Written By
Published on
Master Thomas-Kilmann's five conflict styles: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating. Learn when to use each for better outcomes.
Written By
Published on
Share this article
What if your default way of handling conflict is actually making things worse—not because you're wrong, but because the situation calls for a different approach?
Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann's conflict resolution framework identifies five distinct approaches to handling disagreement, each varying along two dimensions: assertiveness (how much you prioritize your own concerns) and cooperativeness (how much you prioritize others' concerns). These five styles—competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating—are not equally effective in all situations. Research spanning decades and multiple industries reveals that the most effective leaders and teams adapt their conflict style strategically based on what the situation demands. Understanding when each style serves performance and when it sabotages it is essential for navigating workplace disagreements productively.
The Thomas-Kilmann model is built on a simple yet powerful framework consisting of two axes:
Assertiveness measures the extent to which you pursue your own concerns and goals in a conflict situation. High assertiveness means you clearly communicate your position and pursue your objectives. Low assertiveness means you de-emphasize your own needs and avoid pressing your point.
Cooperativeness measures the extent to which you seek to satisfy others' concerns and find mutually acceptable solutions. High cooperativeness means you actively work to understand others' perspectives and find solutions that work for everyone. Low cooperativeness means you focus narrowly on your position without regard for others' needs.
These two dimensions combine to create a two-by-two matrix from which five distinct conflict styles emerge. Each style is neither inherently "good" nor "bad"—rather, each is more or less effective depending on the situation, stakes, and relationship dynamics.
The competing style is direct, forceful, and focused on winning. Individuals using this approach pursue their own concerns vigorously, often at others' expense. They pursue a "win-lose" outcome, asserting their position strongly without accommodating alternative perspectives.
When competing works:
High-stakes, time-sensitive decisions requiring immediate action
Defending important principles or rights
Situations where the other party lacks valid input or expertise
Emergencies requiring rapid decision-making
When backing down would set a poor precedent
When competing backfires:
Overuse damages relationships and erodes trust
Prevents exploration of superior alternatives
Creates resentment and disengagement
Suppresses information from lower-power individuals who have valuable input
Empirical Evidence: Research on medical residents found that those with high competing but low avoiding scores performed significantly better on administrative duties (p < .05). However, residents who relied exclusively on competing showed lower communication effectiveness and relationship quality.
The collaborating style seeks to fully satisfy both parties' concerns through open dialogue, creative problem-solving, and integrative solutions. Collaborators invest time in understanding underlying needs, exploring alternatives, and finding "win-win" outcomes that neither party could achieve alone.
When collaborating works:
Complex problems requiring diverse perspectives and expertise
Long-term relationships where trust is essential
Situations where integrating different viewpoints improves decisions
Building shared commitment to solutions
Strengthening team cohesion and psychological safety
When collaborating is impractical:
Time-critical decisions with tight deadlines
Situations where exploration would compromise safety
When parties lack genuine willingness to engage
Resource constraints preventing extended dialogue
Highly asymmetrical power dynamics
Empirical Evidence: A study of pharmaceutical company employees found that integrating (collaborating) style had a strong positive effect on employee performance (β = .688, t = 64.148, p < 0.001). This represents one of the strongest effects found in conflict management research.
In healthcare settings, teams using collaborative approaches to shift scheduling and resource allocation demonstrated the highest retention rates and lowest burnout among nursing staff. Collaborative and compromising approaches were "most effective in preventing potential conflicts from escalating into actual conflicts."
The compromising style seeks a middle ground where both parties get some of what they want but neither gets everything. It involves mutual concession—each side gives up something to reach agreement.
When compromising works:
Time-constrained situations requiring timely resolution
Issues of moderate (not critical) importance
Parties with equal power seeking quick agreement
Breaking deadlocks between competing priorities
Creating temporary solutions while exploring longer-term alternatives
Limitations of compromising:
Often leaves both sides partially dissatisfied
Addresses surface issues without resolving underlying concerns
Solutions may be unstable or require renegotiation
Foregoes opportunity to discover superior alternatives
Empirical Evidence: In a study of 392 university students, compromising was the most frequently utilized strategy, with 35% of students choosing it, second only to collaboration at 19%. Research on nurse shift scheduling found that compromising approaches effectively prevented conflicts from escalating while maintaining operational efficiency.
