conflict management vs problem solving

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution—When to Use Each One in Your Relationship

Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Ivy Kwong, LMFT, is a psychotherapist specializing in relationships, love and intimacy, trauma and codependency, and AAPI mental health.  

dragana991 / Getty Images

Although they might sound like the same thing, conflict management and conflict resolution are in fact two different approaches to tackling conflicts in a relationship .

Conflict management is an ongoing process that addresses persistent issues that crop up repeatedly in the relationship; whereas, conflict resolution addresses the issue and provides closure once and for all, says Clarissa Silva , a behavioral scientist, relationship coach, and creator of ‘Your Happiness Hypothesis Method.’

Both conflict management and conflict resolution are forms of interpersonal communication that are important to maintain healthy relationships, Silva adds.

In this article, we explore the differences between conflict management and conflict resolution, and when you should use each of these strategies in your relationship.

Conflict Management vs. Conflict Resolution

Let’s take a closer look at the differences between conflict management and conflict resolution.

Conflict Management

Conflict management is the ongoing process of addressing and handling chronic issues in a relationship. It aims to minimize the negative impact of the conflict and maintain a functional relationship.

Chronic issues are problems that get revisited time and time again, says Silva. She explains that these situations are persistent and require management to maintain the peace and keep them from disrupting the relationship.

Conflict management is useful for chronic situations that cannot be solved. Contrary to what we might think about conflict and its ability to be resolved, about 70% of couples’ conflicts are unsolvable, says Silva.

If, for example, you and your partner have very different tastes in movies and that is a source of repeated conflict in your relationship, a simple conflict management solution would be to compromise and take turns picking the movie. This doesn’t necessarily solve the issue of having different tastes in movies, but it helps manage the conflict that can arise as a result.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution , on the other hand, specifically focuses on finding a final solution for a solvable conflict. It aims to address the root causes of the issue, find a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem, eliminate conflict, and restore harmony in the relationship.

For example, if you and your partner share a joint account and your partner makes an expensive luxury purchase from it without telling you, you may feel angry and frustrated in response to this conflict. The process of conflict resolution may involve sharing your feelings about what happened with your partner, explaining what you need, and requesting you consult with each other before making any purchases over a certain dollar amount from your joint account, make big personal purchases from an individual account, or another solution that feels acceptable for both of you. You and your partner can work together to reach conflict resolution by collaborating and coming to an agreement on how to handle big purchases from your joint account moving forward.

Applicable to chronic issues

Focuses on ongoing management

Aims to minimize the negative effects of the conflict

Keeps the relationship functional

Applicable to solvable problems

Provides a definitive solution

Aims to eliminate the conflict altogether

Restores harmony to the relationship

How to Know Which Style to Use? 

These are some factors to consider when you’re trying to decide which style to use:

• Type of conflict: If it’s a persistent problem that crops up repeatedly, conflict management may be more appropriate. However, if it’s an isolated issue that is solvable, conflict resolution can help resolve the issue more definitively.
• Emotional intensity: If it’s an intense conflict that's causing significant anger , tension, or emotional distress, conflict resolution may be required to solve the issue and eliminate the conflict. On the other hand, if it’s an ongoing issue that both partners are used to, conflict management can help minimize its negative effects and ensure the relationship is functional.
• Relationship dynamics: Conflict resolution requires both partners to actively discuss the issue and work on finding a solution. If both partners are unable to give it due time and attention, conflict management can help keep things stable.

Can You Truly ‘Agree to Disagree’ in a Relationship? 

If you and your partner have different values , beliefs, opinions, or perspectives on something, you may wonder whether it’s possible to agree to disagree on it.

Agreeing to disagree involves accepting that you and your partner have different views on something, and choosing to respect those differences without trying to change each other’s mind.

This strategy can help minimize discontent in the relationship, says Silva. Rather than forcing someone to see things from your point of view, which can lead to conflict and resentment, agreeing to disagree respects their individuality, and their right to their own opinion.

The key to successfully agreeing to disagree is to actively listen to each other, understand where the other person is coming from, and empathize with their position, even if it’s not the same as yours.

It’s important to note that agreeing to disagree may not work for all issues. For instance, it may work for certain personal preferences where there is no clear right or wrong answer, but it may not work for major life decisions, where both parties need to be on the same page to proceed.

Can Agreeing to Disagree Be a Bad Thing? 

Agreeing to disagree can be a good thing if it helps partners coexist peacefully and respectfully. However, it can sometimes be a bad thing if it leads to:

• Resentment: If partners start to resent each other because of the viewpoints they hold.
• Communication breakdown: If partner’s are unable to communicate effectively while respecting each other’s perspective or stop communicating completely.
• Lack of resolution: If partners are unable to solve their issues and are constantly in a state of conflict.
• Repeated patterns: If the issue is a repeated source of conflict.

How Conflict Affects Relationships

Conflict can affect relationships in positive and negative ways. 

When Conflict Is Good for a Relationship 

Conflict can be good for a relationship if it:

• Resolves misunderstandings: Conflict often arises from misunderstandings, says Silva. Resolving misunderstandings can help improve communication in the relationship.
• Surfaces unmet needs: Conflict can also be caused by failure to consider each other’s needs and wishes, says Silva. Communicating with each other and being considerate of each other’s needs can help improve emotional intimacy in the relationship.
• Encourages problem-solving: Though conflict is not pleasant, discussing issues can help partners find solutions .
• Enables growth: Conflict can offer an opportunity for growth, as individuals and as a couple.

A 2021 study notes that while conflict can be negative, resolved conflict is not.

When Conflict Hurts a Relationship

These are some of the ways conflict can harm a relationship, according to Silva:

• Becomes a habit: Conflict can become an unhealthy habit, leading to a repetitive pattern where one or both partners constantly feel hopeless because there is no resolution in sight. This can spiral into resentment and lead to frequent inflammatory or toxic interactions between partners.
• Festers and grows: Not addressing issues as they occur or reoccur is a mistake , because it causes them to fester. Unresolved conflict can result in stress and constant rumination about the dissatisfactory elements of your partner or your relationship.
• Harms mental well-being: Constantly dwelling on mistakes and perceived shortcomings can lead to a vicious cycle that puts you at risk for mental health problems and emotional distress, which has been linked to the development of anxiety, depression, and substance use. Stress can also result in poor sleeping patterns, unhealthy eating habits, blood pressure issues, or heart conditions.

How to Address Relationship Conflict 

Silva shares some strategies that can help you address relationship conflict.

Recognize Triggers

When either person is triggered , explore what triggered them. These are educational indicators, so taking the opportunity to learn about the “why” can help you avoid them in the future. 

Avoid being negative when discussing triggers. Instead, speak calmly and understand that even if you don’t agree, both your viewpoints are still equally valid. The goal is to gain insights into how to manage conflict in the future.

Create a Plan to Address the Conflict

Creating a plan to address problems, whether chronic or solvable, can start the process of alleviation. You want to ask one another “What actionable steps can we take to address the problem causing these emotional reactions?”

Deciding to agree to disagree can be part of your plan of action to create happiness and minimize discontent.

Clarissa Silva, Relationship Coach

Conflict is inevitable but how we respond to disagreements is what matters.

Evaluate Your Needs

These are some factors to think about as you work on finding solutions:

• How do you want to be loved?
• How does that differ from how your partner wants to be loved?
• How do you and your partner express love ?
• Are your definitions of love modeled from anywhere (such as caregivers, books, movies, etc.)?
• How do you both cultivate and honor that for one another?

Understand Conflict Rituals

Everyone reacts to conflict differently. The way you and your partner process conflict is a conflict ritual.

Define what your conflict rituals are. For instance, do you have to be left alone to think and process on your own first? Do you need to have it resolved  before going to bed or can it wait until you are both ready and regulated? Do you prefer to talk it out with loved ones or keep it between the two of you?

Sometimes conflict rituals can be a source of conflict in themselves. For example, if your partner chooses to run away, you may get upset about that. However, understanding your partner’s reactions to conflict and developing a healthy mechanism to process and deal with conflict can help resolve it.

Don’t Ignore the Issue

Don’t let issues go unaddressed, or they fester and get worse. 

As far as possible, try to discuss and decide on a mutually beneficial outcome as soon as the issue occurs. If it’s not possible to address it immediately, decide on a time when you can discuss it in the near future.

If you and your partner are experiencing frequent relationship conflicts that you're unable to resolve or manage, it may be helpful to seek therapy. Couples therapy can help you discuss your issues, improve your communication skills, and address conflict.

Tae J, Almasi RC, Weldon RB, Lee Y, An C, Sohn MH. Perceived conflict may be negative but resolved conflict is not . Brain Cogn . 2021;150:105721. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105721

El-Sheikh M, Kelly R, Rauer A. Quick to berate, slow to sleep: interpartner psychological conflict, mental health, and sleep . Health Psychol . 2013;32(10):1057-1066. doi:10.1037/a0031786

National Library of Medicine. Stress and your health .

By Sanjana Gupta Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

• Browse Topics
• Executive Committee
• Affiliated Faculty
• Harvard Negotiation Project
• Great Negotiator
• American Secretaries of State Project
• Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
• Negotiation Programs
• Mediation Programs
• One-Day Programs
• In-House Training and Custom Programs
• In-Person Programs
• Online Programs
• Advanced Materials Search
• Contact Information
• The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Negotiation Journal
• Harvard Negotiation Law Review
• Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Event Series
• Our Mission
• Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

Conflict-Management Styles: Pitfalls and Best Practices

Conflict-management styles can affect how disputes play out in organizations and beyond. research on conflict-management styles offers advice on managing such difficult situations..

By Katie Shonk — on March 21st, 2024 / Conflict Resolution

People approach conflict differently, depending on their innate tendencies, their life experiences, and the demands of the moment. Negotiation and conflict-management research reveals how our differing conflict-management styles mesh with best practices in conflict resolution.

A Model of Conflict-Management Styles

In 1974, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann introduced a questionnaire, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument , designed to measure people’s conflict styles. Based on people’s responses to pairs of statements, the instrument categorizes respondents into five different conflict styles:

• Competing. When adopting a competing style, people view interpersonal conflict resolution as win-lose games. Rather than recognizing the value of ensuring that each party walks away satisfied, disputants focus narrowly on claiming as much as they can for themselves. While value claiming is an important component of negotiation, a single-minded competitive orientation sacrifices value in the long run and perpetuates conflict.
• Avoiding. Because dealing with conflict directly can be highly uncomfortable, many of us prefer to avoid it. An avoidant conflict style might at first appear to be the opposite of a competitive style, but in fact, it can be similarly obstructive. When we avoid conflict, we often allow problems to grow worse.
• Accommodating. Because they defer so often to others, negotiators who adopt an accommodating style can seem agreeable and easygoing. But when people consistently put others’ needs first, they are liable to experience resentment that builds up over time. Accommodating negotiators typically will benefit from learning to express their needs and concerns.
• Compromising. Sometimes we try to resolve conflict by proposing seemingly equal compromises, such as meeting in the middle between two extreme positions, or by making a significant compromise just to move forward. Although a compromising conflict style can move a conversation forward, the solution is often unsatisfying and temporary because it doesn’t address the root issues at stake.
• Collaborating. Those who adopt a collaborative conflict-resolution style work to understand the deeper needs behind other parties’ demands and to express their own needs. They see value in working through strong emotions that come up, and they propose tradeoffs across issues that will give each side more of what they want.

Claim your FREE copy: The New Conflict Management

In our FREE special report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - The New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation – renowned negotiation experts uncover unconventional approaches to conflict management that can turn adversaries into partners.

A collaborative negotiation style is usually the most effective style for managing conflict and fostering productive long-term relationships; however, different conflict-management styles can be effectively applied to different phases and types of conflict in management. Moreover, though we may have a predisposition toward a particular conflict style, we adopt different styles depending on the situation.

Competing is often useful when you’ve jointly created value through collaboration and now need to divide up resources. Accommodating may be the best immediate choice when your boss is unhappy about a project that went awry. Avoiding can be wise when someone seems volatile or when we don’t expect to deal with them again. And compromising can be a fine way of resolving a minor issue quickly.

Conflict-Management Styles : Lessons from Marriage Research

Can people with different conflict-management styles get along? In his book Why Marriages Succeed or Fail . . . and How You Can Make Yours Last (Simon & Schuster, 1995), psychologist John Gottman writes that healthy marriages tend to settle into three different styles of problem solving: validating (compromising often and working out problems to mutual satisfaction), conflict-avoidant (agreeing to disagree and rarely confronting differences directly), and volatile (frequently engaging in passionate disputes).

Perhaps surprisingly, Gottman’s research suggests that “all three styles are equally stable and bode equally well for the marriage’s future,” as he writes. Which style a couple leans toward isn’t important; what’s more important for lasting satisfaction is that both spouses adopt the same style.

Though Gottman’s research was conducted on married couples, the results suggest that disputants in the business world who have similar conflict-management styles may find they feel comfortable managing (or avoiding) conflict with each other.

When Conflict-Management Styles Are Complementary

By contrast, in the realm of negotiation, the results of a 2015 study published in the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research by Scott Wiltermuth, Larissa Z. Tiedens, and Margaret Neale found benefits when pairs of participants used one of two different negotiating styles.

They assigned study participants to engage in a negotiation simulation using either a dominant or submissive negotiating style. Those assigned to be dominant were told to express their preferences with confidence, use expansive body postures, and otherwise try to influence their counterpart. Those assigned to the submissive style were told to be cooperative, agreeable, and conflict avoidant.

Interestingly, pairs in which one party behaved dominantly and the other submissively achieved better results in the negotiation than pairs who were in the same condition (whether dominance, submission, or a control group). It seems the pairs of dominant/submissive negotiators benefited from their complementary communication style. A pattern in which one person stated her preferences directly and the other asked questions enabled the negotiators to claim the most value. By asking questions, the submissive negotiators assessed how to meet their own goals—and helped their dominant counterparts feel respected and competent in the process.

The research we’ve covered on negotiation and conflict-management styles suggests that opportunities to work through differences abound, regardless of our natural tendencies. Rather than spending a lot of time diagnosing each other’s conflict-management styles, strive for open collaboration that confronts difficult emotions and encourages joint problem solving.

What lessons about conflict-management styles have you learned in your own negotiation and conflict-resolution efforts?

