a state or any opposition organization or alliance of organizations that uses armed force to promote its position in the incompatibility in an intrastate or an interstate armed conflict».^[27] Wars can conclude with a peace agreement, which is a «formal agreement… which addresses the disputed incompatibility, either by settling all or part of it, or by clearly outlining a process for how […] to regulate the incompatibility.»^[28] A ceasefire is another form of agreement made by warring parties; unlike a peace agreement, it only «regulates the conflict behaviour of warring parties», and does not resolve the issue that brought the parties to war in the first place.^[29]

Peacekeeping measures may be deployed to avoid violence in solving such incompatibilities.^[30] Beginning in the last century, political theorists have been developing the theory of a global peace system that relies upon broad social and political measures to avoid war in the interest of achieving world peace.^[31] The Blue Peace approach developed by Strategic Foresight Group facilitates cooperation between countries over shared water resources, thus reducing the risk of war and enabling sustainable development.^[32]

Conflict resolution is an expanding field of professional practice, both in the U.S. and around the world. The escalating costs of conflict have increased use of third parties who may serve as a conflict specialists to resolve conflicts. In fact, relief and development organizations have added peace-building specialists to their teams.^[33] Many major international non-governmental organizations have seen a growing need to hire practitioners trained in conflict analysis and resolution. Furthermore, this expansion has resulted in the need for conflict resolution practitioners to work in a variety of settings such as in businesses, court systems, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions throughout the world.

In the workplace[edit]

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a basic definition of conflict is: «an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principles.»^[34] Conflicts such as disagreements may occur at any moment, being a normal part of human interactions. The type of conflict and its severity may vary both in content and degree of seriousness; however, it is impossible to completely avoid it. Actually, conflict in itself is not necessarily a negative thing. When handled constructively it can help people to stand up for themselves and others, to evolve and learn how to work together to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution. But if conflict is handled poorly it can cause anger, hurt, divisiveness and more serious problems.

If it is impossible to completely avoid conflict as it was said, the possibilities to experience it are usually higher particularly in complex social contexts in which important diversities are at stake. Specially because of this reason, speaking about conflict resolution becomes fundamental in ethnically diverse and multicultural work environments, in which not only «regular» work disagreements may occur but in which also different languages, worldviews, lifestyles and ultimately value differences may diverge.

Conflict resolution is the process by which two or more parties engaged in a disagreement, dispute or debate reach an agreement resolving it.^[35] It involves a series of stages, involved actors, models and approaches that may depend on the kind of confrontation at stake and the surrounded social and cultural context. However, there are some general actions and personal skills that may be very useful when facing a conflict to solve (independently of its nature), e.g. an open minded orientation able to analyze the different point of views and perspectives involved, as well as an ability to empathize, carefully listen and clearly communicate with all the parts involved. Sources of conflict may be so many, depending on the particular situation and the specific context, but some of the most common include:

Personal differences such as values, ethics, personalities, age, education, gender, socioeconomic status, cultural background, temperament, health, religion, political beliefs, etc. Thus, almost any social category that serves to differentiate people may become an object of conflict when it does negatively diverge with people who do not share it.^[36] Clashes of ideas, choices or actions. Conflict occurs when people does not share common goals, or common ways to reach a particular objective (e.g. different work styles). Conflict occurs also when there is direct or indirect competition between people or when someone may feel excluded from a particular activity or by some people within the company. Lack of communication or poor communication are also significant reasons to start a conflict, to misunderstand a particular situation and to create potentially explosive interactions.^[37]

Fundamental strategies[edit]

Although different conflicts may require different ways to handle them, this is a list of fundamental strategies that may be implemented when handling a conflictive situation:^[38]

1. Reaching agreement on rules and procedures: Establishing ground rules may include the following actions: a. Determining a site for the meeting; b. Setting a formal agenda; c. Determining who attends; d. Setting time limits; e. Setting procedural rules; f. Following specific «do(s) and don’t(s)».
2. Reducing tension and synchronizing the de-escalation of hostility: In highly emotional situations when people feel angry, upset, frustrated, it is important to implement the following actions: a. Separating the involved parties; b. Managing tensions – jokes as an instrument to give the opportunity for catharsis; c. Acknowledging others’ feelings – actively listening to others; d. De-escalation by public statements by parties – about the concession, the commitments of the parties.
3. Improving the accuracy of communication, particularly improving each party’s understanding of the other’s perception: a. Accurate understanding of the other’s position; b. Role reversal, trying to adopt the other’s position (empathetic attitudes); c. Imaging – describing how they see themselves, how the other parties appears to them, how they think the other parties will describe them and how the others see themselves.
4. Controlling the number and size of issues in the discussion: a. Fractionate the negotiation – a method that divides a large conflict into smaller parts: 1. Reduce the number of parties on each side; 2. Control the number of substantive issues; 3. Search for different ways to divide big issues.
5. Establishing common ground where parties can find a basis for agreement: a. Establishing common goals or superordinate goals; b. Establishing common enemies; c. Identifying common expectations; d. Managing time constraints and deadlines; e. Reframing the parties’ view of each other; f. Build trust through the negotiation process.
6. Enhancing the desirability of the options and alternatives that each party presents to the other: a. Giving the other party an acceptable proposal; b. Asking for a different decision; c. Sweeten the other rather than intensifying the threat; d. Elaborating objective or legitimate criteria to evaluate all possible solutions.^[39]

Approaches[edit]

A conflict is a common phenomenon in the workplace; as mentioned before, it can occur because of the most different grounds of diversity and under very different circumstances. However, it is usually a matter of interests, needs, priorities, goals or values interfering with each other; and, often, a result of different perceptions more than actual differences. Conflicts may involve team members, departments, projects, organization and client, boss and subordinate, organization needs vs. personal needs, and they are usually immersed in complex relations of power that need to be understood and interpreted in order to define the more tailored way to manage the conflict. There are, nevertheless, some main approaches that may be applied when trying to solve a conflict that may lead to very different outcomes to be valued according to the particular situation and the available negotiation resources:

Forcing[edit]

When one of the conflict’s parts firmly pursues his or her own concerns despite the resistance of the other(s). This may involve pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm resistance to the counterpart’s actions; it is also commonly known as «competing».
Forcing may be appropriate when all other, less forceful methods, do not work or are ineffective; when someone needs to stand up for his/her own rights (or the represented group/organization’s rights), resist aggression and pressure. It may be also considered a suitable option when a quick resolution is required and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop an aggression), and as a very last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict.