However, a 2025 pharmaceutical study found that compromising had negative relationships with employee performance compared to collaborating (R² difference of .42), suggesting that while compromising provides speed, it comes at a cost to long-term effectiveness.
The avoiding style involves sidestepping the conflict entirely—neither pressing one's own concerns nor working toward others' satisfaction. Individuals using this approach withdraw from disagreement, postpone addressing issues, or ignore them altogether.
When avoiding is appropriate:
Low-stakes, trivial issues where investment isn't justified
Situations where emotions are running extremely high and cooling off is needed
Brief interactions with people you won't see again
Temporary respite while gathering information or thinking through positions
Situations where addressing conflict would cause more damage than avoidance
When avoiding is destructive:
Important issues that continue festering and growing
Compounds misunderstanding and resentment
Prevents necessary information exchange
Creates communication breakdowns and distrust
Can be perceived as passive aggression
Empirical Evidence: Medical residents who were high in avoiding showed significantly poorer performance on administrative responsibilities (p < .05). Nursing staff reported that avoiding conflict led to lost productivity, increased tension, and problems that worsened over time.
A study of educational leaders found that emotional intelligence emerged as a strong predictor of conflict management skills (β = 0.531, p < 0.001), with awareness particularly supporting both collaborating and accommodating approaches while reducing avoidance.
The accommodating style prioritizes others' needs and concerns over one's own. Individuals using this approach readily yield to others' preferences, set aside their own interests, and focus on preserving relationships.
When accommodating works:
The issue is genuinely more important to the other party than to you
Preserving the relationship is more important than winning this particular disagreement
You're wrong and the other person is right—admitting error graciously
Building goodwill and social capital for future issues
Demonstrating flexibility and openness-mindedness
When accommodating becomes problematic:
Chronic self-sacrifice breeds resentment over time
Your legitimate concerns never get addressed
The other party may interpret accommodation as agreement or weakness
Creates power imbalances where one party's needs consistently dominate
Enables dysfunctional patterns to persist
Empirical Evidence: A study of 254 nurses in the Philippines found that accommodating and avoiding styles were significantly positively correlated with employee productivity (p < 0.001), though this finding was somewhat context-specific. However, more nuanced research suggests this effect may reflect selection effects—accommodating individuals may simply be conscientious people who perform well regardless.
Rather than adopting a single default conflict style, highly effective leaders and teams develop the flexibility to shift approaches based on five key factors:
High-stakes decisions: Collaborating or competing (depending on whether integrating perspectives adds value)
Moderate-stakes decisions: Compromising
Low-stakes decisions: Avoiding or accommodating (preserving energy for important issues)
Urgent/time-critical: Competing or compromising (decisions needed immediately)
Adequate time: Collaborating (the most effective but resource-intensive approach)
Indefinite time: Any style is potentially viable, but collaborating produces superior outcomes
Long-term, high-value relationships: Collaborating or accommodating (preserve trust)
Transactional relationships: Competing or compromising
New or uncertain relationships: Compromising (learn the person's style first)
You have greater power/expertise: Competing is more acceptable (but still risks damaging trust)
Symmetrical power: Collaborating or compromising
You have less power: Accommodating or collaborating (build alliance)
Goals are aligned: Collaborating (find creative solutions benefiting all)
Goals conflict directly: Competing or compromising (one party's gain is the other's loss)
Goals are tangential: Avoiding (each can pursue separate objectives)
Research by leading organizational psychologists reveals that there is no universally optimal conflict style. Instead, effectiveness depends on matching style to situation.
A study of educational leaders found that emotional intelligence (β = 0.531, p < 0.001) and adaptive leadership style (β = 0.309, p = 0.013) together explained 44.4% of variance in conflict management skills. The strongest predictor? Emotional intelligence enabling recognition of when to shift styles.
Leaders who excel at conflict navigation share this characteristic: they can diagnose what a situation requires and execute the appropriate response. Someone who only competes will damage relationships on issues that call for collaboration. Someone who only accommodates will fail to defend essential positions. Someone who only compromises will miss opportunities for breakthrough solutions.
