Avoidant Negotiator: Dodging Conflict Rather Than Facing It

The avoidant negotiator style prefers to dodge conflict: it postpones or avoids negotiation rather than facing it directly.

Low concern for self, low concern for the other

In the dual concerns model, the avoidant style is the only one that scores low on both axes at once: it neither firmly defends its own outcome nor throws itself into the other’s, because its underlying strategy is to not fully enter the negotiation at all. It can look like passivity, but it’s often a way of managing situations where the cost of negotiating (time, energy, risk of damaging the relationship) seems greater than the benefit of resolving the matter.

How it shows up day to day

• Postpones difficult conversations until it can no longer avoid them.
• Prefers letting small disagreements slide rather than bringing them into the open.
• Feels uncomfortable with direct conflict, even in small doses.
• Sometimes resolves things indirectly, without explicitly naming the disagreement.

Their growth challenge

Avoiding makes sense for minor matters, but it builds up tension when applied to things that actually matter: what doesn’t get negotiated doesn’t disappear, it just gets delayed. This style’s challenge is learning to tell what truly deserves a direct conversation, even an uncomfortable one, from what can really be let go at no cost.

A Carnegie technique for not avoiding conflict entirely

Dale Carnegie, in How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), describes what he calls a safety valve for handling complaints: letting the other person fully express what’s bothering them, without interrupting or defending yourself yet, before saying anything at all. Carnegie observes that most people who show up angry or with a complaint just need to feel truly heard to release a good part of that tension, even before anything about the actual issue gets resolved.

This idea is especially useful for this style because it separates two things it tends to blend together: listening to the conflict and having to resolve it or defend yourself right away. Separating just the first part, letting the other person talk without yet having to respond or give ground, is something Carnegie frames as an intermediate step, though every conflict and every relationship is different, and it isn’t always equally easy to apply.

On the map of styles

It shares with the accommodating negotiator a low defense of self-interest, but takes a different path: one yields within the negotiation, the other dodges it before it starts. The compromising negotiator represents a more active middle ground between the two extremes.

Want to see your own style? Take the negotiation style quiz.