Related Posts

• 5 Conflict Resolution Strategies
• Lessons Learned from Cultural Conflicts in the Covid-19 Era
• Case Study of Conflict Management: To Resolve Disputes and Manage Conflicts, Assume a Neutral 3rd Party Role
• The Pitfalls of Negotiations Over Email
• 3 Types of Conflict and How to Address Them

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Make the Most of Online Negotiations
• Managing Multiparty Negotiations
• Getting the Deal Done
• Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

• Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

• The Good Cop, Bad Cop Negotiation Strategy
• Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
• BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
• What is BATNA? How to Find Your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
• For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
• Individual Differences in Negotiation—and How They Affect Results
• Winner’s Curse: Negotiation Mistakes to Avoid
• Solutions for Avoiding Intercultural Barriers at the Negotiation Table
• Top Negotiation Case Studies in Business: Apple and Dispute Resolution in the Courts
• Sales Negotiation Techniques
• Crisis Negotiation Skills: The Hostage Negotiator’s Drill
• Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Managing Difficult Employees: Listening to Learn
• Dealing with Hardball Tactics in Negotiation
• Dealing with Difficult People: Coping with an Insulting Offer in Contract Negotiations
• When Dealing with Difficult People, Look Inward
• Ethics in Negotiations: How to Deal with Deception at the Bargaining Table
• MESO Negotiation: The Benefits of Making Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers in Business Negotiations
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• How Does Mediation Work in a Lawsuit?
• Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
• Writing the Negotiated Agreement
• The Importance of Power in Negotiations: Taylor Swift Shakes it Off
• Settling Out of Court: Negotiating in the Shadow of the Law
• How to Negotiate with Friends and Family
• What is Dispute System Design?
• What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation
• Famous Negotiators: Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin
• The Importance of Relationship Building in China
• A Top International Negotiation Case Study in Business: The Microsoft-Nokia Deal
• India’s Direct Approach to Conflict Resolution
• International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
• Leadership and Decision-Making: Empowering Better Decisions
• The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
• Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
• How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
• Negotiations and Logrolling: Discover Opportunities to Generate Mutual Gains
• Using E-Mediation and Online Mediation Techniques for Conflict Resolution
• Undecided on Your Dispute Resolution Process? Combine Mediation and Arbitration, Known as Med-Arb
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• Negotiation Skills: Which Negotiating Style Is Best?
• The Anchoring Bias: Consumers, Beware!
• Collective Bargaining Negotiations and the Risk of Strikes
• Identify Your Negotiation Style: Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts
• The Inseparable Link Between Effective Leadership and Communication
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• The Importance of a Relationship in Negotiation
• Collaborative Negotiation Examples: Tenants and Landlords
• Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
• Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
• Setting Standards in Negotiations
• Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
• How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
• New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
• Bidding in an International Business Negotiation: Euro-Idol
• Check Out the All-In-One Curriculum Packages!
• Teaching the Fundamentals: The Best Introductory Negotiation Role Play Simulations
• Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium on Negotiation Pedagogy, Practice, & Research
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• Win-Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterpart’s Satisfaction
• Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation

PON Publications

• Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
• New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
• Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
• Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
• Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
• Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 Conflict Resolution and Problem Solving

Chapter 13 Check-in:

• Identify Conflict Causes and Effects
• Explore Conflict Approaches Solutions
• Basic Problem Solving Strategy PDCA

Like all communication, good conflict management and resolution requires your time: listen, reflect, and consider all elements of a situation and the people involved.  It is not a simple process and there are some steps to help you navigate the process.  In the end, it is about the relationship.

Frequently considered a negative, conflict can actually be an opportunity for growth in relationship or work.  Your attitude towards the situation and person plays a role in any outcome.  Adam Grant, Professor of Psychology at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Saul P. Steinberg Professor of Management, notes that “The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy.  If you are in a group where people never disagree, the only way that could ever really happen is if the people don’t care enough to speak their minds.” (Grant, February 2021).

However, it is easy to feel at a loss in an immediate conflict situation.  Here are some brief points to consider when faced with more than just a disagreement.

Conflict is emotional: it is much greater than a difference of opinions.  It is usually an expression of not being heard, seen, valued or respected.   It is based on a deeply person need and emotional response, based on perceptions which have identified a threat in any form.  If conflict is ignored, it can fester and result in such entrenched opinions and sides that resolution appears impossible (Segal et al, 2020).

The first step is to determine what the actual problem is as perceived by all parties.  The Conflict Tree analogy is especially useful if you respond well to visuals (O’Connor, 2020).  It is an excellent activity for a group or individual to clarify the effects (branches), core problems (trunk), and even causes of the issue (roots).

Once the actual problem is identified, you can move on to tackling a resolution together.

Approaches to Conflict

There are generally five styles for approaching conflict (Benoliel, 2017) and understanding what they are and what style you lean towards, identifies how you will move through the process.  These categories are determined by whether the focus is on the relationship or the end goal of a task/project.  While these may be more specific to workplace conflicts, they certainly identify personal conflict responses as well.

Collaboration is marked by a balanced focus on the relationship with others and meeting long-term objectives.  A Competition style is marked by individuals who are assertive and probably uncooperative who demonstrate that their priority is the outcome of the project more than the relationships.  Although few people enjoy conflict, the Avoidance style focuses on the the immediate unpleasantness and therefore avoids the issues.  This traditionally marks individuals who are unassertive and uncooperative largely because they assume it is safer to ignore than face an issue.  Sometimes there are individuals who will do anything to please others: this Accommodation approach results in self-sacrifice and is usually the route taken by those who care more about the relationship than the outcome.  Unfortunately, they are frequently taken advantage of in their efforts to please others.  Lastly, there are those who prefer the Compromise strategy. This may seem expedient in the attempt to resolve the problem by aiming for mutually acceptable terms and concessions, it does frequently leaves no one side satisfied even though it allows most to maintain an assertive and cooperative stance.

Strategies for Solutions

Sometimes those involved in conflict turn to an third person for assistance to resolve a conflict.  A mediator can listen to the perspectives of those in the dispute and focuses on helping each side hear the concerns and priorities of the other.  Working with the individuals in conflict, a mediator aims to help them create a solution acceptable to both sides.  Sometimes the third party is an Arbitrator whose role is to hear each side and provide a decision to resolve the dispute.  In some cases the conflict results in the even more formal process of a trial.

There are four key skills you need to approach conflict resolution with or without a third party involved (Segal et al, 2020; Fighting Fair, n.d.).

Conflict can be a very stressful experience and your Stress Management is an essential first step.  When we are stressed, we can’t think clearly, we can’t understand someone else’s thoughts or feelings, and it makes communication very difficult.  Use whatever method works best for you to manage your stress.

Once your stress is managed, it is easier to exert Control over your Emotions.  Recognize the emotions you are experiencing to assist in your processing the experience without having a purely emotional response.

With your stress and emotions recognized and managed, it makes it easier to recognize and pay attention to the feelings you and the other people express  and you can Identify Non-Verbal Communication.   Much is said without words and body language is a good indication of how the other person feels towards the situation.

Respect each other is standard for every communication situation and essential to remember if you are in a position of conflict.  Personal attacks, or drawing on personal knowledge, has no productive part in conflict resolution.

Many resources may explain the benefits of humour, but caution should be used.  Sometimes an emotional situation is not the best time for humour as you can unintentionally be seen to diminish the importance another person places on the experience.

Work together to identify the problem by taking the time to see it from multiple perspectives.  Be clear about the desired results and end goal.  Think about the relationships and long term impacts that any course of action may have on all parties.  It takes commitment to resolve a conflict.

Problem Solving

We covered Reflection and Feedback in Chapter 12 and these are essential steps for effective conflict resolution and problem solving. Even the Trial and Error process of problem solving relies on evaluating the success of an action before moving on to another attempt.

Many different approaches to problem solving exist though the basic core approach can be seen across geographic and language borders.  The PDCA approach – Plan, Do, Check, Act – provides the basic four steps process that can be expanded to suit any profession or experience (Plan, Do, Check, Act, 2021).

Problem solving starts with a clear identification of problem.  Then you need to clarify the desired end result.  The development of a plan can be as short or as long as necessary.  Once you have a plan, you have to implement it: Do.  Check is your opportunity to evaluate the success of your plan and make any amendments necessary.  Finally, Act: put your strategy into practice.  An important point to remember is that the reflection and evaluation should be an ongoing part of the solution you implement.

Chapter 13 Check-out:

• Explore Conflict Approaches and Solutions

Remember your last conflict with another person.  How was it resolved?  How would you like it to have been resolved?  What could you have done to implement that change in result?

How do you usually approach problem solving?  How successful has it been for you? 

What, if anything, would you like to change about how you’ve problem solved in the past?

Resources and References

Benoliel, B. (2017). Five styles of conflict resolution.  Walden University.  [Online]  https://www.waldenu.edu/news-and-events/walden-news/2017/0530-whats-your-conflict-management-style

Fighting Fair to Resolve Conflict. (n.d.).  Counselling and Mental Health Centre. University of Texas at Austin. [Online] https://cmhc.utexas.edu/fightingfair.html

Goleman, D. (April 2012). Daniel Goleman Introduces Emotional Intelligence .  Big Think. [Online] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7m9eNoB3NU

Grant, A., (February 2021). The Easiest Person to Fool .  The Hidden Brain. NPR Podcast. [Online] https://hidden-brain.simplecast.com/episodes/the-easiest-person-to-fool-f1hbMrGr

Grant, A., (April 2021). The Science of Productive Conflict . TED Podcast. [Online] https://www.ted.com/podcasts/worklife/the-science-of-productive-conflict-transcript

O’Connor, T., (October 2020). 3 Simple Conflict Analysis Tools That Anyone Can Use. [Online] https://medium.com/p/c30689757a0d

Plan Do Check Act: A Simple Problem Solving Methodology. (2021).  Educational-Business-Articles.com [Online] https://www.educational-business-articles.com/plan-do-check-act/

Segal, J., Robinson, L., and Smith, M. (2020). Conflict Resolution Skills. Helpguide.org. [Online] https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/conflict-resolution-skills.htm

Media Attributions

• Brain Ponder © Luc Grenier

Copyright © by Wendy Ward is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Strategies for Conflict Resolution in the Workplace

• 07 Sep 2023

Any scenario in which you live, work, and collaborate with others is susceptible to conflict. Because workplaces are made up of employees with different backgrounds, personalities, opinions, and daily lives, discord is bound to occur. To navigate it, it’s crucial to understand why it arises and your options for resolving it.

Common reasons for workplace conflict include:

• Misunderstandings or poor communication skills
• Differing opinions, viewpoints, or personalities
• Biases or stereotypes
• Variations in learning or processing styles
• Perceptions of unfairness

Although conflict is common, many don’t feel comfortable handling it—especially with colleagues. As a business leader, you’ll likely clash with other managers and need to help your team work through disputes.

Here’s why conflict resolution is important and five strategies for approaching it.

Access your free e-book today.

Why Is Addressing Workplace Conflict Important?

Pretending conflict doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. Ignoring issues can lead to missed deadlines, festering resentment, and unsuccessful initiatives.

Yet, according to coaching and training firm Bravely , 53 percent of employees handle “toxic” situations by avoiding them. Worse still, averting a difficult conversation can cost an organization $7,500 and more than seven workdays.

That adds up quickly: American businesses lose $359 billion yearly due to the impact of unresolved conflict.

As a leader, you have a responsibility to foster healthy conflict resolution and create a safe, productive work environment for employees.

“Some rights, such as the right to safe working conditions or the right against sexual harassment, are fundamental to the employment relationship,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “These rights are things that employees should be entitled to no matter what. They’re often written into the law, but even when they aren’t, they’re central to the ethical treatment of others, which involves respecting the inherent dignity and intrinsic worth of each individual.”

Effectively resolving disputes as they arise benefits your employees’ well-being and your company’s financial health. The first step is learning about five conflict resolution strategies at your disposal.

Related: How to Navigate Difficult Conversations with Employees

While there are several approaches to conflict, some can be more effective than others. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model —developed by Dr. Kenneth W. Thomas and Dr. Ralph H. Kilmann—outlines five strategies for conflict resolution:

• Accommodating
• Compromising
• Collaborating

These fall on a graph, with assertiveness on the y-axis and cooperativeness on the x-axis. In the Thomas-Kilmann model, “assertiveness” refers to the extent to which you try to reach your own goal, and “cooperativeness” is the extent to which you try to satisfy the other party’s goal.

Alternatively, you can think of these axis labels as the “importance of my goal” and the “importance of this relationship.” If your assertiveness is high, you aim to achieve your own goal. If your cooperativeness is high, you strive to help the other person reach theirs to maintain the relationship.

Here’s a breakdown of the five strategies and when to use each.

1. Avoiding

Avoiding is a strategy best suited for situations in which the relationship’s importance and goal are both low.

While you’re unlikely to encounter these scenarios at work, they may occur in daily life. For instance, imagine you’re on a public bus and the passenger next to you is loudly playing music. You’ll likely never bump into that person again, and your goal of a pleasant bus ride isn’t extremely pressing. Avoiding conflict by ignoring the music is a valid option.

In workplace conflicts—where your goals are typically important and you care about maintaining a lasting relationship with colleagues—avoidance can be detrimental.

Remember: Some situations require avoiding conflict, but you’re unlikely to encounter them in the workplace.

2. Competing

Competing is another strategy that, while not often suited for workplace conflict, can be useful in some situations.

This conflict style is for scenarios in which you place high importance on your goal and low importance on your relationships with others. It’s high in assertiveness and low in cooperation.

You may choose a competing style in a crisis. For instance, if someone is unconscious and people are arguing about what to do, asserting yourself and taking charge can help the person get medical attention quicker.

You can also use it when standing up for yourself and in instances where you feel unsafe. In those cases, asserting yourself and reaching safety is more critical than your relationships with others.

When using a competing style in situations where your relationships do matter (for instance, with a colleague), you risk impeding trust—along with collaboration, creativity, and productivity.

3. Accommodating

The third conflict resolution strategy is accommodation, in which you acquiesce to the other party’s needs. Use accommodating in instances where the relationship matters more than your goal.

For example, if you pitch an idea for a future project in a meeting, and one of your colleagues says they believe it will have a negative impact, you could resolve the conflict by rescinding your original thought.

This is useful if the other person is angry or hostile or you don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. It immediately deescalates conflict by removing your goal from the equation.

While accommodation has its place within organizational settings, question whether you use it to avoid conflict. If someone disagrees with you, simply acquiescing can snuff out opportunities for innovation and creative problem-solving .

As a leader, notice whether your employees frequently fall back on accommodation. If the setting is safe, encouraging healthy debate can lead to greater collaboration.

Related: How to Create a Culture of Ethics and Accountability in the Workplace

4. Compromising

Compromising is a conflict resolution strategy in which you and the other party willingly forfeit some of your needs to reach an agreement. It’s known as a “lose-lose” strategy, since neither of you achieve your full goal.

This strategy works well when your care for your goal and the relationship are both moderate. You value the relationship, but not so much that you abandon your goal, like in accommodation.

For example, maybe you and a peer express interest in leading an upcoming project. You could compromise by co-leading it or deciding one of you leads this one and the other the next one.