Situation: Your team and another team both need funding for critical initiatives. The budget pool is fixed.
Poor approach: Using only competing (demanding "your" team get full funding) damages cross-team relationships and creates resentment.
Better approach: Begin with collaborating—explore what each team actually needs and why. Often underlying concerns can be addressed through creative reallocation rather than direct competition. If genuine conflicts remain, then compromise to divide resources fairly.
Outcome: Teams understand each other's needs, potentially find efficiencies or co-opportunities, and reach an agreement both see as reasonably fair.
Situation: Team members disagree on technical approach to a complex problem.
Poor approach: A senior member using only competing (asserting expertise without hearing alternatives) misses potentially superior ideas and reduces team buy-in.
Better approach: Using collaborating—acknowledge the disagreement, explore underlying concerns (timeline, risk tolerance, resource constraints), surface assumptions, and evaluate alternatives collectively. This produces better technical decisions and stronger commitment.
Outcome: The team selects the best approach, all members understand the reasoning, and implementation proceeds with full engagement.
Situation: Two team members want the same time slot for their weekly check-in meeting.
Poor approach: Escalating this to management or spending hours in negotiation wastes organizational resources.
Better approach: Using avoiding or compromising—acknowledge the conflict briefly, suggest they work it out themselves (avoiding involvement), or propose alternating slots (compromising).
Outcome: Quick resolution preserving team autonomy and freeing leadership for high-stakes issues.
Most people develop a default conflict style—the approach they habitually use. This style often reflects personality, family background, cultural values, and early experiences. While understanding your default is valuable, relying exclusively on it limits effectiveness.
To develop flexibility:
Assess your natural style using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument
Identify your two strongest and weakest styles
Practice using underutilized styles in low-stakes situations first
Develop the mindset that conflict style selection is a skill decision, not a personality mandate
Get feedback from colleagues about whether your chosen styles matched situation requirements
The most effective leaders and teams don't have a single conflict style—they have a portfolio of approaches they can deploy strategically. They compete when necessary to defend principles. They collaborate to leverage diverse perspectives on complex problems. They compromise when time constraints demand agreement. They accommodate when the relationship matters more than the issue. They avoid when the issue is truly trivial.
This flexibility is not weak or unprincipled. Rather, it reflects sophisticated judgment about what each situation requires. It demonstrates respect for both your own concerns and others'—and recognition that sometimes you need to prioritize one and sometimes the other.
By understanding the Thomas-Kilmann framework and practicing strategic style selection, you develop a critical leadership competency: the ability to navigate conflict productively and strengthen relationships in the process.
Organization Learning Labs offers Thomas-Kilmann conflict style assessments and personalized coaching designed to help leaders identify their natural styles, understand their strengths and blind spots, and develop the flexibility to respond strategically to different conflict situations.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.
Ruble, T. L., & Thomas, K. W. (1976). Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 143-155.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. XICOM.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Profile and Interpretive Report. Xicom, a Division of CPP, Inc.
Tjosvold, D. (2006). Defining conflict and making choices about its management: Lighting the dark side of organizational life. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(2), 87-99.
Al Kabbani, M., & Dalati, S. (2024). The Impact of Conflict Management Styles on Employees Individual Performance: An Empirical Study on Employees of Pharmaceutical Factories in Rural Damascus, Syria. Journal of Service, Innovation and Sustainable Development, 5(2), 1-15.
Barker, H. R., et al. (2025). "I don't think there's necessarily a one size fits all": a qualitative study of nurses' experiences of shift pattern sustainability and its impact on retention. BMC Nursing, 24, Article 1048.
Ogunyemi, D., et al. (2010). The Associations Between Residents' Behavior and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2(1), 118-125.
Gunasingha, R. M. K. D., et al. (2023). Conflict resolution styles and skills among medical students. BMC Medical Education, 23, 246.
Saeed, T., et al. (2024). Impact of Conflict Management Practices on Employee Performance: Mediating Role of Employee Commitment. Journal of Research in Administrative Sciences, 5(3).
Comments