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. Research calls it inaction or avoidance, and it is the style with the worst reputation and, at the same time, the one that has gained the most nuance in recent studies.

Low concern for self, low concern for the other

In dual concern theory (Pruitt and Rubin, 1986), the avoidant style is the only one that scores low on both axes at once: it neither defends its own outcome forcefully nor throws itself into the other side’s, because its underlying strategy is not to fully enter the negotiation.

It can look like passivity, but it’s often a calculation: the cost of negotiating (time, energy, the risk of damaging the relationship) seems greater than the benefit of settling the matter.

How it looks in practice

• Puts off difficult conversations until they can no longer be avoided.
• Lets small disagreements slide rather than bringing them into the open.
• Feels uncomfortable with direct conflict, even in small doses.
• Sometimes resolves things indirectly, without naming the disagreement.

An example: the upstairs neighbor drags furniture around at night. The avoidant person would rather wear earplugs for months than knock on their door. If the noise is occasional, that may be the cheapest decision; if it’s daily, the irritation builds, and the conversation, when it finally happens, is tenser than it would have been at the start.

What research shows about avoiding

For decades, avoidance was considered the least effective strategy. More recent studies paint a more nuanced picture:

• It depends on the type of conflict. In a field study of teams doing complex tasks, De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) compared three responses to personal conflicts (clashes over values, tastes, or how people treat each other): collaborating, contending, and avoiding. Collaborating and contending were associated with worse team functioning and effectiveness; avoiding, with better functioning. Their explanation is that, in clashes of that kind, arguing them out distracts from the task.
• Some ways of avoiding protect the relationship. Tjosvold and Sun (2002) studied 85 managers and employees of state-owned companies in southern China. When there was a good prior relationship and shared goals, avoiding conflict could protect the other person, maintain productivity, and even strengthen the relationship. They also point out the limit: like open conflict, avoidance has to be handled well.
• It’s the hardest style to see from the outside. In validating a conflict-style questionnaire, De Dreu and colleagues (2001) found good agreement between self-reports, opponent reports, and observer ratings for problem solving, forcing, and yielding, but not for avoiding. People who avoid often do so without others noticing.

The difference with important task issues, such as a budget allocation or a deadline that can’t be met, is that what doesn’t get negotiated there doesn’t go away: it’s only delayed.

Listening without having to resolve it right away

Dale Carnegie, in How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), a popular classic, 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.

This idea fits the avoidant style because it separates two things it tends to blur together: hearing out the conflict and having to resolve it or give way immediately. Listening first, without committing to a response yet, is a middle step between dodging entirely and negotiating in depth.

On the map of styles

It shares the accommodating negotiator’s weak defense of self-interest, but by a different route: one yields within the negotiation, the other sidesteps 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.

Sources

• Carnegie, D. (1936). How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon & Schuster.
• De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E., and Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645-668. doi:10.1002/job.107
• De Dreu, C. K. W., and Van Vianen, A. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-328. doi:10.1002/job.71
• Pruitt, D. G., and Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. Random House.
• Tjosvold, D., and Sun, H. (2002). Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motivations, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 142-164. doi:10.1108/eb022872