However, forcing may also negatively affect the relationship with the opponent in the long run; may intensified the conflict if the opponent decides to react in the same way (even if it was not the original intention); it does not allow to take advantage in a productive way of the other side’s position and, last but not least, taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals.

Win-win / collaborating[edit]

Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the other part involved in the conflict to find a win-win solution to the problem in hand, or at least to find a solution that most satisfies the concerns of both parties. The win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result; and it includes identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an alternative which meets each party’s concerns. From that point of view, it is the most desirable outcome when trying to solve a problem for all partners.

Collaborating may be the best solution when consensus and commitment of other parties is important; when the conflict occurs in a collaborative, trustworthy environment and when it is required to address the interests of multiple stakeholders. But more specially, it is the most desirable outcome when a long-term relationship is important so that people can continue to collaborate in a productive way; collaborating is in few words, sharing responsibilities and mutual commitment. For parties involved, the outcome of the conflict resolution is less stressful; however, the process of finding and establishing a win-win solution may be longer and should be very involving.

It may require more effort and more time than some other methods; for the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution or fast response is required.

Compromising[edit]

Different from the win-win solution, in this outcome the conflict parties find a mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties. This can occur as both parties converse with one another and seek to understand the other’s point of view.^[40] Compromising may be an optimal solution when the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more assertive or more involving approaches. It may be useful when reaching temporary settlement on complex issues and as a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or have not yet developed a high level of mutual trust. Compromising may be a faster way to solve things when time is a factor. The level of tensions can be lower as well, but the result of the conflict may be also less satisfactory.

If this method is not well managed, and the factor time becomes the most important one, the situation may result in both parties being not satisfied with the outcome (i.e. a lose-lose situation). Moreover, it does not contribute to building trust in the long run and it may require a closer monitoring of the kind of partially satisfactory compromises acquired.

Withdrawing[edit]

This technique consists on not addressing the conflict, postpone it or simply withdrawing; for that reason, it is also known as Avoiding. This outcome is suitable when the issue is trivial and not worth the effort or when more important issues are pressing, and one or both the parties do not have time to deal with it. Withdrawing may be also a strategic response when it is not the right time or place to confront the issue, when more time is needed to think and collect information before acting or when not responding may bring still some winnings for at least some of the involves parties. Moreover, withdrawing may be also employed when someone know that the other party is totally engaged with hostility and does not want (can not) to invest further unreasonable efforts.

Withdrawing may give the possibility to see things from a different perspective while gaining time and collecting further information, and specially is a low stress approach particularly when the conflict is a short time one. However, not acting may be interpreted as an agreement and therefore it may lead to weakening or losing a previously gained position with one or more parties involved. Furthermore, when using withdrawing as a strategy more time, skills and experiences together with other actions may need to be implemented.

Smoothing[edit]

Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of others first of all, rather than one’s own concerns. This kind of strategy may be applied when the issue of the conflict is much more important for the counterparts whereas for the other is not particularly relevant. It may be also applied when someone accepts that he/she is wrong and furthermore there are no other possible options than continuing an unworthy competing-pushing situation. Just as withdrawing, smoothing may be an option to find at least a temporal solution or obtain more time and information, however, it is not an option when priority interests are at stake.

There is a high risk of being abused when choosing the smoothing option. Therefore, it is important to keep the right balance and to not give up one own interests and necessities. Otherwise, confidence in one’s ability, mainly with an aggressive opponent, may be seriously damaged, together with credibility by the other parties involved. Needed to say, in these cases a transition to a Win-Win solution in the future becomes particularly more difficult when someone.

Between organizations[edit]

Relationships between organizations, such as strategic alliances, buyer-supplier partnerships, organizational networks, or joint ventures are prone to conflict. Conflict resolution in inter-organizational relationships has attracted the attention of business and management scholars. They have related the forms of conflict (e.g., integrity-based vs. competence-based conflict) to the mode of conflict resolution^[41] and the negotiation and repair approaches used by organizations. They have also observed the role of important moderating factors such as the type of contractual arrangement,^[42] the level of trust between organizations,^[43] or the type of power asymmetry.^[44]

Other forms[edit]

Conflict management[edit]

Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways by which people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be right and against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism, warfare, feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance.^[45] Which forms of conflict management will be used in any given situation can be somewhat predicted and explained by the social structure—or social geometry—of the case.

Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict resolution.
In order for actual conflict to occur, there should be an expression of exclusive patterns which explain why and how the conflict was expressed the way it was. Conflict is often connected to a previous issue. Resolution refers to resolving a dispute to the approval of one or both parties, whereas management is concerned with an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is considered the same as conflict transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions of the conflict parties.

Counseling[edit]

When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove helpful. Although few organizations can afford to have professional counselors on staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or «listening with understanding», is little more than being a good listener—something often considered to be important in a manager.^[46]

Sometimes simply being able to express one’s feelings to a concerned and understanding listener is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for an individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and coworkers.^[47]

There are other, more direct and more diagnostic, methods that could be used in appropriate circumstances. However, the great strength of the nondirective approach^{[nb 2]} lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor’s diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. Listening to staff with sympathy and understanding is unlikely to escalate the problem, and is a widely used approach for helping people cope with problems that interfere with their effectiveness in the workplace.^[47]

Culture-based[edit]

Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to cultural practices. In Western cultural contexts, such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding a mutually satisfying («win-win») solution for everyone involved.^[48]

In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, it is also important to find «win-win» solutions; however, the routes taken to find them may be very different. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. It can make sense to involve religious, tribal, or community leaders; communicate difficult truths through a third party; or make suggestions through stories.^[49] Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding.^[50]

In a 2017 blog post on «the ocean model of civilization» for the British Academy, Nayef Al-Rodhan argued that greater transcultural understanding is critical for global security because it diminishes ‘hierarchies’ and alienation, and avoids dehumanization of the ‘other’.^[51]

In animals[edit]

Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, including dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates.^[52] Aggression is more common among relatives and within a group than between groups. Instead of creating distance between the individuals, primates tend to be more intimate in the period after an aggressive incident. These intimacies consist of grooming and various forms of body contact. Stress responses, including increased heart rates, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species who live in groups, display different types of conciliatory behavior. Resolving conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival, giving it a strong evolutionary value.^{[citation needed]} These findings contradict previous existing theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups.