Compromising requires big-picture thinking and swallowing your pride, knowing you won’t get all your needs fulfilled. The benefits are that you and the other party value your relationship and make sacrifices to reach a mutually beneficial resolution.

5. Collaborating

Where compromise is a lose-lose strategy, collaboration is a win-win. In instances of collaboration, your goal and the relationship are equally important, motivating both you and the other party to work together to find an outcome that meets all needs.

An example of a situation where collaboration is necessary is if one of your employees isn’t performing well in their role—to the point that they’re negatively impacting the business. While maintaining a strong, positive relationship is important, so is finding a solution to their poor performance. Framing the conflict as a collaboration can open doors to help each other discover its cause and what you can do to improve performance and the business’s health.

Collaboration is ideal for most workplace conflicts. Goals are important, but so is maintaining positive relationships with co-workers. Promote collaboration whenever possible to find creative solutions to problems . If you can’t generate a win-win idea, you can always fall back on compromise.

Considering Your Responsibilities as a Leader

As a leader, not only must you address your own conflicts but help your employees work through theirs. When doing so, remember your responsibilities to your employees—whether ethical, legal, or economic.

Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability groups your ethical responsibilities to employees into five categories:

• Well-being: What’s ultimately good for the person
• Rights: Entitlement to receive certain treatment
• Duties: A moral obligation to behave in a specific way
• Best practices: Aspirational standards not required by law or cultural norms
• Fairness: Impartial and just treatment

In the course, Hsieh outlines three types of fairness you can use when helping employees solve conflicts:

• Legitimate expectations: Employees reasonably expect certain practices or behaviors to continue based on experiences with the organization and explicit promises.
• Procedural fairness: Managers must resolve issues impartially and consistently.
• Distributive fairness: Your company equitably allocates opportunities, benefits, and burdens.

Particularly with procedural fairness, ensure you don’t take sides when mediating conflict. Treat both parties equally, allowing them time to speak and share their perspectives. Guide your team toward collaboration or compromise, and work toward a solution that achieves the goal while maintaining—and even strengthening—relationships.

Are you interested in learning how to navigate difficult decisions as a leader? Explore Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free guide to becoming a more effective leader.

About the Author

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Conflict management.

• Patricia Elgoibar , Patricia Elgoibar University of Barcelona
• Martin Euwema Martin Euwema Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
•  and  Lourdes Munduate Lourdes Munduate University of Seville
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.5
• Published online: 28 June 2017

Conflicts are part of nature and certainly part of human relations, between individuals, as well as within and between groups. Conflicts occur in every domain of life: family, work, and society, local and global. Conflict management, therefore, is an essential competency for each person. People differ largely in their emotional and behavioral responses to conflict and need to learn how to behave effectively in different conflict situations. This requires a contingency approach, first assessing the conflict situation, and then choosing a strategy, matching the goals of the party. In most situations, fostering cooperative relations will be most beneficial; however, this is also most challenging. Therefore, constructive conflict management strategies, including trust building and methods of constructive controversy, are emphasized. Conflict management, however, is broader than the interaction of the conflicting parties. Third-party interventions are an essential element of constructive conflict management, particularly the assessment of which parties are intervening in what ways at what escalation stage.

• cooperation
• competition
• conflict behavior
• conglomerate conflict behavior
• constructive conflict management
• conflict resolution strategies

Definition of Conflict

Conflicts are part of nature, and certainly part of human relations. People experience conflict with other persons, in teams or in groups, as well as between larger entities, departments, organizations, communities, and countries. Conflicts appear at home, at work, and in our spare-time activities with friends, with people we love and with people we hate, as well as with our superiors and with our subordinates and coworkers. Parties need to accept conflicts as part of life dynamics and learn to deal with them effectively and efficiently. Conflict management refers to the way we manage incompatible actions with others, where others can be a person or a group.

Conflict is a component of interpersonal interactions; it is neither inevitable nor intrinsically bad, but it is commonplace (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ; Schellenberg, 1996 ). In the 20th century , Lewin ( 1935 ) concluded that an intrinsic state of tension motivates group members to move toward the accomplishment of their desired common goals. Later on, Parker Follett ( 1941 ) explored the constructive side of conflict and defined conflict as the appearance of difference, difference of opinions or difference of interests. Deutsch ( 1949 ) developed this line of thought and analyzed the relation between the way group members believe their goals are related and their interactions and relationships.

A common definition of conflict argues that there is a conflict between two (or more) parties (individuals or groups) if at least one of them is offended, or feels bothered by the other (Van de Vliert, 1997 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Traditionally, conflict has been defined as opposing interests involving scarce resources and goal divergence and frustration (Pondy, 1967 ). However, Deutsch ( 1973 ) defined conflict as incompatible activities: one person's actions interfere, obstruct, or in some way get in the way of another's action. Tjosvold, Wan, and Tang ( 2016 ) proposed that defining conflict as incompatible actions is a much stronger foundation than defining conflict as opposing interests, because conflicts also can occur when people have common goals (i.e., they may disagree about the best means to achieve their common goals). The key contribution of Deutsch’s ( 1973 ) proposal is that incompatible activities occur in both compatible and incompatible goal contexts. Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interaction, and outcomes as they approach conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Conflict

Euwema and Giebels ( 2017 ) highlighted some key elements of conflict.

Conflict implies dependence and interdependence. Parties rely to some extent on the other parties to realize their goals (Kaufman, Elgoibar, & Borbely, 2016 ). This interdependence can be positive (a cooperative context), negative (a competitive context), or mixed. Positive interdependence is strongly related to cooperative conflict behaviors, while negative interdependence triggers competitive behaviors (Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ). Interdependence also reflects the power difference between parties. A short-term contractor on a low-paid job usually is much more dependent on the employer than vice versa. Many conflicts, however, can be seen as “mixed motive” situations.

Conflicts are mostly mixed motive situations because parties have simultaneous motives to cooperate and motives to compete. Parties are, on the one hand, dependent on each other to realize their goal, and, on the other hand, they are at the same time competitors. For example, two colleagues on a team are cooperating for the same team result; however, there is competition for the role as project leader. In a soccer team, the players have a team goal of working together to win, but they can be competing to be the top scorer. The mixed motive structure is very important to understand conflict dynamics. When conflicts arise, the competitive aspects become more salient, and the cooperative structure often is perceived less by parties. Interventions to solve conflict, therefore, are often related to these perceptions and the underlying structures.

Conflict is a psychological experience. Conflict is by definition a personal and subjective experience, as each individual can perceive and manage the same conflict in a different manner. Conflict doesn’t necessarily have an objective basis (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). It depends on the perception of the specific situation, and the perception is by definition subjective and personal.

Conflict concerns cognitive and affective tension. When someone perceives blocked goals and disagreements, he or she can also, although not necessarily, feel fear or anger. Many authors consider that conflict is emotionally charged (Nair, 2007 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Sinaceur, Adam, Van Kleef, & Galinky, 2013 ), although the emotion doesn’t need to be labeled necessarily as a negative emotion. Some people actually enjoy conflict. Emotional experiences in conflict are also scripted by cultural, historical, and personal influences (Lindner, 2014 ).

Conflict can be unidirectional. One party can feel frustrated or thwarted by the other while the second party is hardly aware of, and doesn’t perceive the same reality of, the conflict.

Conflict is a process. Conflict is a dynamic process that does not appear suddenly, but takes some time to develop and passes through several stages (Spaho, 2013 ). Conflict is the process resulting from the tension in interpersonal interactions or between team members because of real or perceived differences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ).

Type of Conflict: Task, Process, and Relationship Conflict

Early conflict and organizational research concluded that conflict interferes with team performance and reduces satisfaction due to an increase in tension and distraction from the objective (Brown, 1983 ; Hackman & Morris, 1975 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Jehn ( 1995 ) differentiated between task and relational conflict, and later also included process conflict (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ). Task conflict refers to different opinions on content (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). Examples of task conflict are conflict about distribution of resources, about procedures and policies, and judgment and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). Process conflict refers to how tasks should be accomplished (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008 ). Examples are disagreements about logistic and delegation issues (Jehn et al., 2008 ). Finally, relationship conflict refers to “interpersonal incompatibility” (Jehn, 1995 , p. 257). Examples of relationship conflict are conflict about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). All three types of conflict—task, process, and personal (relational) conflicts—are usually disruptive, especially personal conflict, which is highly disruptive (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Jehn, 1995 , 1997 ). A review and meta-analysis by De Wit et al. ( 2012 ) showed that, under specific conditions, task conflict can be productive for teams. Moreover, conflict can wreck a team’s efforts to share information and reach a consensus (Amason & Schweiger, 1994 ). Therefore, research supporting the benefit of task and relationship conflict is not conclusive and each situation varies. What seems to be clear is that managing conflict efficiently to avoid escalation is a priority for teams.

Conflict Behavior, Conflict Management, and Conflict Resolution

Conflict behavior, conflict management, and conflict resolution are different layers of a conflict process and therefore should be distinguished. Conflict behavior is any behavioral response to the experience of frustration, while conflict management is the deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, both to prevent or to escalate them. Also, conflict management is differentiated from conflict resolution, which is specific action aimed to end a conflict.

Conflict Behavior

Conflict behavior is the behavioral response to the experience of conflict (Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). Conflict behavior is defined as one party’s reaction to the perception that one’s own and the other party’s current aspiration cannot be achieved simultaneously (Deutsch, 1973 ; Pruitt, 1981 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ). It is both what people experiencing conflict intend to do, as well as what they actually do (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). In conflict situations people often respond primarily, following their emotions, more or less conscientiously.

Many factors affect how people respond to the experience of conflict. Social psychology shows the processes are largely unconscious (Wilson, 2004 ). For example, how people respond to intimidating behavior by their supervisor might be primarily influenced by the context and individual perception, as well as previous relations with persons in authority, including parents and teachers (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ). These natural behavioral responses are also referred to as “conflict styles.” They are rooted in our personality and can differ in context. Some people will naturally respond by being friendly and accommodating, where others will start arguing or fighting (Barbuto, Phipps, & Xu, 2010 ; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ).

Conflict behavior becomes more effective once we are more aware of our natural tendencies and are also able not to act upon them, and instead to show flexibility in behavioral approaches. This is where conflict behavior becomes conflict management. Therefore, one can be a naturally highly accommodating person who will spontaneously give in to others who make demands, but one will be more effective after learning to assess the situation at hand and to carefully decide on a response, which might be quite different from the natural or spontaneous reaction.

Dual-Concern Model

The dual-concern model holds that the way in which parties handle conflicts can de described and is determined by two concerns: concern for self (own interests) and concern for others (relational interests) (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 1983 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Van de Vliert, 1999 ) (see Figure 1 ). Usually, the two concerns define five different conflict behaviors: forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem solving or integrating. These behaviors are studied at the level of general personal conflict styles, closely connected to personality, as well as at the level of strategies and tactics (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ).

The different conflict styles have been studied intensively, with three approaches. A normative approach, wherein integrating (also known as problem solving) is seen as the preferred behavior for conflict resolution; a contingency approach, exploring conditions under which each of the behaviors is most appropriate; and a conglomerate approach, focusing on a combination of the behaviors (see “ Conglomerate Conflict Behavior ”).

Figure 1. Dual-concern model.

In forcing, one party aims to achieve his or her goal by imposing a solution onto the other party. Concern for one’s own interests and own vision is what matters. There is little attention and care for the interests and needs of the other party, or the relationship with the other (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ). This style is appropriate when the outcome is important for one party but trivial to the opponent, or when fast decision making is necessary. It becomes inappropriate when issues are complex, when both parties are equally powerful, when the outcome is not worth the effort for one party, or when there is enough time to make a collective decision. Moreover, forcing decisions can seriously damage a relationship and contribute to bullying in the workplace (Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, & De Witte, 2014 ); however, normative forcing, which is referring to rules and imposing them, can be effective (De Dreu, 2005 ). Note that some alternative terms that have been used for forcing in the literature are competitive , contending , or adversarial behavior .

With avoiding, one party aims to stay out of any confrontation with the other. This behavior prevents efforts to yield, to negotiate constructively, or to compete for one’s own gains. The conflict issue receives little attention, usually because the avoiding party thinks he or she won’t gain from entering into the conflict (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Avoiding may be used when the benefits of resolving the conflict are not worth confronting the other party, especially when the problem is trivial or minor; when no good solutions are available for now; or when time is needed (Van Erp et al., 2011 ). An important motive for avoiding also is to prevent loss of face and to maintain the relationship. This is particularly true in collectivistic cultures, particularly in Asian societies (Oetzel et al., 2001 ). Avoiding is inappropriate when the issues are important to a party, when the parties cannot wait, or when immediate action is required (Rahim, 2002 ). Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim ( 1994 ) distinguished between long-term avoidance, which is a permanent move to leave the conflict, and short-term avoidance, defined as temporary inaction.

Accommodating

Accommodating is giving in or going along with the ideas, wishes, and needs of the other party. Accommodating usually is the result of a low concern for one’s own conflictive interests combined with a high concern for the interests and needs of the other party. Giving in often is related to a strong need for harmony and a sensitivity to the needs of the other. Accommodation is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in the conflict, when the opponent is right, when the issue is much more important to the other party, and in order to build or maintain a long-term relationship, in exchange for future consideration when needed. Giving in also can be an educational strategy, giving space to the other to find out what the effect will be. Accommodating is less appropriate when the issue is of great concern, when accommodation creates frustration, or when accommodation reinforces dynamics of exploitation (Spaho, 2013 ). Note that an alternative term for this concept that can be found in the literature is yielding .

Compromising

Compromising involves searching for a middle ground, with an eye on both one’s own interest and the interest of the other. The premise is that both parties must find a middle ground where everyone receives equal consideration, meaning that each party makes some concession (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Compromising is appropriate when a balance of forces exists and the goals of parties are mutually exclusive (Buddhodev, 2011 ). Compromise leads to a democratic solution; however, it may prevent arriving at a creative solution to the problem and a limited effort to increase resources before distributing them (Spaho, 2013 ).

Problem Solving or Integrating

Problem solving is a win–win strategy aimed at “optimizing rather than satisfying the parties” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 36). Great value is attached to one’s own interests and vision, but also a lot of attention is given to the needs, ideas, and interests of the other. One looks for open and creative solutions that meet both interests. Problem solving or integrating is useful in dealing with complex issues, and it allows both parties to share skills, information, and other resources to redefine the problem and formulate alternative solutions. It is, however, inappropriate when the task is simple or trivial, and when there is no time. Also, it is more difficult to develop when the other party does not have experience in problem solving or when the parties are unconcerned about the outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). Note that some alternative terms that can be found in the literature for this concept are cooperation and collaboration .

