What's My Conflict Management Style?

How it shows up

• You defend your position to the end when you believe you're right.
• You'd rather win the argument than settle for a draw.
• You don't give in easily even when the other person pushes hard.

"The competing style prioritizes the outcome over the relationship: the argument gets won, though the bond doesn't always come out ahead."

The jiu-jitsu of negotiation

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1981), of the Harvard Negotiation Project, describe two classic traps: being "soft" (giving in to avoid friction) or being "hard" (digging into a position and attacking the other side's). The competing style, taken to an extreme, is the second trap. Their alternative: being hard on the merits of the problem and soft on the people. When the other side attacks or digs in, they propose "negotiation jiu-jitsu": don't strike back or harden your own stance, sidestep it by redirecting the conversation toward the problem and toward what each side actually needs.

When competing makes sense

It's useful in urgent, high-stakes decisions, or when you're right about something important and giving in would carry a real cost. Firmness isn't a flaw in itself; the nuance is in knowing when to apply it.

Your growth edge

Overused on low-stakes topics, it can wear down relationships that never needed a winner. Before diving headfirst into an argument over, say, which restaurant to pick tonight, asking yourself "is this worth competing over?" helps save this style for what genuinely matters.

Note: if the conflict you have in mind involves a relationship with a real power imbalance or some form of mistreatment, this is informational guidance about communication style, not advice for that situation. That calls for the help of a professional.

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

High assertiveness and high cooperation at once

Of Thomas and Kilmann's (1974) five styles, this is the hardest to sustain: it combines standing up for what you need with also seeking what the other person needs, instead of choosing one over the other. It isn't giving in or imposing, it's treating the disagreement as a shared problem that both sides solve better together than apart.

How it shows up

• You actively look for a solution that works for both sides.
• You ask what the other person actually needs before proposing anything.
• You invest time exploring new options, not just the two starting positions.

The four pillars of negotiating well

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1981) describe four elements that line up with what an effective collaborator does well: separating the person from the problem (attack the problem, not whoever raised it); focusing on each side's real interests, not the position they walked into the conversation with; inventing options for mutual gain before deciding what to do; and anchoring the final agreement to some external, objective criterion, not to who pushes hardest. An agreement built this way, according to the authors, isn't just wiser, it leaves the relationship intact or better than before.

Your growth edge

It takes time and willingness from the other side: in urgent conflicts or with someone who won't cooperate, insisting on collaborating may not be realistic. Knowing when to switch styles, without it feeling like a betrayal of your own, is part of mastering it.

Who you pair well with

It's the style that adapts best to any other: it gives a constructive way forward both to a competitor who needs to widen their options and to an accommodator who struggles to name what matters to them too.

Note: if the conflict you have in mind involves a relationship with a real power imbalance or some form of mistreatment, this is informational guidance about communication style, not advice for that situation. That calls for the help of a professional.

Signs of this style

• You'd rather each side give a little than drag out the discussion.
• You look for a quick middle ground on topics that aren't crucial to you.
• It seems reasonable to give up part of what you want if the other person does the same.

"The compromising style doesn't look for the perfect solution, it looks for a reasonable, fast one."

When this shortcut works

It's especially useful when time is short or the topic doesn't justify a long negotiation, like deciding what show to watch tonight: a middle ground acceptable to both sides usually beats dragging out the disagreement.

Compromising well means anchoring to something external

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1981) point out that insisting on objective criteria (a market price, an expert's opinion, an established custom) makes it easier to reach a sensible agreement: nobody wastes time defending their position, and the discussion shifts from "I want this" to "what does the objective standard say here?" That's what separates a well-made compromise from simply "splitting the difference" at random.

Your growth edge

Used all the time, even on important issues, it can leave both sides with a mediocre solution. Saving collaboration for what genuinely matters, and quick compromise for everything else, usually pays off more than applying just one of the two to everything.

Note: if the conflict you have in mind involves a relationship with a real power imbalance or some form of mistreatment, this is informational guidance about communication style, not advice for that situation. That calls for the help of a professional.

"The avoiding style isn't always running from the problem: sometimes it's waiting for the right moment to deal with it."

How it shows up

• You put off a difficult conversation until the tension dies down.
• You let go of topics you don't consider very important.
• You avoid starting a conflict if you don't think it will lead anywhere good.

Two forms of silence

Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (2002), in Crucial Conversations, list "avoiding" and "withdrawing" among the forms of silence that show up when a conversation starts to feel risky: sidestepping the sensitive topic entirely, or leaving the conversation outright. Their warning: it keeps the shared pool of information dangerously shallow, which costs nothing when the topic is minor but leaves what really matters unresolved.

When it's genuinely useful

It's genuinely useful in low-stakes conflicts, when the tension of the moment blocks a productive conversation, or when the issue will simply resolve itself with time.

Your growth edge

The risk shows up when you also avoid what matters: those issues don't disappear just because they're postponed, and they tend to come back later with the same unprocessed tension, or more built up than at the start. Telling "this can wait" apart from "I'm avoiding this" is the key.

Who you pair well with

You balance well with a competing or collaborating profile willing to say out loud the conversation you tend to postpone, especially when the topic really does matter.

Note: if the conflict you have in mind involves a relationship with a real power imbalance or some form of mistreatment, this is informational guidance about communication style, not advice for that situation. That calls for the help of a professional.

How it shows up

• You give way when the issue matters more to the other person than to you.
• You'd rather keep the relationship on good terms than win the argument.
• You find it easy to set aside what you want to avoid a bad atmosphere.

The "soft" negotiator, according to Fisher, Ury, and Patton

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1981) describe the "soft" negotiator as someone who avoids conflict through repeated concessions, hoping to preserve the relationship, and who often ends up feeling taken advantage of: a close portrait of the accommodating style taken without limits. Their alternative isn't to stop being soft on people, it's to pair that with firmness on the substance of the issue: you can look after the bond and, at the same time, not automatically give in on what actually matters.

"The accommodating style prioritizes the bond over the outcome: it would rather give in than risk the relationship."

When it's the right call

It's a generous, and sometimes very sound, choice when the issue matters far more to the other person than to you, or when keeping the good atmosphere outweighs winning that particular point.

Your growth edge

Giving in every time, even on what does matter to you, can end up making your own needs invisible within the relationship. Asking yourself "does this matter to me too?" before automatically accommodating helps you check whether that starting point still holds.

Note: if the conflict you have in mind involves a relationship with a real power imbalance or some form of mistreatment, this is informational guidance about communication style, not advice for that situation. That calls for the help of a professional.