In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to explore reconciliation in other animals. Until recently, the literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates has consisted of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it was not until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been documented in spotted hyenas,^[53][54] lions, bottlenose dolphins,^[55] dwarf mongoose, domestic goats,^[56] domestic dogs,^[57] and, recently, in red-necked wallabies.^[58]

Education[edit]

Universities worldwide offer programs of study pertaining to conflict research, analysis, and practice. Conrad Grebel University College at the University of Waterloo has the oldest-running peace and conflict studies (PACS) program in Canada.^[59] PACS can be taken as an Honors, 4-year general, or 3-year general major, joint major, minor, and diploma. Grebel also offers an interdisciplinary Master of Peace and Conflict Studies professional program. The Cornell University ILR School houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, which offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional training on conflict resolution.^[60] It also offers dispute resolution concentrations for its MILR, JD/MILR, MPS, and MS/PhD graduate degree programs.^[61] At the graduate level, Eastern Mennonite University’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding offers a Master of Arts in Conflict Transformation, a dual Master of Divinity/MA in Conflict Transformation degree, and several graduate certificates.^[62] EMU also offers an accelerated 5-year BA in Peacebuilding and Development/MA in Conflict Transformation. Additional graduate programs are offered at Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, Creighton University, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and Trinity College Dublin.^[63] George Mason University’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution offers BA, BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Conflict Analysis and Resolution, as well as an undergraduate minor, graduate certificates, and joint degree programs.^[64] Nova Southeastern University also offers a PhD in Conflict Analysis & Resolution, in both online and on-campus formats.^[65]

Conflict resolution is a growing area of interest in UK pedagogy, with teachers and students both encouraged to learn about mechanisms that lead to aggressive action and those that lead to peaceful resolution. The University of Law, one of the oldest common law training institutions in the world, offers a legal-focused master’s degree in conflict resolution as an LL.M. (Conflict resolution).^[66]

Tel Aviv University offers two graduate degree programs in the field of conflict resolution, including the English-language International Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation, allowing students to learn in a geographic region which is the subject of much research on international conflict resolution.

The Nelson Mandela Center for Peace & Conflict Resolution at Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, is one of the first centers for peace and conflict resolution to be established at an Indian university. It offers a two-year full-time MA course in Conflict Analysis and Peace-Building, as well as a PhD in Conflict and Peace Studies.^[67]

In Sweden Linnaeus University, Lund University and Uppsala University offer programs on bachelor, master and/or doctoral level in Peace and Conflict Studies.^[68][69][70] Uppsala University also hosts its own Department of Peace and Conflict Research, among other things occupied with running the conflict database UCDP (Uppsala Conflict Data Program).^[70][71]

See also[edit]

Organizations[edit]

• Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights
• Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War is a London organisation that promotes peacebuilding as an alternative to military security
• Crisis Management Initiative (CMI)
• Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research
• Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center
• Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution
• Search for Common Ground is one of the world’s largest non-government organisations dedicated to conflict resolution
• Seeds of Peace develops and empowers young leaders from regions of conflict to work towards peace through coexistence
• United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY) is a global non-governmental organization and youth network dedicated to the role of youth in peacebuilding and conflict resolution
• University for Peace is a United Nations mandated organization and graduate school dedicated to conflict resolution and peace studies
• Uppsala Conflict Data Program is an academic data collection project that provides descriptions of political violence and conflict resolution

Footnotes[edit]

References[edit]

Works cited[edit]

• Augsburger, D. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press.
• Bannon, I. & Paul Collier (Eds.). (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and actions. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
• Ury, F. & Rodger Fisher. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
• Wilmot, W. & Jouyce Hocker. (2007). Interpersonal conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Bercovitch, Jacob and Jackson, Richard. 2009. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
• de Waal, Frans B. M. and Angeline van Roosmalen. 1979. Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5: 55–66.
• de Waal, Frans B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Judge, Peter G.; de Waal, Frans B.M. (1993). «Conflict avoidance among rhesus monkeys: coping with short-term crowding». Animal Behaviour. 46 (2): 221–232. doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1184. S2CID 53175846.
• Veenema, Hans; et al. (1994). «Methodological improvements for the study of reconciliation». Behavioural Processes. 31 (1): 29–38. doi:10.1016/0376-6357(94)90035-3. PMID 24897415. S2CID 25126127.
• de Waal, Frans B. M. and Filippo Aureli. 1996. Consolation, reconciliation, and a possible cognitive difference between macaques and chimpanzees. Reaching into thought: The minds of the great apes (Eds. Anne E. Russon, Kim A. Bard, Sue Taylor Parker), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY: 80–110.
• Aureli, Filippo (1997). «Post-conflict anxiety in non-human primates: the mediating role of emotion in conflict resolution». Aggressive Behavior. 23 (5): 315–328. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2337(1997)23:5<315::aid-ab2>3.0.co;2-h.
• Castles, Duncan L.; Whiten, Andrew (1998). «Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons, I. Reconciliation, redirection, and consolation». Ethology. 104 (2): 126–147. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1998.tb00057.x.
• Aureli, Filippo and Frans B. M. de Waal, eds. 2000. Natural Conflict Resolution. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
• de Waal, Frans B. M. 2000. Primates––A natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science 289: 586–590.
• Hicks, Donna. 2011. Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. Yale University Press
• Silk, Joan B. (2002). «The form and function of reconciliation in primates». Annual Review of Anthropology. 31: 21–44. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.032902.101743.
• Weaver, Ann; de Waal, Frans B. M. (2003). «The mother-offspring relationship as a template in social development: reconciliation in captive brown capuchins (Cebus apella)». Journal of Comparative Psychology. 117 (1): 101–110. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.117.1.101. PMID 12735370. S2CID 9632420.
• Palagi, Elisabetta; et al. (2004). «Reconciliation and consolation in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus)». American Journal of Primatology. 62 (1): 15–30. doi:10.1002/ajp.20000. PMID 14752810. S2CID 22452710.
• Palagi, Elisabetta; et al. (2005). «Aggression and reconciliation in two captive groups of Lemur catta». International Journal of Primatology. 26 (2): 279–294. doi:10.1007/s10764-005-2925-x. S2CID 22639928.
• Lorenzen, Michael. 2006. Conflict Resolution and Academic Library Instruction. LOEX Quarterly 33, no. 1/2: 6–9, 11.
• Winslade, John & Monk, Gerald. 2000. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
• Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov (Ed.) (2004). From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford University Press
• Tesler, Pauline. 2001, 2008. Collaborative Law: Achieving Effective Resolution in Divorce without Litigation (American Bar Association).
• Tesler, Pauline and Thompson, Peggy. 2006. Collaborative Divorce: The Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, and Move On with Your Life (Harper Collins).