The dual-concern model is used as a contingency model, describing which conflict behaviors are used best under what conditions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997 ), and also as a normative model, promoting integrating behaviors as the most effective style, particularly when it comes to joined outcomes and long-term effectiveness. Forcing, in contrast, is often described as a noncooperative behavior, with risk of escalated and unilateral outcomes (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Burke, 1970 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 2010 ; Thomas, 1992 ). As a result, authors define forcing and integrating as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999 ). Following this model, many scholars during the 1970s and 1980s proposed that individuals use a single behavior in conflict, or that the behaviors should be seen as independent. Therefore, the antecedents and effects of different conflict behaviors are often analyzed separately (Tjosvold, 1997 ; Volkema & Bergmann, 2001 ). However, parties usually try to achieve personal outcomes, and try to reach mutual agreements by combining several behaviors in a conflict episode (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). This is the basic assumption of the conglomerate conflict behavior (CCB) theory (Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995 ), which established that conflict behaviors are used in a compatible manner, sequentially or simultaneously.

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB)

In the dual-concern model, a contrast is made between forcing (contending with an adversary in a direct way) and integrating (reconciling the parties’ basic interests) as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold et al., 1999 ). However, the CCB framework assumes that individual reactions to conflict typically are complex and consist of multiple components of behavior (Van de Vliert, 1997 , Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). The CCB theory covers the idea that behavioral components may occur simultaneously or sequentially and that the combination drives toward effectiveness (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Medina & Benitez, 2011 ). The theory has been supported in studies analyzing conflict management effectiveness in different contexts, such as in managerial behavior (Munduate, Ganaza, Peiro, & Euwema, 1999 ), in military peacekeeping (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ) and by worker representatives in organizations (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

The main reason that people combine different behaviors is because conflicts are often mixed-motive situations (Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003 ; Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). Mixed-motive situations are described as situations that pose a conflict between securing immediate benefits through competition, and pursuing benefits for oneself and others through cooperation with other people (Komorita & Parks, 1995 ; Sheldon & Fishbach, 2011 ). Therefore, a person's behavior in a conflict episode is viewed as a combination of some of the five forms of conflict behaviors. An example of sequential complex behavior is to first put the demands clearly (forcing), followed by integrating (searching for mutual gains, and expanding the pie), and finally compromising, where distributive issues are dealt with in a fair way. An example of serial complexity can be found in multi-issue conflict, when for some issues conflict can be avoided, while for high priorities, demands are put on the table in a forcing way. Another CCB pattern is the conglomeration of accommodating and forcing. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “logrolling” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 35), and it is a classic part of integrative strategies, to maximize the outcomes for both parties. Logrolling behavior consists of accommodating the high-concern issues of the other party and forcing one’s own high-concern issues. This approach is usually helpful in multi-issue trade negotiations; however, it requires openness of both parties to acknowledging key interests.

How to Explore Your Tendency in Conflict

The most famous and popular conflict behavior questionnaires are:

MODE (Management of Differences Exercise). MODE, developed in 1974 by Thomas and Killman, presents 30 choices between two options representing different conflict styles.

ROCI (Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory). The ROCI is a list of 28 items that measures the five styles of conflict behavior described.

Dutch Test of Conflict Handling. This list of 20 items measures the degree of preference for the five styles (Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994 ; De Dreu et al., 2001 , 2005 ). It has been validated internationally.

Conflict management is deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, either to prevent or to escalate them. Unlike conflict behavior, conflict management encompasses cognitive responses to conflict situations, which can vary from highly competitive to highly cooperative. Conflict management does not necessarily involve avoidance, reduction, or termination of conflict. It involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and to enhance the constructive functions of conflict in order to improve team and organizational effectiveness (Rahim, 2002 ).

Conflicts are not necessarily destructive (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema, Munduate, Elgoibar, Pender, & Garcia, 2015 ), and research has shown that constructive conflict management is possible (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ). The benefits of conflict are much more likely to arise when conflicts are discussed openly, and when discussion skillfully promotes new ideas and generates creative insights and agreements (Coleman et al., 2014 ; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema et al., 2015 ; Tjosvold, Won, & Chen, 2014 ). To make a constructive experience from conflict, conflict needs to be managed effectively.

Deutsch’s classic theory of competition and cooperation describes the antecedents and consequences of parties’ cooperative or competitive orientations and allows insights into what can give rise to constructive or destructive conflict processes (Deutsch, 1973 , 2002 ). The core of the theory is the perceived interdependence of the parties, so that the extent that protagonists believe that their goals are cooperative (positively related) or competitive (negatively related) affects their interaction and thus the outcomes. Positive interdependence promotes openness, cooperative relations, and integrative problem solving. Perceived negative interdependence on the other hand, induces more distance and less openness, and promotes competitive behavior, resulting in distributive bargaining or win–lose outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interactions, and outcomes. If parties perceive that they can reach their goals only if the other party also reaches their goals, the goal interdependence is positively perceived and therefore parties will have higher concern for the other’s goals and manage the conflict cooperatively (De Dreu et al., 2001 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). On the contrary, if one party perceives that they can reach their goals only if the other party fails to obtain their goals, the interdependence becomes negatively perceived and the approach to conflict becomes competitive (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Goals can also be independent; in that case, conflict can be avoided (the parties don’t need to obstruct each other’s goals to be successful). Therefore, how parties perceive their goals’ interdependence affects how they negotiate conflict and whether the conflict is constructively or destructively managed (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 2008 ).

Successfully managing conflict cooperatively requires intellectual, emotional, and relational capabilities in order to share information, to contribute to value creation, and to discuss differences constructively (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). In contrast, a competitive-destructive process leads to material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relations between parties, and negative psychological effects on at least one party—the loser of a win–lose context (Deutsch, 2014 ).

Deutsch’s theory proposes that emphasizing cooperative goals in conflict by demonstrating a commitment to pursue mutually beneficial solutions creates high-quality resolutions and relationships, while focusing on competitive interests by pursuing one’s own goals at the expense of the other’s escalates conflict, resulting in imposed solutions and suspicious relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

In summary, Deutsch’s theory states that the context in which the conflict process is expressed drives parties toward either a cooperative or a competitive orientation in conflicts (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 2006 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ). In other words, a cooperative context is related to a cooperative conflict pattern, and a competitive context is related to a competitive conflict pattern. When parties have a cooperative orientation toward conflict, parties discuss their differences with the objective of clarifying them and attempting to find a solution that is satisfactory to both parties—both parties win (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ). On the contrary, in competition, there is usually a winner and a loser (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ) (see Table 1 ). In the CCB model, the patterns can include cooperative (i.e., integrating) and competitive (i.e. forcing) behavior; however, the cooperative pattern will be dominated by integrating while the competitive pattern will be dominated by forcing (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

Table 1. Characteristics of Cooperative and Competitive Climates

Source : Coleman, Deutsch, and Marcus ( 2014 ).

How to Manage Conflicts Constructively

The need for trust.

Trust is commonly defined as a belief or expectation about others’ benevolent motives during a social interaction (Holmes & Rempel, 1989 ; Rousseau et al., 1998 ). Mutual trust is one important antecedent as well as a consequence of cooperation in conflicts (Deutsch, 1983 ; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008 ). As Nahapiet and Ghoshal pointed out, “Trust lubricates cooperation, and cooperation itself breeds trust” ( 1998 , p.255). There is ample evidence that constructive conflict and trust are tightly and positively related (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009 ; Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003 ; Lewicki, Tonlinson, & Gillespie, 2006 ).

Successful constructive conflict management requires maximal gathering and exchange of information in order to identify problems and areas of mutual concern, to search for alternatives, to assess their implications, and to achieve openness about preferences in selecting optimal solutions (Bacon & Blyton, 2007 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 1999 ). Trust gives parties the confidence to be open with each other, knowing that the shared information won’t be used against them (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006 ). Various studies revealed that trust leads to constructive conglomerate behaviors and to more integrative outcomes in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts (Lewicki, Elgoibar, & Euwema, 2016 ; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998 ; Ross & LaCroix, 1996 ).

How can trust be promoted? Developing trust is challenging (Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2014 ; Hempel et al., 2009 ). Numerous scholars have noted that trust is easier to destroy than to create (Hempel et al., 2009 ; Meyerson et al., 1996 ). There are two main reasons for this assertion. First, trust-breaking events are often more visible and noticeable than positive trust-building actions (Kramer, 1999 ). Second, trust-breaking events are judged to have a higher impact on trust judgments than positive events (Slovic, 1993 ). Furthermore, Slovic ( 1993 ) concluded that trust-breaking events are more credible than sources of good news. Thus, the general belief is that trust is easier to destroy than it is to build, and trust rebuilding may take even longer than it took to create the original level of trust (Lewicki et al., 2016 ).

However, there is room for optimism, and different strategies have been shown to promote trust. As held in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), risk taking by one party in supporting the other party has been found to signal trust to the other party (Serva et al., 2005 ). Yet, fears of exploitation make trust in conflict management and negotiation scarce. Therefore, the use of trust-promoting strategies depends on the specific situation, and parties need practical guidance on how and when to manage conflict constructively by means of promoting mutual trust.

How does the possibility of trust development between parties depend on the conflict context? Based on this practical question, some strategies for trust development have been proposed (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012 ; Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2012 ; Lewicki et al., 2016 ). In relationships where trust is likely, the following strategies can help: assume trustworthiness, prioritize your interests and give away a little information about them, engage in reciprocity (concessions), highlight similarities and spend time together, get to know your counterpart personally and try to be likable, behave consistently and predictably, and paraphrase your counterpart’s positions. In relationships where trust seems possible: emphasize common goals; focus on the subject, not on the people; look to the future and find a shared vision; mix questions and answers about interests and priorities—the fundamental elements of information sharing—with making and justifying offers; take a break; suggest another approach; call in a mediator; and forgive the other party’s mistakes. In relationships where trust is not possible, more cautious strategies can help: make multi-issue offers; think holistically about your counterpart’s interests; engage in reciprocity (concessions); express sympathy, apologize, or compliment your counterpart; and look for preference patterns in your counterpart’s offers and responses.

Constructive Controversy

C onstructive controversy is defined as the open-minded discussion of conflicting perspectives for mutual benefit, which occurs when protagonists express their opposing ideas that obstruct resolving the issues, at least temporarily (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Indicators of constructive controversy include listening carefully to each other’s opinion, trying to understand each other’s concerns, and using opposing views to understand the problem better. These skills are considered vitally important for developing and implementing cooperative problem-solving processes successfully and effectively.

Deutsch ( 2014 ) stated that there haven’t been many systematic discussions of the skills involved in constructive solutions to conflict, and he proposed three main types of skills for constructive conflict management:

Rapport-building skills are involved in establishing effective relationships between parties (such as breaking the ice; reducing fears, tensions, and suspicion; overcoming resistance to negotiation; and fostering realistic hope and optimism).

Cooperative conflict-resolution skills are concerned with developing and maintaining a cooperative conflict resolution process among the parties involved (such as identifying the type of conflict in which the parties are involved; reframing the issues so that conflict is perceived as a mutual problem to be resolved cooperatively; active listening and responsive communication; distinguishing between effective relationships between parties and positions; encouraging, supporting, and enhancing the parties; being alert to cultural differences and the possibilities of misunderstanding arising from them; and controlling anger).

Group process and decision-making skills are involved in developing a creative and productive process (such as monitoring progress toward group goals; eliciting, clarifying, coordinating, summarizing, and integrating the contributions of the various participants; and maintaining group cohesion).

Tjosvold et al. ( 2014 ) and Johnson et al. ( 2014 ) also elaborate on the skills needed for facilitating open-minded discussions and constructive controversy. They developed four mutually reinforcing strategies for managing conflict constructively:

Developing and expressing one’s own view. Parties need to know what each of the others wants and believes, and expressing one’s own needs, feelings, and ideas is essential to gaining that knowledge. By strengthening expression of their own positions, both parties can learn to investigate their position, present the best case they can for it, defend it vigorously, and try at the same time to refute opposing views. However, expressing one’s own position needs to be supplemented with an open-minded approach to the other’s position.

Questioning and understanding others’ views. Listening and understanding opposing views, as well as defending one’s own views, makes discussing conflicts more challenging but also more rewarding; therefore, the parties can point out weaknesses in each other’s arguments to encourage better development and expression of positions by finding more evidence and strengthening their reasoning.

Integrating and creating solutions. The creation of new alternatives lays the foundation for genuine agreements about a solution that both parties can accept and implement. However, protagonists may have to engage in repeated discussion to reach an agreement, or indeed they may be unable to create a solution that is mutually acceptable, and then they can both learn to become less adamant, to exchange views directly, and to show that they are trying to understand and integrate each other’s ideas so that all may benefit.

Agreeing to and implementing solutions. Parties can learn to seek the best reasoned judgment, instead of focusing on “winning”; to criticize ideas, not people; to listen and understand everyone’s position, even if they do not agree with it; to differentiate positions before trying to integrate them; and to change their minds when logically persuaded to do so.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution processes are aimed at ending a conflict. So, while conflict management can also include escalation, conflict resolution searches for a way of ending the conflict. The difference between resolution and management of conflict is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978 ). Conflict resolution means reduction, elimination, or termination of conflict.

To find a resolution, parties have to bring an extra piece of information, relate the information they have differently, or transform the issue, change the rules, change the actors or the structure, or bring in a third party (Vayrynen, 1991 ). The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002 ). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016 ).

Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which the parties attempt to jointly create an agreement that resolves a conflict between them (Lewicki & Tomlinson, 2014 ). Walton and McKersie ( 1965 ) were the first to identify the two polar yet interdependent strategies known as distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation means that activities are instrumental to the attainment of one party’s goals when they are in basic conflict with those of the other party. Integrative negotiation means that parties’ activities are oriented to find common or complementary interests and to solve problems confronting both parties. Other scholars also focused on the opposite tactical requirements of the two strategies, using a variety of terms, such as contending versus cooperating (Pruitt, 1981 ), claiming value versus creating value (Lax & Sebenius, 1987 ), and the difference between positions and interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ).

If a distributive strategy is pursued too vigorously, a negotiator may gain a greater share of gains, but of a smaller set of joint gains, or, worse, may generate an outcome in which both parties lose. However, if a negotiator pursues an integrative negotiation in a single-minded manner—being totally cooperative and giving freely accurate and credible information about his/her interests—he or she can be taken advantage of by the other party (Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). The different proposals that have been formulated to cope with these central dilemmas in negotiation are mainly based on a back-and-forth communication process between the parties, which is linked to the negotiators’ interpersonal skills (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Mediation is process by which a third party facilitates constructive communication among disputants, including decision making, problem solving and negotiation, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement (Bollen, Munduate, & Euwema, 2016 ; Goldman, Cropanzano, Stein, & Benson, 2008 ; Moore, 2014 ). Using mediation in conflict resolution has been proven to prevent the negative consequences of conflict in the workplace (Bollen & Euwema, 2010 ; Bollen et al., 2016 ), in collective bargaining (Martinez-Pecino et al., 2008 ), in inter- and intragroup relations (Jones, 2016 ), and in interpersonal relations (Herrman, 2006 ). However, mediation is not a magic bullet and works better in conflicts that are moderate rather than extreme, when parties are motivated to resolve the conflict, and when parties have equal power, among other characteristics (Kressel, 2014 ).

