5.1 Understand Conflict: Why We Engage

The Nature of Conflict

Conflict is an inevitable and often necessary aspect of human interaction. People engage in interpersonal conflict when they perceive that their goals, needs, or values are incompatible with those of others. This clash can stem from limited resources, differing perspectives, or contrasting priorities about how a situation should unfold. Even in everyday life, conflict can arise from something as small as disagreements over chores, disputes about leisure plans, or unmet expectations within relationships. At its core, conflict is defined by the perception that one person’s goals are being blocked by another, making it a central feature of both personal and professional communication (Odell et al., 2004).

Conflict in the Workplace

In the workplace, conflict often mirrors the dynamics of interpersonal disagreements but becomes more complex because of organizational structures, hierarchical roles, and professional pressures. Workplace conflict can emerge from unclear expectations, high-stress environments, or competing departmental objectives. It may take the form of procedural conflict, which occurs when group members disagree about the methods or processes to achieve a goal, such as deciding how to select a topic or organize workflow. A substantial conflict arises when the disagreement centers on the actual content of the task, as when team members debate which project should take priority or what solution best addresses a problem. Interpersonal conflict, by contrast, focuses on clashes rooted in individual values, goals, or relationships. For example, in a restaurant setting, a server may believe a cook is not preparing meals adequately, while the cook may feel the server is failing to communicate orders clearly. These examples highlight how both personal and structural factors combine to shape the conflicts that occur in organizational life (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Chun & Choi, 2014; Hinsz & Robinson, 2025).

Styles of Conflict Management

Because conflict is so deeply connected to communication, navigating it effectively requires an understanding of different approaches to managing disagreements. The way individuals choose to communicate during conflict not only influences the immediate outcome but also affects the long-term health of relationships. Research identifies five broad styles for conflict management, each rooted in distinct communication patterns: avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating (Braithwaite & Schrodt, 2017; Southwest Tennessee Community College, 2020; Wrench et al., 2020). These styles vary in their emphasis on personal goals versus the needs of others and provide a framework for selecting communication behaviors that align with specific contexts. For the purpose of this and the following section, strategies and styles will be used interchangeably. The reasoning for this is that within certain literature they are described one way, and in others another; however, the concepts remain exactly the same.

The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

One of the most widely used tools for examining conflict management is the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann. This framework categorizes conflict-handling styles along two dimensions: assertiveness, which reflects the degree to which individuals pursue their own needs, and cooperativeness, which reflects the degree to which they seek to satisfy the needs of others (Thomas, 2008). Together, these dimensions create a grid that identifies five conflict modes corresponding to the previously noted styles of avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating. By situating conflict management within this model, the TKI clarifies why people tend to favor certain approaches and how these preferences can shift depending on the situation.

Assertiveness and Cooperativeness in the TKI Grid

The grid of the TKI model has vertical and horizontal axes. The vertical axis measures assertiveness, reflecting the extent to which an individual works to satisfy their own concerns. At the high end, assertiveness can manifest as aggression, often seen in the competing mode, where individuals pursue their own interests regardless of the cost to others. At more moderate levels, assertiveness reflects a balanced ability to stand up for one’s needs while maintaining respect for the other party. At the low end, passivity emerges, leading individuals to neglect their own needs and withhold their perspectives. The horizontal axis represents cooperativeness, or the degree to which an individual attempts to meet the concerns of others. Low cooperativeness results in avoidance or disregard for the other’s needs, while higher levels involve efforts to seek common ground or support the interests of others. At its extreme, this may result in over-accommodation, where an individual sacrifices their own needs repeatedly to maintain harmony, even at personal cost.

The Five Conflict Styles

Assertiveness and cooperativeness combine to form the five conflict styles, each of which represents a distinct approach to managing disagreements (Turner et al., 2020). Competing, also known as forcing, is high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness, focusing on achieving one’s own goals, sometimes aggressively, at the expense of others. Accommodating, or yielding, reverses this dynamic, placing the needs of others above one’s own, often to preserve harmony or relationships. Avoiding, or withdrawing, reflects low levels of both assertiveness and cooperativeness, often leaving issues unresolved but useful in trivial or temporary circumstances. Collaborating, sometimes referred to as problem solving, combines high assertiveness with high cooperativeness, seeking creative, win-win outcomes that satisfy all parties involved. Finally, compromising, sometimes referred to as give-and-take, balances moderate levels of both dimensions, encouraging each party to give up something to reach a mutually acceptable, if imperfect, resolution. Together, these strategies illustrate the complexity of conflict and the many communicative choices individuals can make when facing it.

The Role of Context in Conflict Management

The TKI model underscores that no conflict mode is inherently superior; instead, effectiveness depends on context, the relationship between the individuals involved, and the stakes of the issue. Avoidance might be appropriate when the matter is trivial or when emotions are too high to allow for productive discussion, while collaboration is most effective for complex challenges that require innovative solutions and mutual commitment. Competing may be necessary when quick, decisive action is needed, while accommodating can preserve harmony when maintaining the relationship is more important than the outcome of the disagreement. Compromise, though often leaving both parties partially unsatisfied, provides a practical middle ground when time or resources are limited. By becoming aware of their own tendencies and learning how to adapt, individuals can manage conflict in ways that resolve disputes while also preserving, and sometimes strengthening, their relationships.