Further reading[edit]

• Caraccilo, Dominic J. (2011). Beyond Guns and Steel: A War Termination Strategy. Santa Barbara, California: PSI. ISBN 978-0-313-39149-1.
• Coleman, Peter T. (2011). The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts. ISBN 978-1-58648-921-2.
• Kellett, Peter M. (2007). Conflict Dialogue. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-0930-3.

Not many people enjoy dealing with conflict, but the reality is, in any job that you take, there are bound to be disagreements and you’ll have to find a solution to a given dilemma. Handling conflict differs greatly on the situation, the people involved and the relationships that you have with your team. In a recent article by Harvard Law School on conflict management, they share: 

“[Conflict management] requires shared appreciation of the dynamic quality of relationships: how “what I say affects what you think, which affects what you say and then what I think next, and so on.” Without that kind of insight, each teammate will feel blameless for the problems that plague the group.” 

There are several different ways to approach the resolution of disputes, including different conflict resolution styles. Because handling conflicts isn’t always easy, Fellow has put together an all-encompassing guide to different conflict management styles, so that you can manage conflicts with more confidence and think about which styles of conflict management are best suited for you and for your team. If you’re usually the type to avoid conflict, prepare to be sent out of your comfort zone, while you get to know some of these conflict resolution approaches. 

What is conflict resolution?

Conflict resolution in simple terms is the way in which you choose to resolve a disagreement between two or more people. It is the way that you find a solution to a given problem. Resolving conflict often isn’t straight forward and there’s no such thing as the “best” approach because this resolution style needs to be catered to your management style as well as the team dynamic. The objective in conflict resolution is to come to a mutual agreement and in the best-case scenario, with a mutually beneficial result. Conflict management is all about encouraging each party (or parties) to reconcile their differences and find common grounds. 

Types of conflict resolution styles

There are several different conflict management styles, and it’s important for you as a leader to familiarize yourself with different styles of conflict management to find what works best for you. In an interesting article by the Harvard Business Review, they highlight why understanding your own, and your team members’ styles of conflict resolution is important to manage conflicts: 

“Knowing how the other person typically reacts in a tense situation is useful information. So assess your coworker’s style, if you’re not already familiar with it. Consider whom you’re dealing with. How does he typically communicate and how does he prefer to be communicated with? Is she more of a straight shooter who tells it like it is, or does she tend to beat around the bush? If you frequently work with the person you’re having the conflict with, you may already be familiar with their style.”  

These different conflict resolution styles are important as an evaluation of what works for other people, as well as what is going to work best for yourself if differing situations with different audiences. One prominent conflict resolution approach in business management is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument, which suggests five key styles for managing conflict. Before we get into these five styles, it’s important to understand that in dealing with conflict, a person’s behavior can be described by two different elements (Kenneth & Ralph, 2008): 

1. Assertiveness: The extent to which people try to satisfy their own concerns; and 
2. Cooperativeness: The extent to which people try to satisfy other people’s concerns

The extent to which someone is assertive or cooperative can be used to decide which of the five methods of dealing with conflict will be the most effective. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument can be deciphered clearly in the diagram below:

* This model of conflict management is adapted from “Conflict and Conflict Management” by Kenneth Thomas in The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and directly cited from Thomas, Kenneth & Kilmann, Ralph (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument. 

1 Competing Style

Style: Assertive and uncooperative

Description: Individuals who use this style tend to use their power or authority to pursue their own concerns at other peoples expense. This style does not tend to regard the other person’s opinion on the matter and can manifest out of selfishness or out of simply trying to “win” the argument out of stubbornness. Be careful, cautious and thoughtful if this is the style you are choosing to engage with, as it is only fit for very few scenarios. 

When to use it: The competing style can be used when you need to stand up for yourself, when you need to defend a position you believe in, or when time is an issue and a quick decision simply needs to be made. 

2 Collaborating Style

Style: Assertive and cooperative

Description: This style is all about working with the other person to find a mutually beneficial solution. The collaborating style means that you want to take the time to understand the other person’s concerns and truly hear them out as an equal. Collaborating means you’re going to dig a little deeper into the issue to flag the underlying concern of each person and find an alternative that addresses these underlying concerns. 

When to use it: It’s a good rule of thumb to use this style when you’re dealing with important issues, when you want to explore a disagreement to learn from one anothers insights or confronting another person or group to identify a creative solution to an interpersonal issue. 

3 Compromising Style

Style: Assertive and cooperative 

Description: The compromising style finds itself at an intermediate level of assertiveness and cooperation. This style attempts to resolve the issue by finding a resolution that is partially satisfactory or accepted by both parties but also isn’t completely satisfactory or fully accepted by either. This style is said to fall on middle ground between competing and accommodating, offering more than competing but less than the accommodating style. Compromising means that you might come to a quick resolution but be weary, since it doesn’t satisfy either side and leaves no room for collaboration. When you can, try the collaborating style over this one. 

When to use it: You can use this conflict resolution style for intermediately important issues, when you need to split the difference, exchange concessions or when you’re looking to find a quick solution and a middle-ground position. 

4 Avoiding Style

Style: Unassertive and uncooperative 

Description: This conflict resolution style means that you’re not paying attention or you’re ignoring the situation and consciously choosing not to take action to remedy the situation. Basically, the individual who selects this style of conflict resolution doesn’t address the issue at all. 

When to use it: Although the avoiding style can seem like quite a negative approach to a dispute, it can be used in situations where you need to withdraw from a threatening situation, diplomatically side- step an issue or when you need to postpone an issue until a later or better time.

5 Accommodating Style

Style: Unassertive and cooperative 

Description: This is the opposite of the competing style. Using the accommodating style to resolve an issue means that you allow the other party to satisfy their concerns, at the expense of your own. There’s an element of self-sacrifice if you choose to accommodate the other party because you put the needs of another before your own. 

When to use it: The accommodating style is best- suited for unimportant problems because it creates a quick decision and won’t strain your relationship. This often takes the form of generosity or maybe even charity, when you don’t agree with someone’s position but decide to go with their side to protect your own peace and keep some harmony in the office. 

Which conflict resolution is the best?

The truth is, there is no such thing as the “best” conflict resolution style or method. The style that you choose will depend largely on your personality, your company culture and the relationships that you have with your team members. Moreover, conflicts don’t always need to be seen in a negative light. Another article from the Harvard Business Review shares: 

“… lest we forget, conflict does have a positive side: it can promote collaboration, improve performance, foster creativity and innovation and build deeper relationships.” 