Conflict Coaching

Conflict coaching is a new and rapidly growing process in the public as well as private sector (Brinkert, 2016 ). In this process, a conflict coach works with a party to accomplish three goals (Jones & Brinkert, 2008 ): (a) analysis and coherent understanding of the conflict, (b) identification of a future preferred direction, and (c) skills development to implement the preferred strategy. Therefore, a conflict coach is defined as a conflict expert who respects the other party’s self-determination and aims to promote the well-being of the parties involved. Giebels and Janssen ( 2005 ) found that, when outside help was called in, parties in conflict experienced fewer negative consequences in terms of individual well-being than people who did not ask for third-party help.

Sometimes, the leader of a team can act as conflict coach. A study by Romer and colleagues ( 2012 ) showed that a workplace leader’s problem-solving approach to conflicts increased employees’ perception of justice and their sense that they had a voice in their workplace, as well as reduced employees’ stress (De Reuver & Van Woerkom, 2010 ; Romer et al., 2012 ). In contrast, the direct expression of power in the form of forcing behavior can harm employees’ well-being (Peterson & Harvey, 2009 ). A forcing leader may become an additional party to the conflict (i.e., employees may turn against their leader; Romer et al, 2012 ).

Conflict coaching and mediation are different processes. First, in conflict coaching, only one party is involved in the process, while in mediation, the mediator helps all the parties in conflict to engage in constructive interaction. Second, conflict coaching focuses on direct skills instructions to the party (i.e., negotiation skills). In that, conflict coaching is also a leadership development tool (Romer et al., 2012 ). There is a growing tendency to integrate conflict coaching and workplace mediation, particularly in preparation for conflict resolution, because the coach can help the coached party to investigate options and weigh the advantages of the different options (Jones, 2016 ).

Arbitration

Arbitration is an institutionalized procedure in which a third party provides a final and binding or voluntary decision (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2014 ; Mohr & Spekman, 1994 ). Arbitration allows the parties to have control over the process, but not over the outcomes. Therefore, arbitration differs from negotiation, mediation, and conflict coaching, in which the parties decide the agreement themselves (Posthuma & Dworkin, 2000 ; Lewicki et al., 2014 ). In arbitration, the third party listens to the parties and decides the outcome. This procedure is used mainly in conflicts between organizations, in commercial disputes, and in collective labor conflicts (Beechey, 2000 ; Elkouri & Elkouri, 1995 ).

Decision Making by Authorities

The strategies of negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration have in common that the parties together decide about the conflict process, even when they agree to accept an arbitration. This is different from how authorities resolve conflict. Decision making by authorities varies from parents’ intervening in children’s fights to rulings by teachers, police officers, managers, complaint officers, ombudsmen, and judges. Here, often one party complains and the authority acts to intervene and end the conflict. This strategy is good for ending physical violence and misuse of power. However, the authorities’ decisive power is limited, and therefore in most situations authorities are strongly urged to first explore the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation among the parties involved. The authority can act as an escalator for the process, or as a facilitator, and only in cases of immediate threat can intervene or rule as a last resort. Authorities who employ this strategy can improve the learning skills of the parties and can impose upon the parties an acceptance of responsibility, both for the conflict and for the ways to end it.

It is important to emphasize the natural and positive aspects of conflict management. Conflict occurs in all areas of organizations and private lives and its management is vital for their effectiveness. Through conflict, conventional thinking is challenged, threats and opportunities are identified, and new solutions are forged (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Therefore, when conflict occurs, it shouldn’t be avoided but should be managed constructively.

Further Reading

• Coleman, P. , Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution . Theory and practice . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• De Dreu, C.K.W. , Evers, A. , Beersma, B. , Kluwer, E. , & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory—based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 (6), 645–668.
• Elgoibar, P. , Euwema, M. , & Munduate, L. (2016). Trust building and constructive conflict management in industrial relations . Springer International.
• Lewicki, R. J. , McAllister, D. J. , & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationship and realities. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 438–458.
• Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M.C. , & Huismans, S.E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 271–281.
• Wall, J. A. , & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management , 21 , 515–558.
• Alper, S. , Tjosvold, D. , & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 625–642.
• Amason, A. C. , & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict: Strategic decision making and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 5 , 239–253.
• Bacon, N. , & Blyton, P. (2007). Conflict for mutual gains. Journal of Management Studies , 44 (5), 814–834.
• Baillien, E. , Bollen, K. , Euwema, M. , & De Witte, H. (2014). Conflicts and conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 23 (4), 511–524.
• Barbuto, J. E. , Phipps, K. A. , & Xu, Y. (2010). Testing relationships between personality, conflict styles and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management , 21 (4), 434–447.
• Beechey, J. (2000) International commercial arbitration: A process under review and change. Dispute Resolution Journal , 55 (3), 32–36.
• Bijlsma, K. , & Koopman, P. (2003) Introduction: Trust within organizations. Personnel Review , 32 (5), 543–555.
• Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston: Gulf.
• Blau, E. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . New York: Wiley.
• Bollen, K. , Euwema, M. , & Müller, P. (2010). Why Are Subordinates Less Satisfied with Mediation? The Role of Uncertainty. Negotiation Journal , 26 (4), 417–433.
• Bollen, K. , & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. Negotiation Journal , 29 , 329–353.
• Bollen, K. , Munduate, L. , & Euwema, M. (2016). Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
• Brett, J. M. , Shapiro, D. L. , & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal , 41 (4), 410–424.
• Brinkert, R. (2016). An appreciative approach to conflict: Mediation and conflict coaching. In K. Bollen , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
• Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Buddhodev, S. A. (2011). Conflict management: making life easier. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills , 5 (4), 31–43.
• Burke, R. J. (1970). Methods of resolving superior-subordinate conflict: The constructive use of subordinate differences and disagreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 5 , 393–411.
• Carnevale, P. J. , & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology , 43 , 531–582.
• Coleman, P. , Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and practice . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• De Dreu, C. K. (2005). Conflict and conflict management. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management , 11 , 1–4.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Evers, A. , Beersma, B. , Kluwer, E. , & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 (6), 645–668.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (4), 741–749.
• De Reuver, R. , & Van Woerkom, M. (2010). Can conflict management be an antidote to subordinate absenteeism? Journal of Managerial Psychology , 25 (5), 479–494.
• De Wit, F. R. , Greer, L. L. , & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 (2), 360–390.
• Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations , 2 , 129–151.
• Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Deutsch, M. (1983). Conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Political Psychology , 4 , 43–453.
• Deutsch, M. (2002). Social psychology’s contributions to the study of conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal , 18 (4), 307–320.
• Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch , P. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• Deutsch, M. (2014), Cooperation, competition and conflict. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and Practice . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3d ed., pp. 817–848). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Elgoibar, P. (2013). Worker representatives' conflict behavior in Europe with a focus on Spain (PhD diss., University of Leuven, Belgium, and University of Seville, Spain).
• Elkouri, F. , & Elkouri, E. A. (1995). How arbitration works . ABA: Section of labour and employment law.
• Euwema, M. , & Giebels, E. (2017). Conflictmanagement en mediation . Noordhoff Uitgevers.
• Euwema, M. , Munduate, L. , Elgoibar, P. , Garcia, A. , & Pender, E. (2015). Promoting social dialogue in European organizations: Human resources management and constructive conflict behavior . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
• Euwema, M. C. , & Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2007). Intercultural competencies and conglomerated conflict behavior in intercultural conflicts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 31 , 427–441.
• Euwema, M. C. , Van de Vliert, E. , & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conflict behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management , 14 (2), 119–139.
• Ferrin, D. L. , Bligh, M. C. , & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 107 , 161–178.
• Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. L. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in . New York: Penguin Books.
• Follett, M. P. (1941). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New York: Harper & Row (Originally published in 1926.)
• Fulmer, C. A. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust? Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management , 38 (4), 1167–1230.
• Gelfand, M. J. , & Brett (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 14 (2), 137–155.
• Goldman, B. M. , Cropanzano, R. , Stein, J. H. , Shapiro, D. L. , Thatcher, S. , & Ko, J. (2008). The role of ideology in mediated disputes at work: a justice perspective. International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (3), 210–233.
• Gunia, B. , Brett, J. , & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2012). In global negotiations, it’s all about trust. Harvard Business Review , December.
• Gunia, B. , Brett, J. , & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2014). Trust me, I’m a negotiator. Diagnosing trust to negotiate effectively, globally. Organizational Dynamics , 43 (1), 27–36.
• Hackman, J. R. , & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.
• Hempel, P. , Zhang, Z. , & Tjosvold, D. (2009). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30 , 41–65.
• Herrmann, M. S. (2006). Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Holmes, J. G. , & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 (2), 256–282.
• Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 530–557.
• Jehn, K. , & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11 (1), 56–73.
• Jehn, K. A. , Greer, L. , Levine, S. , & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 465–495.
• Jehn, K. A. , & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (2), 238–251.
• Johnson, D. V. , Johnson, R. T. , & Tjosvold, D. (2014). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus , The handbook of conflict resolution . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 131 (4), 285–358.
• Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research . Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
• Jones, T. S. (2016). Mediation and conflict coaching in organizational dispute systems. In K. Bollen , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
• Jones, T. S. , & Brinkert, R. (2008). Conflict coaching: Conflict management strategies and skills for the individual . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kaufman, S. , Elgoibar, P. , & Borbely, A. (2016). Context matters: Negotiators’ interdependence in public, labor and business disputes . International Association of Conflict Management Conference, New York, June 26–29, 2016.
• Kilmann, R. H. , & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “mode” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 37 (2), 309–325.
• Komorita, S. S. , & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology , 46 (1), 183–207.
• Kramer, R. M. , & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology , 50 , 569–598.
• Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revised. In M. Deutsch , P. T. Coleman , & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kressel, K. (2014). The mediation of conflict: Context, cognition and practice. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Lax, D. , & Sebenius, J. (1987). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperative and competitive gain . New York: Free Press.
• Lewicki, R. , Elgoibar, P. , & Euwema, M. (2016). The tree of trust: Building and repairing trust in organizations. In P. Elgoibar , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Trust building and constructive conflict management in industrial relations . The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2014). Essentials of negotiation . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Lewicki, R. J. , & Tomlinson, E. (2014). Trust, trust development and trust repair. In M. Deutsch , P. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (3d ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Tomlinson, E. C. , & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management , 32 (6), 991–1022.
• Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Lindner, E.G. (2014). Emotion and conflict: Why it is important to understand how emotions affect conflict and how conflict affects emotions. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3d ed., pp. 817–848). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , & Shapiro, D. L. (1999). The strategic use of interests, rights, and power to resolve disputes. Negotiation Journal , 15 , 31–51.
• Martinez-Pecino, R. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. , & Euwema, M. (2008). Effectiveness of mediation strategies in collective bargaining: Evidence from Spain. Industrial Relations , 47(3) , 480–495.
• Medina, F. J. , & Benitez, M. (2011). Effective behaviors to de-escalate organizational conflicts. Spanish Journal of Psychology , 14 (2), 789–797.
• Meyerson, D. , Weick, K. E. , & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Mohr, J. , & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal , 15 (2), 135–152.
• Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Munduate, L. , Ganaza, J. , Peiro, J. M. , & Euwema, M. (1999). Patterns of styles in conflict management and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 (1), 5–24.
• Nahapiet, J. , & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review , 23 (2), 242–266.
• Nair, N. (2007). Towards understanding the role of emotions in conflict: A review and future directions. International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (4), 359–381.
• Oetzel, J. , Ting-Toomey, S. , Masumoto, T. , Yokochi, Y. , Pan, X. , Takai, J. , & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs , 68 (3), 235–258.
• Peterson, R. S. , & Harvey, S. (2009). Leadership and conflict: Using power to manage in groups for better rather than worse. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (pp. 281–298). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 , 296–320.
• Posthuma, R. A. , & Dworkin, J. B. (2000). A behavioral theory of arbitrator acceptability. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11 (3), 249–266.
• Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior . New York: Academic Press.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw Hill.
• Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Rahim, M. A. (2002). Towards a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management , 13 (3), 206–235.
• Rahim, M.A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations . 4th ed. New Jersey: Transaction publishers.
• Robbins, S. P. (1978). “Conflict management” and “conflict resolution” are not synonymous terms. California Management Review , 21 (2), 67–75.
• Römer, M. , Rispens, S. , Giebels, E. , & Euwema, M. (2012). A helping hand? The moderating role of leaders' conflict management behavior on the conflict-stress relationship of employees. Negotiation Journal , 28 (3), 253–277.
• Ross, W. , & LaCroix, J. (1996). Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management , 7 (4), 314–360.
• Rousseau, D. M. , Sitkin, S. B. , Burt, R. S. , & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review , 23 (3), 393–404.
• Rubin, J. Z. , Pruitt , & Kim (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of Social Issues , 50 , 33–45.
• Schellenberg, J. A. (1996). Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice . State University of New York Press.
• Serva, M. A. , Fuller, M. A. , & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 625–648.
• Sheldon, O. J. , & Fishbach, A. (2011). Resisting the temptation to compete: Self-control promotes cooperation in mixed-motive interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 403–410.
• Sinaceur, M. , Adam, H. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 498–508.
• Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis , 13 , 675–682.
• Spaho, K. (2013). Organizational communication and conflict management. Journal of Contemporary Management Issues , 18 (1), 103–118.
• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 13 (3), 265–274.
• Thomas, K. W. , & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument . Mountain View, CA: Xicom
• Tjosvold, D. (1997). Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality. In C. K.W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 23–37). London: SAGE.
• Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 47 (3), 285–342.
• Tjosvold, D. , Morishima, M. , & Belsheim, J. A. (1999). Complaint handling in the shop floor: Cooperative relationship and open-minded strategies. International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 45–68.
• Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29 (1), 19–28.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wong, A. S. H. , & Chen, N. Y. F. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour , 1 , 545–568.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wan, P. , & Tang, M. L. (2016). Trust and managing conflict: Partners in developing organizations. In P. Elgoibar , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Building trust and conflict management in organizations . The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
• Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior: Theoretical frontiers . Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
• Van de Vliert, E. , & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 (4), 674–687.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M. C. , & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 271–281.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Euwema, M. C. , & Janssen, O. (1997). The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing. In C. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 38–52). London: SAGE.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (1999). Constructive conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 , 475–491.
• Van Erp, K. J. , Giebels, E. , van der Zee, K. I. , & van Duijn, M. A. (2011). Let it be: Expatriate couples’ adjustment and the upside of avoiding conflicts. Anxiety, Stress & Coping , 24 (5), 539–560.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , & Cote, S. (2007). Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (6), 1557–1569.
• Vayrynen, R. (1991). New Directions in Conflict Theory . London: SAGE.
• Volkema, R. J. , & Bergmann, T. J. (2001). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology , 135 (1), 5–15.
• Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system . Cornell University Press.
• Wilson, T. D. (2004). Strangers to ourselves. Discovering the adaptive unconscious . Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
• Zaheer, S. , & Zaheer, A. (2006). Trust across borders. Journal of International Business Studies , 37 (1), 21–29.

