Two colleagues are arguing about a project's direction. One wants to launch the product fast, the other insists on more testing. Their manager watches from a distance, wondering whether to step in or let it blow over. All three are dealing with the same conflict, but each one handles it in a completely different way. Which approach is the right one?
None of them, and all of them at once. In the 1970s, psychologists Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed a model showing that there is no single correct way to handle conflict. There are five styles, and each has its place.
Why conflict is not necessarily a bad thing
When you hear the word "conflict," you probably picture an argument, tension, uncomfortable emotions. But research tells a different story. Karen Jehn at Wharton School (1995) found that teams with moderate levels of so-called task conflict, disagreements about how to get the work done, actually outperform teams where nobody ever pushes back.
The problem is not conflict itself. The problem is not knowing how to handle it.
The Thomas-Kilmann model: 5 conflict styles
The model is built on two axes: assertiveness (how strongly you pursue your own interests) and cooperativeness (how much you consider the other party's interests). The combination produces five strategies.
1. Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperativeness)
You push for your position, even if the other side loses. "We are doing it my way."
When it works: in crisis situations that demand a fast decision. During a fire, nobody votes on which exit to take. It also works when you are defending an important principle or protecting the rights of someone who cannot speak up for themselves.
When it backfires: in long-term relationships. If you compete constantly, colleagues will start avoiding you or stop sharing their opinions. Winning every battle and losing the war is the risk of this style.
2. Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperativeness)
You step back and give priority to the other person's needs. "All right, we will do it your way."
When it works: when the issue matters far more to the other party than it does to you. When you want to invest in the relationship, or when you realize you are wrong. It is an excellent strategy for building trust in new teams.
When it backfires: when you accommodate too often. Research by Amy Edmondson at Harvard (2019) shows that in environments lacking psychological safety, people would rather stay silent than risk a confrontation. The result? Mistakes go uncorrected and ideas remain unspoken.
3. Avoiding (low assertiveness, low cooperativeness)
You postpone dealing with the issue, change the subject, or pretend no problem exists.
When it works: when you need time for emotions to cool down. When the topic is trivial and not worth the energy. Or when you have zero chance of success and a confrontation would only make things worse.
When it backfires: almost always, if it becomes your default mode. Unresolved conflicts pile up. Think of a pressure cooker with no release valve. One day it explodes, and the eruption is wildly disproportionate to what triggered it.
4. Collaborating (high assertiveness, high cooperativeness)
You search for a solution that satisfies both sides. Not a compromise, but a genuinely new solution that neither party would have reached alone.
When it works: on important issues where you do not want to sacrifice your interests or the relationship. When you have enough time and willingness to look for creative answers. It is the most demanding style, but it delivers the best results.
When it backfires: when the decision is urgent. Collaboration takes time and energy. Collaborating on where to put the office printer is a waste of resources.
5. Compromising (moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness)
Both sides give ground. Nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something.
When it works: when negotiating resources, deadlines, or budgets. When full collaboration is not realistic (not enough time, positions too far apart) but avoiding would be worse.
When it backfires: when the compromise destroys the point. "Let's make the logo half blue, half red" sounds fair, but the result excites nobody.
How to identify your dominant style
Most people rely on one or two styles by default. They often do not even realize alternatives exist. Think back to your last three conflicts. What did you do?
- Did you push until you got your way?
- Did you give in to keep the peace?
- Did you pretend the problem did not exist?
- Did you work together to find a new solution?
- Did you meet in the middle?
If your answer is consistently the same, you have a strongly dominant style. That is not necessarily bad, but it costs you flexibility.
Emotional intelligence as a tool
Choosing the right style depends on your ability to read the situation accurately. And that requires emotional intelligence: recognizing your own emotions, understanding the other person's feelings, and regulating your reaction.
Daniel Goleman (1995) showed in his landmark study that emotional intelligence accounts for up to 58% of job performance across a wide range of positions. In the context of conflict, EQ matters even more: it determines whether you can stay rational under pressure and choose a strategy deliberately rather than reactively.
Curious about where you stand? Try the emotional intelligence test to see your strengths and weaker spots.
Practical tips for handling conflict better
At work
- Separate the person from the problem. Attack the situation, not your colleague. Instead of "You never meet deadlines," try "The project is a week behind. What can we do about it?"
- Ask open-ended questions. "How do you see it?" tells you more than "Don't you agree?" and gives the other person room to speak.
- Name the conflict out loud. "I feel like we see this situation differently" strips the tension of its secrecy. Everyone knows the problem is there, but nobody has called it what it is, and that is worse than the disagreement itself.
In your personal life
- Learn this phrase: "I need a moment to think." That is not avoidance; it is a deliberate pause. Your brain under the grip of emotion (amygdala hijack) does not make good decisions.
- Try mirroring: repeat in your own words what the other person said. "If I understand you correctly, what bothers you is..." You will often discover you were arguing about something you actually agreed on.
- In relationship conflicts, watch the ratio. John Gottman (1994) found that stable couples maintain a 5-to-1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. One unresolved conflict will not destroy a relationship, as long as it sits within the context of five kind moments.
What to avoid
Some mistakes make conflicts worse regardless of which style you use:
- Generalizing. Words like "always" and "never" are dynamite in a conflict. "You always forget" is not a fact; it is an attack.
- Mind reading. "You are doing this on purpose" is projection, not observation. You do not know what the other person is thinking until you ask.
- The silent treatment. Freezing someone out is not conflict resolution. It is passive aggression that robs the other person of any chance to fix the situation.
A real-world example
Marketa leads a marketing team. Two of her team members, analyst Tomas and creative director Pavel, clash regularly. Tomas wants to decide based on data; Pavel trusts intuition and original ideas. Marketa used to either shut down the conflicts (avoiding) or decide unilaterally (competing).
Then she tried collaboration. In a meeting she said: "Tomas, what data would you need to feel comfortable with Pavel's idea? Pavel, how would you adjust your concept if you had that data?" The result? They developed a process where Pavel pitches concepts and Tomas tests them on a small sample. Both feel their approach is respected.
It was not magic. It was a conscious decision to choose a different style from the one Marketa was used to.
Conflict will always be part of your life. The question is not whether you can avoid it, but whether you turn it into an opportunity for better solutions and deeper understanding, or just another scar.