The Avoiding Conflict Style: Waiting for the Right Moment

The avoiding style isn’t always running from the problem: sometimes it’s waiting for the right moment to address it.

This article is part of an informational series on conflict management, based on a classic academic model from social psychology. It’s meant for informational purposes and doesn’t replace guidance from a professional.

Low assertiveness, low cooperation

In Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann’s model (1974), the avoiding style combines low assertiveness (not actively defending your own position) with low cooperation (not actively seeking the other person’s either): it postpones or sidesteps the disagreement. Blake and Mouton (1964) called it withdrawing.

It’s often misread as weakness, but in many contexts it’s a reasonable strategic choice.

Taken to the extreme in a relationship that’s just starting, it can end up looking like ghosting, though they aren’t the same thing: ghosting cuts off the whole bond without explanation, while avoiding usually postpones a specific disagreement within a relationship that carries on.

When it works

It’s genuinely useful:

• in low-stakes conflicts, where the cost of arguing outweighs the benefit of resolving it
• when the tension of the moment means any conversation is going to go badly, and it’s better to wait for it to ease
• when the topic tends to resolve itself over time without needing direct intervention

How it shows up

• You postpone a difficult conversation until the tension of the moment eases.
• You let go of topics you don’t consider very important, without dwelling on them.
• You avoid starting a conflict if you think it won’t lead anywhere productive.
• You prefer to take your time before reacting to something that bothered you.

Who withdraws, and when

Research on couples has studied withdrawal in detail. Andrew Christensen and Christopher Heavey (1990) observed 31 married couples discussing two topics: a change the wife wanted and a change the husband wanted. A pattern emerged that they called demand-withdraw: one partner presses with requests and complaints while the other pulls back.

Overall, husbands withdrew somewhat more than wives, but the most interesting finding was when it happened: both men and women tended to withdraw when discussing a change the other person wanted, and to press when the change was one they wanted themselves. Withdrawing depends, to a large extent, on which side of the request each person is on.

The risk of avoiding what matters

The problem shows up when this style becomes the automatic response even for topics that genuinely need to be talked about.

Unlike minor disagreements, those topics don’t disappear just because they get postponed indefinitely: they tend to stay put, and postponing them too long can mean that, when they’re finally addressed, they come with more accumulated weight than necessary.

”This can wait” versus “this makes me uncomfortable”

The key is telling “this can wait” apart from “I’m avoiding this because it makes me uncomfortable.” The first is a legitimate strategic decision; the second, if it keeps happening with what matters, can leave real needs unmet indefinitely.

What avoiding does to shared meaning

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler, in Crucial Conversations (2002), list “avoiding” and “withdrawing” among the forms of silence that appear when a conversation starts to feel risky: steering completely clear of the sensitive topic, or pulling out of the conversation or the room altogether.

Applied to conflict, this style does just that, postponing or sidestepping the disagreement, and the authors are clear about its effect: it keeps the pool of shared information and perspectives dangerously shallow.

That isn’t a problem when the topic really is minor, in which case avoiding it is simply efficient. When it’s applied to something that does matter, the underlying issue doesn’t get resolved, only delayed, and it tends to come back later with the same unprocessed tension, or even more built up than at the start.

Do you recognize yourself in this style? Find out with the conflict management style quiz.

Sources

• Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing.
• Christensen, A. and Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73
• Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R. and Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. McGraw-Hill.
• Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.