Related Articles

• Work and Family
• Psychodynamic Psychotherapies
• Trust and Social Dilemmas

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 17 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 9 min read

Conflict Resolution

8 ways to resolve conflict in the workplace.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Where there are people, there is conflict. We each have our values, needs and habits, so it's easy to misunderstand or irritate one another – or worse, to fall into conflict.

Left unchecked, conflict can lead to bad decisions and outright disputes, bullying or harassment. Teamwork breaks down, morale drops, and projects grind to a halt. Organizations feel the hit with wasted talent, high absenteeism, and increased staff turnover.

But conflict can be resolved. What's more, it can bring issues to light, strengthen relationships, and spark innovation – so long as you don't try to ignore it!

In this article, we'll explore different types of conflict, what causes conflict, and how to reach a positive outcome when you find yourself in conflict with a co-worker. (To identify the signs of conflict occurring between other people and to help them overcome their conflict with one another, we recommend our follow-on article, Resolving Team Conflict .)

Conflict Resolution Definition

Generally, workplace conflicts fall into two categories:

• Personality conflict or disagreements between individuals. These clashes are driven and perpetuated by emotions such as anger, stress and frustration.
• Substantive conflict is tangible and task-related, like the decisions leaders make, the performance of a team member, or your company's direction.

If unaddressed, both can spiral into wider conflict between teams, departments or businesses. Conflict resolution can be defined as the process of identifying, addressing, and resolving disagreements or disputes among employees in a professional setting, thereby fostering a positive and productive work environment.

What Causes Conflict at Work?

Some of the most common causes of workplace conflict are:

• Unclear responsibilities . Some team members may feel they do more work than others, or resent those who seem to have fewer responsibilities. Blame and frustration can build due to duplicated work or unfinished tasks.
• Competition for resources . Time, money, materials, equipment, and skillsets are finite resources. Competition for them can lead to conflict.
• Different interests . People may focus on personal or departmental goals over organizational ones. Or be held up and frustrated by others who they rely on to do their jobs effectively.

Read our article on Bell and Hart's Eight Causes of Conflict for more sources of – and solutions to – disputes.

Five Conflict Resolution Strategies

When you find yourself in a conflict situation, these five strategies will help you to resolve disagreements quickly and effectively:

1. Raise the Issue Early

Keeping quiet only lets resentment fester. Equally, speaking with other people first can fuel rumor and misunderstanding.

So, whether you're battling over the thermostat or feel that you're being micromanaged, be direct and talk with the other party. However, if you're afraid of making that approach, or worry that it may make the problem worse, speak with your manager first, or your HR department if the other party is your manager.

Either way, be assertive (not aggressive) and speak openly. This will encourage others to do the same – and you can get to the root cause of a problem before it escalates.

2. Manage Your Emotions

Choose your timing when you talk to someone about the conflict. If you're angry, you may say something you'll regret and inflame the situation. Be careful to avoid playing the blame game .

So stay calm, collect yourself, and ask, "What is it I want to achieve here?", "What are the issues I'm having?" and "What is it that I would like to see?"

See our article Managing Your Emotions at Work for more insight and tips.

3. Show Empathy

When you talk to someone about a conflict, it's natural to want to state your own case, rather than hear out the other side. But when two people do this, the conversation goes in circles.

Instead, invite the other party to describe their position, ask how they think they might resolve the issue, and listen with empathy .

Putting yourself in the other person's shoes is an essential part of negotiation. This helps you to build mutual respect and understanding – and to achieve an outcome that satisfies both parties.

4. Practice Active Listening

To identify the source of the conflict you have to really listen. To listen actively:

• Paraphrase the other party's points to show you're listening and really understand them.
• Look out for non-verbal signals that contradict what they are saying, such as a hesitant tone behind positive words. Bring these out into the open sensitively to address them together.
• Use appropriate body language , such as nodding your head, to show interest and to make it clear that you're following them.

Go further with Empathic Listening or Mindful Listening .

5. Acknowledge Criticism

Some of the things the other person tells you may be difficult to hear. But remember that criticism or constructive feedback is about job behaviors and not you as a person.

So, keep an open mind and use criticism to help you to identify areas to improve, perform better next time, and grow.

Glasers' Three-Step Strategy for Conflict Resolution

Conflict management consultants Peter and Susan Glaser recommend a three-step strategy for resolving conflict, and it draws on many of the skills we've looked at above. You can hear the Glasers talking about their model in our exclusive interview with them. [1]

The steps for these conflict resolution skills are:

• Prove that you understand their side.
• Acknowledge that you are part of the problem.
• Try again if the conversation didn't go well.

Let's try a training exercise and apply each step to a fictional conflict resolution scenario.

Conflict Resolution Training Example

Imagine that the heads of two departments are in conflict. Product Manager Sayid changed the price of a product without letting Marketing Manager Gayanne know. As a result, the marketing team sent out an email to customers with incorrect prices. They had to send out a follow-up email apologizing for the error, and make good on the price some customers paid for the product.

1. Prove That You Understand Their Side

Instead of blaming Sayid, Gayanne asks him how he came to make the decision. She uses her questioning and listening skills to get the information she needs and to show that she's truly hearing Sayid's response.

She discovers that Sayid was pressured by a major client to drop the price or risk losing a contract. She empathizes , saying, "Yes, I've had difficulties with that client before, too."

As Susan Glaser says, "Only when you believe that I understand you, will you be willing to try to understand my perspective." [2]

2. Acknowledge That You Are Part of the Problem

If you're in conflict with someone, it's unlikely you're free of all blame. So admit your part in it. This leads to mutual trust, a better understanding of one another, and makes it easier to find a solution.

In our scenario, Gayanne could say to Sayid, "I should have shared our marketing strategy and email send dates with you. I'll do that right away."

3. Try Again if the Conversation Doesn't Go Well

Despite the progress they've made, relations between the two managers remain frosty, so Sayid calls Gayanne the following week. He says, "I was thinking about our conversation, and I'd like to try again because I'm not happy with how it went. I've had time to take your points on board, and I'd like to talk about how we can work together better going forward."

Remember that you get more than one shot at resolving a conflict. Susan Glaser says, "There's a myth that if we have a bad conversation with someone it's over. In fact, 'do overs' are powerful." [3]

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is conflict resolution important in the workplace?

Unresolved conflicts can hinder productivity and damage team dynamics. Effective conflict resolution helps maintain a positive work environment, promotes collaboration, and ensures issues are addressed before they escalate.

What are some common sources of workplace conflicts?

Workplace conflicts can arise from differences in communication styles, conflicting goals, personality clashes, misunderstandings, resource allocation, or competing priorities. Recognizing these sources is crucial for timely intervention.

How can a team manager effectively address conflicts among team members?

A team manager should act as a mediator and facilitator. Begin by listening to both sides, understanding perspectives, and acknowledging emotions. Encourage open dialogue, find common ground, and work together to find a solution that is fair and beneficial for all parties.

What strategies can managers employ to prevent conflicts from escalating?

Managers can implement proactive measures such as fostering a transparent communication culture, setting clear expectations, defining roles and responsibilities, and promoting team-building activities. By addressing potential sources of conflict early on, managers can prevent minor issues from turning into major disputes.

How does effective conflict resolution contribute to team productivity?

Resolving conflicts promptly maintains a harmonious working environment where team members feel valued and understood. This leads to improved morale, increased focus on tasks, and a more efficient workflow, ultimately enhancing overall team productivity.

When is it appropriate to involve higher management in conflict resolution?

Involving higher management should be considered when conflicts cannot be resolved at the team level or when the conflicts involve larger organizational issues. Higher management can provide a neutral perspective and additional resources to facilitate resolution.

Conflict is common in the workplace. The biggest mistake you can make is to do nothing. Unresolved tensions can affect the health and performance of people and organizations.

So, hone these five conflict resolution skills to pre-empt, manage and fix conflicts with your co-workers:

• Raise the issue early.
• Manage your emotions.
• Show empathy.
• Practice active listening.
• Acknowledge criticism.

Then try the Glasers' three-step conflict resolution strategy to resolve issues together:

• Try again if the conversation doesn't go well.

In the process, you may even discover positives such as improved processes, strengthened relationships, and innovation!

[1] [2] [3] Mind Tools interview with Peter A. Glaser, Ph.D. and Susan R. Glaser. Available here .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Financial accounting.

Glossary and Definitions

7 Steps for Managing Your Retirement

Preparing for Life After Work

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

Great teams begin with empowered leaders. Our tools and resources offer the support to let you flourish into leadership. Join today!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Pain Points Podcast - Praise

NEW! Pain Points - Presentations Pt 1

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

The role of a facilitator.

Guiding a meeting or event to a successful conclusion

How to Manage Passive-Aggressive People

Bringing Hidden Hostility to Light

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

How to optimize your energy levels.

Match Your Workload to Your Energy

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Problem Definition and Conflict Management

Cite this chapter.

• Alan C. Filley  

342 Accesses

1 Citations

This paper addresses a single issue: the effect of the problem statement or conflict definition on conflict resolution. In particular, it argues that, among problems that may lead to conflict, some are well defined and others are ill defined. Where the problems are well defined, the parties involved may proceed directly to resolve the issue or conflict. Where ill defined, immediate attempts to resolve the issue or conflict may be futile or destructive. Ill-defined problems are better handled by special efforts to restructure the problem statement before solutions are attempted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Blake, R. R., and J. S. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid . Houston: Gulf.

Google Scholar  

Boulding, K. E. 1962. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory . New York: Harper & Row.

Cummings, L. L., D. L. Harnett, and O. J. Stevens. 1971. “Risk, Fate, Conciliation, and Trust: An International Study of Attitudinal Differences Among Executives.” Academy of Management Journal 14:285–304.

Article   Google Scholar  

Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict . New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Filley, A. C. 1975. Interpersonal Conflict Resolution . Glenview, III.: Scott, Fores-man.

Filley, A. C. 1977. “Conflict Resolution: The Ethic of the Good Loser.” In R. C. Huseman, C. M. Logue, and D. L. Freshly, eds., Readings in Interpersonal and Organizational Behavior . Boston: Holbrook.

Filley, A. C. 1978. “Some Normative Issues in Conflict Management.” California Management Review 21:61–66.

Hall, J. 1969. Conflict Management Survey . Houston: Teleometrics.

Hall, J. 1971. “Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.” Psychology Today 5:51–54, 86–87.

Hamner, W. C. 1980. “The Influence of Structural, Individual, and Strategic Differences on Bargaining Outcomes: A Review.” In D. L. Harnett and L. L. Cummings, Bargaining Behavior: An International Study . Houston: Dame.

Harnett, D. L., and L. L. Cummings. 1980. Bargaining Behavior: An International Study . Houston: Dame.

Harnett, D. L., L. L. Cummings, and W. C. Hamner. 1973. “Personality, Bargaining Style, and Payoff in Bilateral Monopoly Bargaining Among European Managers.” Sociometry 36:325–45.

Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . New York: Wiley.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kelley, H. H., and A. J. Stahelski. 1970. “Social Interaction Basis of Cooperatore” and Competitors’ Beliefs about Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16:66–91.

Kilman, M. H., and I. I. Mitroff. 1977. “A New Perspective on the Consulting/Intervention Process: Problem Defining versus Problem Solving.” Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Orlando, Fla.

Kubose, G. M. 1973. Zen Koans . Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Levi, A. M., and A. Benjamin. 1977. “Focus and Flexibility in a Model of Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 21:406–23.

Maier, N. R. F. 1963. Problem-Solving Discussions and Conferences . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maier, N. R. F. 1970. Problem-Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups . Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

Maier, N. R. F., and A. R. Solem. 1962. “Improving Solutions by Turning Choice Situations into Problems.” Personnel Psychology 15:151–57.

Miller, D. T., and J. G. Holmes. 1975. “The Role of Situational Restrictiveness on Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: A Theoretical and Empirical Extension of Kelley and Stahelski’s Triangle Hypothesis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:661–73.

Newcomb, T. M. 1953. “An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts.” Psychological Review 60:393–404.

Pirsig, R. 1974. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance . New York: William Morrow.

Pondy, L. R. 1967. “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models.” Administrative Science Quarterly 12:269–320.

Rapoport, A. 1960. Fights, Games, and Debates . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ren wick, P. 1975. “Impact of Topic and Source of Disagreement on Conflict Management.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 14:416–25.

Schlenker, B. R., and H. J. Goldman. 1978. “Cooperators and Competitors in Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 22:393–410.

Shure, G. H., and J. P. Meeker. 1967. “A Personality Attitude Schedule for Use in Experimental Bargaining Studies.” Journal of Psychology 65:233–52.

Sluzki, C. E., and E. Veron. 1971. “The Double Bind as a Universal Pathogenic Situation.” Family Process 10:397–408.

Thomas, K. 1976. “Conflict and Conflict Management.” In M. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Triandis, H. C. 1972. The Analysis of Subjective Culture . New York: Wiley.

Vroom, V. H., and P. W. Yetton. 1973. Leadership and Decision Making . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Walton, R. E., and R. B. McKersie. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Watts, A. 1975. Tao: The Watercourse Way . New York: Pantheon.

Watzlawick, P. 1965. “Paradoxical Predictions.” Psychiatry 28:368–74.

Watzlawick, P., J. H. Wakland, and R. Fisch. 1974. Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution . New York: Norton.

Zand, D. E. 1972. “Trust and Managerial Problem Solving.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17:229–39.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Nijenrode, The Netherlands School of Business, The Netherlands

Gerard B. J. Bomers

University of Washington, USA

Richard B. Peterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1982 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Filley, A.C. (1982). Problem Definition and Conflict Management. In: Bomers, G.B.J., Peterson, R.B. (eds) Conflict Management and Industrial Relations. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1132-6_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1132-6_4

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-1134-0

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-1132-6

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

9.2 Conflict Management Strategies

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare and contrast the five styles of conflict management.
• Describe the four steps in the STLC conflict model.

