The Collaborating Conflict Style: Solving It Together

The collaborating style treats conflict as a problem to solve together, not as a competition with a single winner.

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.

High assertiveness, high cooperation

In Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann’s model (1974), the collaborating style combines something that seems contradictory at first glance: high assertiveness (standing up for what you need) and high cooperation (also seeking what the other person needs) at the same time.

It isn’t about giving in or imposing, but about treating the disagreement as a shared problem that both sides can solve better together than apart. The negotiation literature calls it problem solving or integrative negotiation.

It’s different from the competing style, which also defends its own position forcefully but without seeking what the other person needs.

What the research says

The theory behind it makes a precise prediction. According to Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin’s dual concern model (1986), problem solving appears when concern for your own outcome and concern for the other’s come together. With only the second, people tend to yield; with only the first, to impose.

Carsten De Dreu, Laurie Weingart and Seungwoo Kwon (2000) put it to the test in a meta-analysis of 28 studies. People negotiating with a prosocial motive argued less, solved more problems and reached better joint outcomes, but only when they also resisted giving in. Goodwill on its own wasn’t enough: without firmness about one’s own interests, the result looked more like accommodating than collaborating.

The cost is that this style requires an investment of time and genuine willingness from both sides.

How it shows up

• You actively look for a solution that works for both sides, not just for you.
• You ask what the other person really needs before proposing a closed solution.
• You invest time in exploring new options, beyond the two initial positions the conversation started with.
• You’d rather understand the “why” behind the other person’s position, not just the “what.”

When it isn’t realistic

Collaborating requires the other person to also want to invest that time and energy.

In urgent conflicts, where there’s no room for a long conversation, or with someone who isn’t willing to cooperate, insisting on this style can needlessly drag out a problem that needed a faster resolution. Recognizing that difference, and switching styles when needed, is part of mastering it.

The risk of rigidity

The risk of this style isn’t the style itself, but applying it rigidly in every situation, including those that don’t allow for it or don’t need it.

Telling when a conflict deserves the investment of collaboration and when it’s better settled with a quick middle ground, or even by giving in, makes this style pay off much more when it’s actually used.

The four pillars of negotiating well, according to Fisher, Ury and Patton

Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, of the Harvard Negotiation Project, in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, describe a four-pillar method that matches what an effective collaborator does well.

First, people: separate the person from the problem, attacking the problem itself and not whoever raises it.

Second, interests: focus on what each side really needs, not on the initial position they brought to the conversation, because two opposing positions often hide interests that can be reconciled.

Third, options: invent alternatives for mutual gain before deciding what to do, instead of clinging to the first solution that comes up under pressure.

Fourth, objective criteria: base the final agreement on some external standard (a market price, an expert opinion, an established custom) instead of on who pushes hardest.

The authors argue that an agreement reached this way is wiser, more efficient and leaves the relationship intact or even better than before, which is exactly what this style is after.

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

Sources

• De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R. and Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889-905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889
• Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Pruitt, D. G. and Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. Random House.
• Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.