Just like when you think about your audience when facilitating a presentation, and evaluate what kind of delivery might work, and what might not, you need to think about your audience in situations of conflict. Moreover, if you’re not sure how your team members are going to react when bringing up an issue with them, take this as a sign to get to know the people you work with a little better. Resolving conflicts is far less daunting when you’re familiar with different ways to address disputes. We hope that the five different conflict resolution styles that we’ve proposed from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument are helpful in highlighting different avenues to come to an agreement. As always, it’s a pleasure seeing you on the Fellow blog. If you found this post interesting, be sure to send it to a friend or a colleague. Until next time! 

References: 

Corkindale, G. (2007). How to Manage Conflict [Business]. How to Manage Conflict. https://hbr.org/2007/11/how-to-manage-conflict

Gallo, A. (2017). How People with Different Conflict Styles Can Work Together [Business]. How People with Different Conflict Styles Can Work Together. https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-people-with-different-conflict-styles-can-work-together

Harvard Law School. (2020). New Conflict Management Skills: Understand How to Resolve “Hot Conflicts” [Education]. Three Specific Conflict Resolution Skills You Can Use in Conflict Management. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/new-conflict-management-skills/

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument (pp. 1–11) [Conflict (Psychology)]. TKI. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265565339_Thomas-Kilmann_conflict_MODE_instrument

People deal with conflict in a variety of ways, therefore you need different conflict resolution strategies.

We at Participation Company spend a lot of time talking about conflict resolution through active listening and training people to resolve conflict using a variety of strategies. This is how the Thomas-Kilmann measurement instrument and their five conflict resolution strategies came to our attention.

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed five conflict resolution strategies that people use to handle conflict, including avoiding, defeating, compromising, accommodating, and collaborating.

This is based on the assumption that people choose how cooperative and how assertive to be in a conflict. It suggests that everyone has preferred ways of responding to conflict, but most of us use all methods under various circumstances. It is helpful to understand the five methods, particularly when you want to move a group forward.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #1: Avoiding

Avoiding is when people just ignore or withdraw from the conflict. They choose this method when the discomfort of confrontation exceeds the potential reward of resolution of the conflict. While this might seem easy to accommodate for the facilitator, people aren’t really contributing anything of value to the conversation and may be withholding worthwhile ideas. When conflict is avoided, nothing is resolved.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #2: Competing

Competing is used by people who go into a conflict planning to win. They’re assertive and not cooperative. This method is characterized by the assumption that one side wins and everyone else loses. It doesn’t allow room for diverse perspectives into a well informed total picture. Competing might work in sports or war, but it’s rarely a good strategy for group problem solving.

Debra wrote an illuminating article on how conflict resolution failure can lead to revolution. It’s what can happen when people feel like they aren’t being listened to and start being assertive.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #3: Accommodating

Accommodating is a strategy where one party gives in to the wishes or demands of another. They’re being cooperative but not assertive. This may appear to be a gracious way to give in when one figures out s/he has been wrong about an argument. It’s less helpful when one party accommodates another merely to preserve harmony or to avoid disruption. Like avoidance, it can result in unresolved issues. Too much accommodation can result in groups where the most assertive parties commandeer the process and take control of most conversations.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #4: Collaborating

Collaborating is the method used when people are both assertive and cooperative. A group may learn to allow each participant to make a contribution with the possibility of co-creating a shared solution that everyone can support.

A great way to collaborate and overcome conflict is to reach out and touch them.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #5: Compromising

Another strategy is compromising, where participants are partially assertive and cooperative. The concept is that everyone gives up a little bit of what they want, and no one gets everything they want. The perception of the best outcome when working by compromise is that which “splits the difference.” Compromise is perceived as being fair, even if no one is particularly happy with the final outcome.

You can learn more about the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument on their website here.

Are you having trouble getting your group to participate in the conflict resolution discussion? Here is The Participation Company’s own Skill Sheet on the Seven Sins Leading to Anti-Participation, free for immediate download:

[button link=”https://theparticipationcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Skill-sheet-7-Sins.pdf” size=”medium” target=”_blank” icon=”” color=”alternative-1″ lightbox=””]Download TPC’s Skill Sheet on Anti-Participation[/button]

We use Skill Sheets like this one in our training sessions. If you’d like to know more, please check them out now.

We have also written several other articles on conflict resolution strategies. Looking for something specific? Send us your questions!

The energy in the room is tense.

Perhaps a team-wide announcement was just released that took everyone by surprise. Or maybe it’s Monday after the company holiday party that got a bit dicey.

You can feel that conflict is brewing between some of your coworkers, partners, and maybe even customers, and you want to know whether to address it or avoid it.

As much as we’d all love to work in an organization that’s free from disagreements and conflicts, we know that we can’t. Conflict is a type of communication that helps us collaborate to solve problems and better our environments so we can thrive within them.

Even with that said, many of us still fear conflict. We want everyone to be satisfied and for every workday to be a breeze — and conflict can’t possibly be conducive to that goal…or can it?

Conflict is a healthy, important part of any relationship, especially those at work. It means that people are actively negotiating their needs and expectations with others, and that’s exactly what helps us stay happy with our workplace interactions.

In this blog post, we’ll review different conflict management skills and conflict resolution strategies you can use to navigate a conflict you may be experiencing right now or one that you might experience in the future. You’ll also learn how to adapt your conflict style to yield productive solutions for everyone involved.

Conflict Management Skills

Conflict management can be approached using a variety of different styles. While these styles may differ, every method utilizes the same management skills. To successfully manage conflict, you’ll need to hound each of these skills and learn the right time to exercise each one. Below are some of the core skills and characteristics that you’ll need to adopt if you want to effectively manage workplace conflicts.

1. Active Listening

Active listening focuses on being attentive to what the other person has to say. This skill is commonly used by salespeople to better connect with customers during a pitch, but it’s also a universal competency that any consummate professional should master.

To practice active listening, the most important thing you can do is have an open mind (and open ears!) To do this, make note of the other person’s phrasing. Then, respond using their same wording. This demonstrates that you were listening and helps clear up any confusion about the points being discussed. Additionally, be sure to ask questions when you’re confused about a point and focus on identifying the other person’s goals.

2. Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence describes the ability to perceive and understand other peoples’ emotions as well as your own. This skill is essential when managing conflict because it prevents the situation from escalating. If you can effectively interpret your opposition’s emotions, it’ll be easier to communicate with them without provoking them. Recognizing and curtailing confusion, anger, and frustration from the conflict leaves space for everyone involved to think creatively and logically about a solution.