Would you describe yourself as someone who prefers to avoid conflict? Do you like to get your way? Are you good at working with someone to reach a solution that is mutually beneficial? Odds are that you have been in situations where you could answer yes to each of these questions, which underscores the important role context plays in conflict and conflict management styles in particular. The way we view and deal with conflict is learned and contextual. Research does show that there is intergenerational transmission of traits related to conflict management. As children, we test out different conflict resolution styles we observe in our families with our parents and siblings. Later, as we enter adolescence and begin developing platonic and romantic relationships outside the family, we begin testing what we’ve learned from our parents in other settings. If a child has observed and used negative conflict management styles with siblings or parents, he or she is likely to exhibit those behaviors with non–family members (Reese-Weber & Bartle-Haring, 1998).

There has been much research done on different types of conflict management styles , which are communication strategies that attempt to avoid, address, or resolve a conflict. Keep in mind that we don’t always consciously choose a style. We may instead be caught up in emotion and become reactionary. The strategies for more effectively managing conflict that will be discussed later may allow you to slow down the reaction process, become more aware of it, and intervene in the process to improve your communication. A powerful tool to mitigate conflict is information exchange. Asking for more information before you react to a conflict-triggering event is a good way to add a buffer between the trigger and your reaction. This can be accomplished through the practice of perception checking that you learned about in chapter 6 on perception. Another key element is whether or not a communicator is oriented toward self-centered or other-centered goals. For example, if your goal is to “win” or make the other person “lose,” you show a high concern for self and a low concern for other. If your goal is to facilitate a “win/win” resolution or outcome, you show a high concern for self and other. In general, strategies that facilitate information exchange and include concern for mutual goals will be more successful at managing conflict (Sillars, 1980).

Five Styles of Conflict Management

The five strategies for managing conflict we will discuss are competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Each of these conflict styles accounts for the concern we place on self versus other (Figure 9.4).

In order to better understand the elements of the five styles of conflict management, we will apply each to the follow scenario:

Rosa and D’Shaun have been partners for seventeen years. Rosa is growing frustrated because D’Shaun continues to give money to their teenage daughter, Casey, even though they decided to keep the teen on a fixed allowance to try to teach her more responsibility. While conflicts regarding money and child rearing are very common, we will see the numerous ways that Rosa and D’Shaun could address this problem.

The competing style indicates a high concern for self and a low concern for other. When we compete, we are striving to “win” the conflict, potentially at the expense or “loss” of the other person. One way we may gauge our win is by being granted or taking concessions from the other person. For example, if D’Shaun gives Casey extra money behind Rosa’s back, he is taking an indirect competitive route resulting in a “win” for him because he got his way. The competing style also involves the use of power, which can be noncoercive or coercive (Sillars, 1980). Noncoercive strategies include requesting and persuading. When requesting , we suggest the conflict partner change a behavior. Requesting doesn’t require a high level of information exchange. When we persuade , however, we give our conflict partner reasons to support our request or suggestion, meaning there is more information exchange, which may make persuading more effective than requesting. Rosa could try to persuade D’Shaun to stop giving Casey extra allowance money by bringing up their fixed budget or reminding him that they are saving for a summer vacation. Coercive strategies violate standard guidelines for ethical communication and may include aggressive communication directed at rousing your partner’s emotions through insults, profanity, and yelling, or through threats of punishment if you do not get your way. If Rosa is the primary income earner in the family, she could use that power to threaten to take D’Shaun’s ATM card away if he continues giving Casey money. In all these scenarios, the “win” that could result is only short term and can lead to conflict escalation. Interpersonal conflict is rarely isolated, meaning there can be ripple effects that connect the current conflict to previous and future conflicts. D’Shaun’s behind-the-scenes money giving or Rosa’s confiscation of the ATM card could lead to built-up negative emotions that could further test their relationship.

Competing has been linked to aggression, although the two are not always paired. If assertiveness does not work, there is a chance it could escalate to hostility. There is a pattern of verbal escalation: requests, demands, complaints, angry statements, threats, harassment, and verbal abuse (Johnson & Roloff, 2000). Aggressive communication can become patterned, which can create a volatile and hostile environment. The reality television show  The Bad Girls Club  is a prime example of a chronically hostile and aggressive environment. If you do a Google video search for clips from the show, you will see yelling, screaming, verbal threats, and some examples of physical violence. The producers of the show choose houseguests who have histories of aggression, and when the “bad girls” are placed in a house together, they fall into typical patterns, which creates dramatic television moments. Obviously, living in this type of volatile environment would create stressors in any relationship, so it’s important to monitor the use of competing as a conflict resolution strategy to ensure that it does not lapse into aggression.

The competing style of conflict management is not the same thing as having a competitive personality. Competition in relationships isn’t always negative, and people who enjoy engaging in competition may not always do so at the expense of another person’s goals. In fact, research has shown that some couples engage in competitive shared activities like sports or games to maintain and enrich their relationship (Dindia & Baxter, 1987). And although we may think that competitiveness is gendered, research has often shown that women are just as competitive as men (Messman & Mikesell, 2000).

The avoiding style of conflict management often indicates a low concern for self and a low concern for other, and no direct communication about the conflict takes place. However, as we will discuss later, in some cultures that emphasize group harmony over individual interests, and even in some situations in the United States, avoiding a conflict can indicate a high level of concern for the other. In general, avoiding doesn’t mean that there is no communication about the conflict. Remember,  you cannot not communicate . Even when we try to avoid conflict, we may intentionally or unintentionally give our feelings away through our verbal and nonverbal communication. Rosa’s sarcastic tone as she tells D’Shaun that he’s “Soooo good with money!” and his subsequent eye roll both bring the conflict to the surface without specifically addressing it. The avoiding style is either passive or indirect, meaning there is little information exchange, which may make this strategy less effective than others. We may decide to avoid conflict for many different reasons, some of which are better than others. If you view the conflict as having little importance to you, it may be better to ignore it. If the person you’re having conflict with will only be working in your office for a week, you may perceive a conflict to be temporary and choose to avoid it and hope that it will solve itself. If you are not emotionally invested in the conflict, you may be able to reframe your perspective and see the situation in a different way, therefore resolving the issue. In all these cases, avoiding doesn’t really require an investment of time, emotion, or communication skill, so there is not much at stake to lose.

Avoidance is not always an easy conflict management choice, because sometimes the person we have conflict with isn’t a temp in our office or a weekend houseguest. While it may be easy to tolerate a problem when you’re not personally invested in it or view it as temporary, when faced with a situation like Rosa and D’Shaun’s, avoidance would just make the problem worse. For example, avoidance could first manifest as changing the subject, then progress from avoiding the issue to avoiding the person altogether, to even ending the relationship.

Indirect strategies of hinting and joking also fall under the avoiding style. While these indirect avoidance strategies may lead to a buildup of frustration or even anger, they allow us to vent a little of our built-up steam and may make a conflict situation more bearable. When we hint, we drop clues that we hope our partner will find and piece together to see the problem and hopefully change, thereby solving the problem without any direct communication. For the most part, the person dropping the hints overestimates their partner’s detective abilities. For example, when Rosa leaves the bank statement on the kitchen table in hopes that D’Shaun will realize how much extra money he is giving Casey, D’Shaun may simply ignore it or even get irritated with Rosa for not putting the statement with all the other mail. We also overestimate our partner’s ability to decode the jokes we make about a conflict situation. It is more likely that the receiver of the jokes will think you’re genuinely trying to be funny or feel provoked or insulted than realize the conflict situation that you are referencing. So, more frustration may develop when the hints and jokes are not decoded, which often leads to a more extreme form of hinting/joking: passive-aggressive behavior.

Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of dealing with conflict in which one person indirectly communicates their negative thoughts or feelings through nonverbal behaviors, such as not completing a task. For example, Rosa may wait a few days to deposit money into the bank so D’Shaun can’t withdraw it to give to Casey, or D’Shaun may cancel plans for a romantic dinner because he feels like Rosa is questioning his responsibility with money. Although passive-aggressive behavior can feel rewarding in the moment, it is one of the most unproductive ways to deal with conflict. These behaviors may create additional conflicts and may lead to a cycle of passive-aggressiveness in which the other partner begins to exhibit these behaviors as well, while never actually addressing the conflict that originated the behavior. In most avoidance situations, both parties lose. However, as noted above, avoidance can be the most appropriate strategy in some situations—for example, when the conflict is temporary, when the stakes are low or there is little personal investment, or when there is the potential for violence or retaliation.

Accommodating

The accommodating conflict management style indicates a low concern for self and a high concern for other and is often viewed as passive or submissive, in that someone complies with or obliges another without providing personal input. The context for and motivation behind accommodating play an important role in whether or not it is an appropriate strategy. Accommodating can be appropriate when there is little chance that our own goals can be achieved, when we don’t have much to lose by accommodating, when we feel we are wrong, or when advocating for our own needs could negatively affect the relationship (Isenhart & Spangle, 2000). The occasional accommodation can be useful in maintaining a relationship—remember earlier we discussed putting another’s needs before your own as a way to achieve relational goals. For example, Rosa may say, “It’s OK that you gave Casey some extra money; she did have to spend more on gas this week since the prices went up.” However, being a team player can slip into being a pushover, which people generally do not appreciate. If Rosa keeps telling D’Shaun, “It’s OK this time,” they may find themselves short on spending money at the end of the month. At that point, Rosa and D’Shaun’s conflict may escalate as they question each other’s motives, or the conflict may spread if they direct their frustration at Casey and blame it on her irresponsibility.

Research has shown that the accommodating style is more likely to occur when there are time restraints and less likely to occur when someone does not want to appear weak (Cai & Fink, 2002). If you’re standing outside the movie theatre and two movies are starting, you may say, “Let’s just have it your way,” so you don’t miss the beginning. If you’re a new manager at an electronics store and an employee wants to take Sunday off to watch a football game, you may say no to set an example for the other employees. As with avoiding, there are certain cultural influences we will discuss later that make accommodating a more effective strategy.

Compromising

The compromising style shows a moderate concern for self and other and may indicate that there is a low investment in the conflict and/or the relationship (Figure 9.5). Even though we often hear that the best way to handle a conflict is to compromise, the compromising style isn’t a win/win solution; it is a partial win/lose. In essence, when we compromise, we give up some or most of what we want. It’s true that the conflict gets resolved temporarily, but lingering thoughts of what you gave up could lead to a future conflict. Compromising may be a good strategy when there are time limitations or when prolonging a conflict may lead to relationship deterioration. Compromise may also be good when both parties have equal power or when other resolution strategies have not worked (Macintosh & Stevens, 2008).

A negative of compromising is that it may be used as an easy way out of a conflict. The compromising style is most effective when both parties find the solution agreeable. Rosa and D’Shaun could decide that Casey’s allowance does need to be increased and could each give ten more dollars a week by committing to taking their lunch to work twice a week instead of eating out. They are both giving up something, and if neither of them have a problem with taking their lunch to work, then the compromise was equitable. If the couple agrees that the twenty extra dollars a week should come out of D’Shaun’s golf budget, the compromise isn’t as equitable, and D’Shaun, although he agreed to the compromise, may end up with feelings of resentment. Wouldn’t it be better to both win?

Collaborating

The collaborating style involves a high degree of concern for self and other and usually indicates investment in the conflict situation and the relationship. Although the collaborating style takes the most work in terms of communication competence, it ultimately leads to a win/win situation in which neither party has to make concessions because a mutually beneficial solution is discovered or created. The obvious advantage is that both parties are satisfied, which could lead to positive problem solving in the future and strengthen the overall relationship. For example, Rosa and D’Shaun may agree that Casey’s allowance needs to be increased and may decide to give her twenty more dollars a week in exchange for her babysitting her little brother one night a week. In this case, they didn’t make the conflict personal but focused on the situation and came up with a solution that may end up saving them money. The disadvantage is that this style is often time consuming, and only one person may be willing to use this approach while the other person is eager to compete to meet their goals or willing to accommodate.

Here are some tips for collaborating and achieving a win/win outcome (Hargie, 2011):

• Do not view the conflict as a contest you are trying to win.
• Remain flexible and realize there are solutions yet to be discovered.
• Distinguish the people from the problem (don’t make it personal).
• Determine what the underlying needs are that are driving the other person’s demands (needs can still be met through different demands).
• Identify areas of common ground or shared interests that you can work from to develop solutions.
• Ask questions to allow them to clarify and to help you understand their perspective.
• Listen carefully and provide verbal and nonverbal feedback.

STLC Conflict Model

Cahn and Abigail (2014) created a very simple model when thinking about how we communicate during conflict. They called the model the STLC Conflict Model because it stands for stop, think, listen, and then communicate (Figure 9.6).

The first thing an individual needs to do when interacting with another person during conflict is to take the time to be present within the conflict itself. Too often, people engaged in a conflict say whatever enters their mind before they’ve really had a chance to process the message and think of the best strategies to use to send that message. Others end up talking past one another during a conflict because they simply are not paying attention to each other and the competing needs within the conflict. Communication problems often occur during conflict because people tend to react to conflict situations when they arise instead of being mindful and present during the conflict itself. For this reason, it’s always important to take a breath during a conflict and first stop.

Sometimes these “time outs” need to be physical. Maybe you need to leave the room and go for a brief walk to calm down, or maybe you just need to get a glass of water. Whatever you need to do, it’s important to take this break. This break helps you to be proactive rather than reactive (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).

Once you’ve stopped, you now have the ability to really think about what you are communicating. You want to think through the conflict itself. What is the conflict really about? Often people engage in conflicts about superficial items when there are truly much deeper issues that are being avoided. You also want to consider what possible causes led to the conflict and what possible courses of action you think are possible to conclude the conflict. Cahn and Abigail argue that there are four possible outcomes that can occur: do nothing, change yourself, change the other person, or change the situation.

First, you can simply sit back and avoid the conflict. Maybe you’re engaging in a conflict about politics with a family member, and this conflict is actually just going to make everyone mad. For this reason, you opt just to stop the conflict and change topics to avoid making people upset.

Second, we can change ourselves. Often, we are at fault and start conflicts. We may not even realize how our behavior caused the conflict until we take a step back and really analyze what is happening. When it comes to being at fault, it’s very important to admit that you’ve done wrong. Nothing is worse (and can stoke a conflict more) than when someone refuses to see their part in the conflict.

Third, we can attempt to change the other person. Let’s face it, changing someone else is easier said than done. Just ask your parents/guardians! All of our parents/guardians have attempted to change our behaviors at one point or another, and changing people is very hard. Even with the powers of punishment and reinforcement, a lot of the time change only lasts as long as the punishment or the reinforcer is active.

