The Collaborating Conflict Style: Solving It Together

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

This quiz 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 looks contradictory at first glance: high assertiveness (defending what you need) and high cooperation (also seeking what the other person needs) at the same time. It’s not about giving in or imposing, it’s about treating the disagreement as a shared problem that both sides can solve better together than apart.

When it works

It’s, according to research on conflict resolution, the style with the best long-term results when the bond genuinely matters and there’s time to explore options: both sides end up more satisfied than with a solution imposed by one of them or with a simple middle ground. The cost is that it 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 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 unwilling to cooperate, insisting on this style can needlessly drag out a problem that needed a faster resolution. Recognizing that difference, and switching styles when it’s called for, is part of mastering it, not a betrayal of it.

Your growth edge

The risk with this style isn’t the style itself, it’s applying it rigidly to every situation, including the ones that don’t allow for or need it. Knowing when a conflict is worth the investment of collaboration and when it’s better resolved faster with a compromise or even by giving in makes this style pay off far more when it’s genuinely 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, describe a four-pillar method that lines up point for point with what an effective collaborator does well. First, people: separate the person from the problem, attack the problem itself and not whoever raised it. Second, interests: focus on what each side genuinely needs, not the initial position they arrived at the conversation with, because two opposing positions almost always hide interests that can actually be reconciled. Third, options: invent mutually beneficial alternatives before deciding what to do, instead of clinging to the first solution that appears under pressure. Fourth, objective criteria: base the final agreement on some external standard (a market price, an expert opinion, an established custom) rather than on who pushes harder. The authors insist that an agreement reached this way isn’t just wiser, it’s also more efficient and leaves the relationship intact or even better than before, exactly the goal this style pursues.

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