3. Patience

Conflicts are rarely simple to overcome. If they were, there wouldn’t be 22,000 people searching for “conflict resolution” on the internet each month. Conflict resolution is so difficult because people don’t like to be wrong and will often hold their stance on an issue because of it. If you’re looking to resolve a conflict with a person like this, you’ll need patience.

It’s important to keep in mind that the problem may not be solved right away, even if the solution is obvious. Ideally, you’ll want to take the time to listen to every participant and value each argument evenly. Even if there’s a clear answer, rushing to a resolution can make people feel like they’re left out in the decision-making process. (Although there is one exception to this rule.)Taking the time to equally consider all options now can help create a long-term solution that will save you a headache later.

4. Impartiality

Another reason conflicts can be difficult to resolve is because they don’t always stay focused on the conflict itself. The conflict can sometimes serve as an opportunity to air previous grievances that have developed between the involved parties over time. Now, the problem at hand can’t be resolved until the historical issues are addressed.

In this type of situation, it’s best to separate the conflict from the people who are involved with it. Don’t focus on the people and their personal characteristics. Instead, look at the problem itself and center your energy on finding a solution. While it might be important to work through those past issues at some point, don’t deprioritize the situation at hand now to solve the older ones. Remember the mantra: important vs. urgent. You can definitely work on the other important issues that impede you from meeting goals at a later time, but urgent issues should be handled first.

5. Positivity

It’s hard to come to agree on a solution if no one is happy about it. Even if you do agree, a half-hearted compromise doesn’t motivate you to actually follow through on your end of the bargain. This can even provide a participant with an excuse to avoid dealing with the conflict altogether.

Being positive with your conflict management actions is a great way to keep the conversation moving forward. Conflicts are full of roadblocks and you’ll need to be willing to overcome them if you want to come to a resolution. Having a positive attitude going into the conflict can help other participants who may be wary of the interaction feel more at ease.

6. Open Communication

Relationships between the people involved in a conflict don’t always go back to normal when a problem is resolved. This relationship needs to be nurtured after a solution is found in order to prevent future issues from arising.

Creating an open line of communication between the parties is the best approach for fostering a healthy, long-term relationship post-conflict. This allows both parties to check in on one another and make sure that both ends of the agreement are being upheld. If new challenges arise, a precedent of open communication should make it easier for participants to address the roadblock without risking any progress they’ve previously made.

While understanding these skills can help you and your team manage conflicts and prevent them from escalating, it’s important to understand how you can apply them in action when a conflict emerges. In the next section, we break down some of the ways you can use these skills to produce effective resolutions to conflict.

The management skills that we listed above are crucial for conflict resolution because they help produce effective, long-term solutions. Applying these skills at the right time and in the right situation will help reduce miscommunication and create more opportunities for participants to reach common ground.

If you’re not quite sure how you can best use these skills to resolve your disputes, take a look at these tips we recommend considering when approaching your next conflict.

1. Use “yes, and” statements.

In any conflict, whether it be professional or personal, it’s easy to jump to the defense. Your banter might include a series of «no’s» and «yes, but» statements which might come across as uncooperative.

Rather than getting defensive about an attack on your argument, take it as an opportunity to see things from a different point of view. You don’t have to agree with that person, but you can try to understand where they’re coming from. Just as you have your opinion, they have theirs and refusing to hear their point of view creates an impossible scenario to navigate.

Instead, change those «I hear you, but» statements into «Yes, I understand, and» statements that build off one another, rather than tearing each other down.

2. Don’t point fingers.

On the opposite side, jumping on the offensive is also disrespectful. Being on the offensive creates a negative foundation that makes it nearly impossible to find a solution.

Don’t put blame on others or create a space in which someone feels unsafe to voice their opinion. The best way to solve a conflict is by allowing each person to frame their argument without being blamed or shut down. After all, you wouldn’t appreciate the same being done to you, either.

3. Let the person explain themselves, and actively listen.

Listening is a huge aspect of conflict resolution that’s typically overlooked. It might seem imperative to get your voice in as much as possible so you can explain every little detail of your argument and try as hard as you can to get the opposing party to see your side. But don’t let this idea tempt you. The temporary satisfaction of “airing it out” isn’t worth it in the long run.

Instead, let the other person explain themselves, uninterrupted. You may find that you misinterpreted their original argument and you’ll be more equipped to handle compromising or collaborating on a new solution when you’ve taken the time to listen, think, and plan.

4. Use «I» statements.

Similar to pointing fingers, a series of statements that begin with «you» can come across as blaming. Conflict shouldn’t be about what the other person is doing wrong; it’s about what you believe you’re doing right and how to get the other side to understand.

Thus, using «I» statements, such as «I feel like I’m not getting the chance to explain myself» rather than «You’re not listening to me» can transform your conversation. These statements make your argument more about your emotions, opinions, personal beliefs, and morals, rather than about all the things you don’t like about the opposing party. No one can disagree with opinions or feelings you believe or standby, plus they make for a more respectful debate that reminds all parties that cognitively complex humans are involved.

5. Maintain a calm tone.

You’ll benefit from remaining level-headed in order to think rationally about a solution that appeases both parties. This can be a tough one because it’s not always easy to hear your tone from someone else’s perspective. Because of this, there’s one trick you can practice to avoid having a discourteous tone when mitigating conflicts.

Wait until you’ve let out your emotions before you plan a time to meet and discuss with the opposing party. You’re allowed to yell, cry, vent, or whatever else you need before the conversation takes place — but not during it. When you enter the conflict resolution meeting, you should be calm and ready to discuss with consideration for differing perspectives.

6. Show a willingness to compromise or collaborate.

Depending on the situation, other conflict management styles may be more effective.

• For smaller, trivial conflicts, avoiding them may make sense.
• An accommodating style may work when the other party seems to care much more about the solution than you do.
• A compromising style could be the choice when there is limited time to make a decision and you simply need to put your foot down.

However, in most other significant conflicts, it’s essential to come to some sort of agreement between both parties. Sometimes you’ll simply need to let go of your pride and your grip on your argument. Show the opposing party that, as much as you care about the conflict and presenting your side, you care more about coming to a solution that is productive for everyone involved.

7. Don’t talk behind people’s backs.

What happens between you and the opposing party should stay between you and them, unless it’s absolutely necessary to divulge the details of your conflict.

But when’s a good time to share the details of a conflict?

Believe it or not, there’s a golden rule about sharing sensitive information like conflict resolutions — share up, not out or down. This means that if you feel comfortable and if it’s significant to your role, you can confide in your supervisor or someone in a higher position than you about the conflict. They can help you navigate the situation and help you form a support system for future conflicts that may arise. This also means that you should never share the details with a colleague in a similar role or someone subordinate to you as they aren’t likely able to offer this same level of support. Conflict resolution should always be built on honesty with one another and trust that what was said will remain confidential.

While you may sometimes have the urge to vent, consider other options to do so that won’t affect the reputation of that person. You could write out your feelings in a journal or talk to someone outside of work who has no ties to that person and keep their name anonymous. This way, you can protect the privacy of the conversation.

8. Don’t take anything personally.

A conflict with a customer or team member is typically not a conflict with you, personally. It usually involves policies that you as an employee must adhere to or even unvoiced expectations that other people have for your role or profession. Thus, a conflict that emerges is rarely ever an attack on you as an individual.

Many people get defensive or upset or refuse to budge on an argument because they cling to their viewpoint as a part of themselves. If you can learn to separate yourself from the conflict, it will be a lot easier to accept compromise or a collaborated solution that is, at the end of the day, better for all parties involved.

9. Pay close attention to nonverbal communication.

Not everyone is great at handling conflict head-on. These are the people who might typically lean towards avoiding or accommodating conflict management styles. Basically, these people don’t like conflict and won’t always be transparent with you about what they want or need. In these situations, it’s important to pay attention to their nonverbal communication.

Body language can tell you when someone is saying one thing but means another. By being emotionally aware, you can notice when someone’s posture, gestures, or facial expressions differ from their words. When someone says «I’m fine,» you can tell they’re not fine if they avert their eyes. Then, you can create an environment that makes that person feel more comfortable being honest with you.

10. Prioritize resolving the conflict over being right.

A conflict in the workplace is typically one that involves more than just yourself. Perhaps it’s a frustrating call with an angry customer or an issue with a policy change implemented by your manager. Whatever it may be, the situation goes beyond you.

Thus, when you’re trying to resolve the conflict, you might need to take a step back and assess the situation in such a way. Recognize that, even if you have a strong opinion on one end of the spectrum, it might be beneficial to wave the white flag if it ultimately improves the conditions for everyone else. Conflict resolution is occasionally about making those sacrifices.

11. Know when to apologize and forgive.

Two of the hardest words to say are, «I’m sorry.» It’s not easy to apologize when you feel like you were right all along. Don’t let pride deter you from making amends with the opposing party.

In an instance when the other person might be responsible for apologizing to you, you may feel so riled up about comments they made that you don’t think you can forgive them. However, these relationships are professional, first. Put aside your personal annoyances and forgive that person. This will make for a healthier relationship moving forward.

12. Focus on the conflict at hand and not past ones.

In attempting to resolve a conflict, you may start getting frustrated with the other person. This can bring up memories of past conflicts you’ve had with that person. And, in the heat of the moment, it can feel like the perfect time to bring those up, too.

I like to consider a 48-hour rule. If a conflict emerges or there’s something that bothers you about someone else, you should reach out and ask to discuss it within 48 hours. Once that time frame has passed, you should let it go. So, any pent-up frustrations about past conflicts that were never resolved should not be brought up later on when trying to resolve a different conflict. The time has passed, and it’s important to remain in the present.

13. Use humor, when appropriate.

Using humor to lighten the mood during conflict resolution is only appropriate in conflicts that are not personal. You never want to offend someone by making a joke about a sensitive topic.

Instead, consider humor to be a tool to make you both loosen up and feel more comfortable discussing a solution. Read the opposing party, and use your best judgment to decide if humor is something they would appreciate. Sometimes, that’s all it takes to end an argument and turn it into a constructive conversation.

14. Remember the importance of the relationship.

At the end of the day, a conflict is usually one small roadblock in an otherwise healthy relationship. Whether you need to remember the good times or change the scenery and discuss a different topic, try to remember how the relationship was prior to the conflict and operate within that headspace as you reach common ground.

Conflict Resolution Strategies

The Thomas-Kilmann Model of conflict resolution describes five strategies for addressing conflict. The five strategies lie on two axes: assertive and cooperative. Each of the strategies ranges between assertiveness and unassertiveness and cooperative and uncooperative. No strategy is right or wrong, there’s an appropriate time to use each one.

Set boundaries.

Before diving head-first into the conflict discussion, establish boundaries upfront for all parties to follow. These might include the following:

• Reminding everyone that the conflict is not personal
• Asking everyone to keep the discussion confidential
• Trusting everyone to manage their emotions and not make outburst, hurtful remarks, or make untrue statements

Have a third-party weigh-in.

In some cases, the conflict may simply be too emotional to address yourself. If you’re afraid of retaliation, discrimination, or other inappropriate or illegal ramifications for addressing conflict, it may help to have a third-party weigh in to address, or at least mediate, the conflict on your behalf. A neutral third party can either act as a sounding board to retrieve the facts from each party to achieve a resolution, or they may simply guide the conversation and keep time so that you don’t waste the workday having an unproductive conversation.

1. Accommodating

The accommodating style is commonly seen when people want to be unassertive and cooperative. Not every conflict needs to be a war — conflicts worth accommodating are those battles that are strategically lost to win the war.

An example of a time where you might accommodate a colleague or customer is when they complain about a process, but not an outcome. Perhaps you ran a report that yielded the results the other party needed, but the report was in PDF form and not Excel. The other person didn’t specify a preference but took issue with the delivery. By simply accommodating the request, you prove to be a helpful, solutions-oriented team member. Plus, you’ll get bonus points if you deliver the correct report quickly.

2. Avoiding

The avoiding conflict strategy is reserved for individuals who are more inclined to be unassertive and uncooperative in mitigating conflict. Generally, this is an apathetic approach — people who adopt this strategy want no parts of the conflict and would rather wait for it to blow over.

This strategy is best for small annoyances, one-off mistakes, and issues that would otherwise be worsened by addressing them. An example of a conflict you might avoid in the workplace is when someone drinks the last of the water from the water cooler without replacing the water container. If it’s a one-time issue, leave it be. It’s likely not worth the 2-minute discussion in the all-hands meeting.

3. Collaborating

If you want to keep a relationship intact and find a solution that works for everyone, try the collaborative style of conflict resolution. This strategy is both cooperative and assertive which means that all parties will be heard and the solution that is chosen should work well for everyone.

An example of a conflict you might collaborate on at work is a process between two separate teams. Perhaps the sales team needs to hand off customers to the support team once the deal is closed, but customers aren’t being contacted by support for days after the handoff. The two teams may collaborate to streamline the workflow. The sales team may stagger the deals they close so that support can keep up with the demand. It’s a win-win for both parties.

4. Competing

Assertive and uncooperative, the competing conflict style is an intense approach to resolving grievances. It’s not uncommon for a competing conflict resolution strategy to yield a positive outcome for one party and a negative outcome for the other. This strategy isn’t one to make new friends, so tread lightly.

You might see a competing conflict management strategy used when negotiating deals. Lawyers may use this strategy to get the best legal outcome for their client at the expense of the other party. A competing strategy works here because it’s highly unlikely that the lawyer will cross paths with the opposing party again, so there’s no relationship to maintain or salvage later.

5. Compromising

People tend to compromise during conflicts when they are assertive and cooperative in negotiating a solution. This strategy may sound harsh, but it’s usually employed when time is of the essence and there’s no time to hear everyone’s concerns or opinions. The compromise is based on the most important and urgent facts that can bring about a decision that works for the time being.

A team might compromise on a solution to cancel an event at the last minute due to issues with the venue. While it may not be the best solution for revenue, prolonging the conflict doesn’t help the situation. So a compromise to cancel the event and figure the rest out later is the best solution for customers, employees, and vendors.

In addition to these five conflict resolution strategies, the following two tips can accompany any of the above to reach a resolution.

Conflict Resolution Examples

Conflicts can emerge from several different factors including miscommunication, prioritization, and unmet expectations. Below, we’ll describe three scenarios that depict each of these common causes for conflict and how to resolve them with one of the strategies listed above.

Scenario 1: Unmet Expectations

Marcus and Ollie work at TechTak, a start-up that provides marketing and sales solutions to small businesses. They’re working on a pitch presentation for their biggest client to date, SaveSend. The presentation is scheduled for next Thursday with Maria, the program director at Save Send, so it’s important that Marcus and Ollie finish it on time.

At the alignment meeting last week, TechTak’s client services department head, Riley, delegated the presentation content to Marcus’ team and gave the design responsibility to Ollie.

On the Tuesday before the presentation date, Riley sent an email to check the status of the presentation and how well the two teams were working together. Unfortunately, Ollie hadn’t received any content from Marcus’ team to design the presentation around. On the other hand, Marcus hadn’t received creative direction or the recommended presentation length from Ollie so his team could write enough content.

With Thursday’s deadline approaching and no presentation draft in sight, Ollie and Marcus are both frustrated and anxious to complete the project on time. How should both teams resolve this conflict?

Let’s look at the facts:

• Time is of the essence and delaying the presentation isn’t an option.
• Both Ollie and Marcus need more information to complete their assigned tasks.
• The line of communication has been opened by a third party, Riley.

The Resolution

Based on what we know about each conflict resolution strategy, the collaborative style would work best for this situation. Marcus and Ollie are under a time crunch, and the work will need to be done in the next two days. They can use Riley as a neutral third party to help them outline the specifications of the project and assign strict deadlines that both parties can agree on.

Scenario 2: Out of Order

Brenda and Candace both work as administrative assistants for the local credit union MetroMoney. Their roles are highly dependent upon one another, and as a result, they’ve become good friends both at work and in their personal lives.

At MetroMoney, Brenda focuses on scheduling appointments for new members to open accounts while Candace prepares the documents they’ll need to sign when they arrive. Due to the nature of the role, Brenda’s workflow moves much faster than Candace’s. Brenda can schedule about 10 appointments each day while Candace can prepare about five document packages in her shift.

Occasionally, some customer’s documents aren’t prepared at the time of their appointment as Candace prepares documents in the order that appointments are set, not the date on which they’re scheduled.

On this particular day, Brenda asked Candace to expedite the documents for two customers who were set to arrive soon. Candace responded that she couldn’t because her cadence would be out of order. Instead, she asked Brenda to reschedule the customers’ appointments for a week later when their documents would be ready.

How can Brenda and Candace work together to make sure the customers will have their documents when they arrive at their appointment?

Let’s look at the facts:

• Brenda and Candace both have goals to achieve each day, neither of which can be ignored completely.
• Timing is important, but there is some wiggle room for both parties to work within.
• If the customers’ documents aren’t ready, they won’t be able to open their accounts, which affects the bottom line for both Brenda and Candace.

The Resolution

We know that Brenda and Candace have a strong relationship and some leeway in solving this issue, so they could collaborate to solve the conflict. By asserting their needs and cooperating with each other, Brenda can reschedule the customers’ appointments for the end of the week rather than next week as Candace originally proposed, and Candace can reorganize her workload to prioritize their documents first. The benefit of collaborating on this resolution is that both Brenda and Cadance can maintain their otherwise seamless working relationship without any hard feelings later on.

Scenario 3: The Interview

Sadie is applying for a role as a customer service representative at Humbolt Hardware, a hardware subscription service for DIY home renovators. Jim, the hiring manager, scheduled her interview for Wednesday at noon and Sadie agreed to arrive at that time.

On Wednesday, Sadie logged in to Zoom for her interview with Jim, but ten minutes passed and he didn’t show up or respond to her email asking if he could still make it.

An hour later, Jim responds to Sadie’s email saying he’s online and ready for the interview.

Sadie was unavailable and didn’t see the email until later that evening. When she responded, they both realized that they were operating in two different time zones, and neither of them confirmed which one. Jim, unfortunately, doesn’t have any openings available to reschedule the interview tomorrow and Sadie is frustrated with the process thus far.

How should Sadie and Jim proceed?

Let’s look at the facts:

• Sadie is applying for a role and is willing to be flexible to secure the job with Humbolt Hardware, but she still wants to make the most of her time during the interview process.
• Jim’s schedule is busy and he has several interviews scheduled aside from Sadie’s.
• Neither Sadie nor Jim intended to miscommunicate the time of the interview and both made an effort to show up at the time they thought was correct.

The Resolution

The accommodating conflict resolution strategy is the most applicable in this situation. The bright side is, both individuals have some motivation to accommodate the other person. Sadie wants to put her best foot forward and be a stand-out candidate for the role. Jim wants to vet all the candidates and fill the role as quickly as possible. So long as both parties specify the time zone of the interview this time around, they’ll have solved the conflict in a way that is amicable and productive.

Manage and Resolve Conflicts Like a Pro

Conflict doesn’t have to be a scary eight-letter word. Addressing conflict is how we strengthen our relationships and express our expectations in relation to those of others. By understanding the five conflict resolution strategies and applying the skills that make them effective, you’ll know exactly when to avoid conflict and when to address it. Your relationships with your coworkers and customers will be better for it.

Editor’s note: This post was originally published in March 2019 and has been updated for comprehensiveness.