Lastly, we can just change the situation. Having a conflict with your roommates? Move out. Having a conflict with your boss? Find a new job. Having a conflict with a professor? Drop the course. Admittedly, changing the situation is not necessarily the first choice people should take when thinking about possibilities, but often it’s the best decision for long-term happiness. In essence, some conflicts will not be settled between people. When these conflicts arise, you can try and change yourself, hope the other person will change (they probably won’t, though), or just get out of it altogether.

The third step in the STLC model is listen. Humans are not always the best listeners. Listening is a skill. Unfortunately, during a conflict situation, this is a skill that is desperately needed and often forgotten. When we feel defensive during a conflict, our listening becomes spotty at best because we start to focus on ourselves and protecting ourselves instead of trying to be empathic and seeing the conflict through the other person’s eyes.

One mistake some people make is to think they’re listening, but in reality, they’re listening for flaws in the other person’s argument. We often use this type of selective listening as a way to devalue the other person’s stance. In essence, we will hear one small flaw with what the other person is saying and then use that flaw to demonstrate that obviously everything else must be wrong as well.

The goal of listening must be to suspend your judgment and really attempt to be present enough to accurately interpret the message being sent by the other person. When we listen in this highly empathic way, we are often able to see things from the other person’s point-of-view, which could help us come to a better-negotiated outcome in the long run.

Communicate

Lastly, but certainly not least, we communicate with the other person. Notice that Cahn and Abigail (2014) put communication as the last part of the STLC model because it’s the hardest one to do effectively during a conflict if the first three are not done correctly. When we communicate during a conflict, we must be hyper-aware of our nonverbal behavior (eye movement, gestures, posture, etc.). Nothing will kill a message faster than when it’s accompanied by bad nonverbal behavior. For example, rolling one’s eyes while another person is speaking is not an effective way to engage in conflict.

During a conflict, it’s important to be assertive and stand up for your ideas without becoming verbally aggressive. Conversely, you have to be open to someone else’s use of assertiveness as well without having to tolerate verbal aggression. We often end up using mediators to help call people on the carpet when they communicate in a fashion that is verbally aggressive or does not further the conflict itself. 

• Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable part of relationships that, although not always negative, can take an emotional toll on relational partners unless they develop skills and strategies for managing conflict.
• Although there is no absolute right or wrong way to handle a conflict, there are five predominant styles of conflict management, which are competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating.
• In the STLC model of conflict the steps in conflict are: Stop, Think, Listen, and Communicate.

Discussion Questions

• Of the five conflict management strategies, is there one that you use more often than others? Why or why not? Do you think people are predisposed to one style over the others? Why or why not?
• Review the example of D’Shaun and Rosa. If you were in their situation, what do you think the best style to use would be and why?
• Discuss an example of a conflict you’ve experienced. How could you have used the STLC Conflict Model to help you resolve this conflict positively.

Remix/Revisions featured in this section

• Small editing revisions to tailor the content to the Psychology of Human Relations course.
• Remix of Employment Legislation (Introduction to Business – Lumen Learning) and EEO Best Practices , EEO Complaints (Human Resources Management – Lumen Learning) added to Introduction to Social Diversity in the Workplace (Organizational Behavior and Human Relations – Lumen Learning).
• Added images and provided links to locations of images and CC licenses.
• Added doi links to references to comply with APA 7 th edition formatting reference manual.

Attributions

CC Licensed Content, Original Modification, adaptation, and original content.  Provided by : Stevy Scarbrough. License : CC-BY-NC-SA

CC Licensed Content Shared Previously Communication in the Real World. Authored by: University of Minnesota. Located at: https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/6-2-conflict-and-interpersonal-communication/ License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

CC Licensed Content Shared Previously Conflict Management Authored by: Laura Westmaas. Published by: Open Library Located at: https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/conflictmanagement/ License: CC BY 4.0

Cahn D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Cid, D., & Fink, E. (2010). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69 (1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216536

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for Maintaining and Repairing Marital Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4 (2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042003

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice . Routledge.

Isenhart, M. W., & Spangle, M. (2000). Collaborative Approaches to Resolving Conflict . Sage.

Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2000). Correlates of the perceived resolvability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships: Argumentative features and the use of coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17 (4-5), 676-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500174011

Macintosh, G., & Stevens, C. (2008). Personality, motives, and conflict strategies in everyday service encounters. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19 (2), 112-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810856067

Messman, S. J., & Mikesell, R. L. (2009). Competition and interpersonal conflict in dating relationships. Communication Reports, 13 (1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210009367720

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The Academy of Management Journal, 26 (2), 368-379. https://doi.org/10.2307/255985

Reese-Weber, M., & Bartle-Haring, S. (1998). Conflict resolution styles in family subsystems and adolescent romantic relationships.  Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27 (6), 735–752.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022861832406

Sillars, A. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication Monographs, 47 (3), 180-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758009376031

Psychology of Human Relations Copyright © by Stevy Scarbrough is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Popular Insights:

Best Project Management Software

Mind Mapping Software

Conflict Management, Problem Solving and Decision Making

Share this Article:

Our content and product recommendations are editorially independent. We may make money when you click links to our partners. Learn more in our  Editorial & Advertising Policy .

Featured Partners

{{ POSITION }}. {{ TITLE }}

Conflict management, problem solving and decision making are topics that are generally considered to be distinct, but are actually interconnected such that they are used together to come up with the most feasible solution.

To come to the best possible outcome of a problem on the basis of sufficient information, certain problem solving steps need to be used. Some of these are as follows:

• Scrutinizing the problem
• Outlining the issue; solutions depends on the way it is outlined
• Detecting the main reasons which allowed the problem to occur
• Identifying the series of techniques to apply, and their outcomes
• Produce alternative options through processes such as brainstorming, discussions between groups and other discrete processes
• Choosing the simplest method that resolves the root cause
• Implementing the chosen method
• Monitoring and reviewing the execution

The flaw with this process is that it assumes there exists an ideal outcome, the information is available to reach this outcome, and the people taking part in the process are acting rationally. Unfortunately, this situation is extremely unusual.

Read More: What is Project Management? Definition, Types & Examples

Another flaw is the emotions of people involved in decision making. The core focus of conflict management is to reduce the effect of people’s emotions and make them think rationally. The typical solution choices are:

• Forcing/Directing – A method whereby a superior with autonomous power has a right to force the decision
• Smoothing/Accommodating – Negotiating the matter and trying to settle down the dispute
• Compromising/Reconciling – A give and take approach where each side surrenders something in order to come to a solution. The extent of dispute limits the generation of options.
• Problem-solving/Collaborating – Refers to collective decision making to come up with a solution that is conventional
• Avoiding/Withdrawing/Accepting – A method which may not settle the dispute but allows time to calm the emotions

Any of these approaches can be used for conflict management depending on the nature of conflict, although there primary focus is to control the level of the dispute. But, in due course, the underlying problems of the conflict need to be solved in its entirety .

To make the right decision, availability of sufficient and precise data needs to be present. Some decisions are not as simple, and data about them is not easily available.

The problems you can face range from simple to wicked problems.

• Wicked Problems are the kind of problems that continuously alter and demand the participant’s complexity and emotions. An iterative approach is best for these kinds of problems, as decision to every step simplifies the problem.
• In Dilemmas, you have to choose the solution which is the least worse as there is no right answer to these problems, but choosing a solution is always better than not making a decision.
• Conundrums are complicated questions that have speculative or hypothetical answers.
• Puzzles and mysteries need superlative judgment in certain circumstances. Lack of time to contract these decisions to simple problems is a constraint in this approach, although you can apply processes to a point.
• Problems require hard work to be solved. Carefully and properly designed execution of problem solving processes can show the best outcomes.

In order to come to the best possible conclusion, an understanding and balance of the following points is essential:

• Characteristics of problem at hand
• Emotion and conflict of stakeholders
• Features of different type of decisions
• Pick up the single best decision using your best judgement in given circumstances

The core of all the above is choosing & implementing the best decision, followed by a continuous review of the decision, making changes as quickly as possible, and providing a feedback.

Sign up for our emails and be the first to see helpful how-tos, insider tips & tricks, and a collection of templates & tools. Subscribe Now

{{ TITLE }}

You should also read.

Creating Gantt Charts in Microsoft Project: Ultimate Guide

Project Executive: Roles, Responsibilities, and How to Become One

What Is Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Practical Guide

Join our newsletter.

Subscribe to Project Management Insider for best practices, reviews and resources.

By clicking the button you agree of the privacy policy

Get the Newsletter

You might also like.

83 Project Management Terms & Concepts to Know

What Is a Problem Statement & How to Effectively Create One

How to Hire the Best Project Manager

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

4 Common Types of Team Conflict — and How to Resolve Them

• Randall S. Peterson,
• Priti Pradhan Shah,
• Amanda J. Ferguson,
• Stephen L. Jones

Advice backed by three decades of research into thousands of team conflicts around the world.

Managers spend 20% of their time on average managing team conflict. Over the past three decades, the authors have studied thousands of team conflicts around the world and have identified four common patterns of team conflict. The first occurs when conflict revolves around a single member of a team (20-25% of team conflicts). The second is when two members of a team disagree (the most common team conflict at 35%). The third is when two subgroups in a team are at odds (20-25%). The fourth is when all members of a team are disagreeing in a whole-team conflict (less than 15%). The authors suggest strategies to tailor a conflict resolution approach for each type, so that managers can address conflict as close to its origin as possible.

If you have ever managed a team or worked on one, you know that conflict within a team is as inevitable as it is distracting. Many managers avoid dealing with conflict in their team where possible, hoping reasonable people can work it out. Despite this, research shows that managers spend upwards of 20% of their time on average managing conflict.

• Randall S. Peterson is the academic director of the Leadership Institute and a professor of organizational behavior at London Business School. He teaches leadership on the School’s Senior Executive and Accelerated Development Program.
• PS Priti Pradhan Shah is a professor in the Department of Work and Organization at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. She teaches negotiation in the School’s Executive Education and MBA Programs.
• AF Amanda J. Ferguson  is an associate professor of Management at Northern Illinois University. She teaches Organizational Behavior and Leading Teams in the School’s MBA programs.
• SJ Stephen L. Jones is an associate professor of Management at the University of Washington Bothell. He teaches Organizational and Strategic Management at the MBA level.

Partner Center

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

A research-based approach to relationships

Managing vs. Resolving Conflict in Relationships: The Blueprints for Success

A look at three “conflict blueprints” to help you and your partner constructively manage conflict around unsolvable problems.

In The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work , Dr. John Gottman’s research proves that 69% of problems in a relationship are unsolvable. These may be things like personality traits your partner has that rub you the wrong way, or long-standing issues around spending and saving money. Their research findings emphasize the idea that couples must learn to manage conflict rather than avoid or attempt to eliminate it.

Trying to solve unsolvable problems is counterproductive, and no couple will ever completely eliminate them. However, discussing them is constructive and provides a positive opportunity for understanding and growth. Let’s look at three “conflict blueprints” to help you and your partner constructively manage conflict around unsolvable problems.

Conflict Blueprint #1: Current Conflicts

This blueprint addresses current conflicts. Based on game theory, a mathematical model that describes how to manage conflict and improve cooperation with others, this blueprint stresses that both partners put off persuasion tactics until each one can state their position clearly and fully. This involves each speaker and listener taking turns.

Both partners must be emotionally calm when speaking. The listener should take notes on what the speaker says. The speaker should focus on using a softened start-up, stating feelings by using “I” statements, and asking for needs to be met in a positive and respectful way.

Tips to effectively navigate Blueprint #1:

• Take a 15 to 20 minute break if things get too heated, and do something soothing and distracting that will help you calm down. When you return to talk, only one person should “have the floor” to talk while the other partner listens. No interruptions!
• Begin the conversation with a soft or curious tone. Use an “I” statement and express something you need. For example, “Could I ask you something? I felt embarrassed when you spoke down to me in front of our friends. Could you please be aware of that in the future?”
• Use repair attempts . Say key phrases to help your partner see that you are trying to understand and deescalate the conflict. For example, you can apologize, use humor appropriately, say “I hear you” or “I understand” and so on. Body language is important, too. Nod your head, make eye contact, and even offer a physical gesture of affection.

Conflict Blueprint #2: Attachment Injuries

This blueprint focuses on discussing past emotional injuries, often known as triggers, that occurred prior to or during the relationship. Also called “ attachment injuries ” by Dr. Sue Johnson, these can create resentment from past events that have gone unresolved. These frequently involve breaches of trust.

It is crucial to avoid being negative when discussing triggers. You both need to speak calmly and understand that both of your viewpoints are valid, even if you disagree. The goals are to gain comprehension of each other’s perspective and to acknowledge that regrettable incidents are inevitable in long-term relationships.

There are five primary components to a discussion about an emotional injury. These five steps are from the Gottmans’ Aftermath of a Fight or Regrettable Incident booklet . A couple should focus on describing how they feel, expressing their individual personal realities, exploring any underlying triggers, taking responsibility and apologizing, and forming productive plans for healing.

Tips to effectively navigate Blueprint #2:

• Offer a genuine apology to your partner regardless of your agreement or disagreement with their perspective. Focus only on the fact that you hurt your partner and that you need to take responsibility.
• Verbalize what you can take responsibility for, as well as any other factors that played into you getting caught up in the fight. For example, “I was too harsh when I spoke to you” or “I was stressed all day and took it out on you.”
• Ask your partner what he or she needs from you to heal and move forward. Be sure to follow through on the request.

Conflict Blueprint #3: Gridlock and Dialogue

Couples are often either “gridlocked” or “in dialogue” on their perpetual problems, and research suggests that these problems concern personality differences or core fundamental needs. Being in dialogue, the preferred status, is when the couple has learned to accept their differences on that topic even though minor arguments arise occasionally. Overall, the couple has made peace on the issue and they agree to disagree.

Moving from gridlock to dialogue involves examining the meaning and dreams that form the basis for each partner’s steadfast perspective. Each partner may be able to find a way to honor their partner’s dreams, which often amounts to fulfilling a core need regarding the issue at stake.

Those couples who successfully navigate a recurring problem in their relationship have learned to express acceptance of their partner’s personality, and they can talk about and appreciate the underlying meaning of each other’s position on the issue.

Tips to effectively navigate Blueprint #3

• Take turns speaking and listening. As the speaker, you should communicate clearly and honestly. Where does your perspective or position on the issue come from, and what does it symbolize for you? What kinds of lifelong dreams or core issues are at stake for you?
• As the listener, you must create a safe space for the speaker. No judging or arguing, and don’t give advice or try to solve the problem. Show genuine interest in what your partner is telling you, and allow them enough time and space to fully communicate their concerns. Ask questions so that you can both fully explore the issue and its related meaning.
• Find ways to create small compromises that can pave the way to larger plans. If your dreams differ, try to find areas where they overlap, or try to make plans to give each partner’s dreams a chance to grow and become reality.

All relationships have perpetual problems that crop up throughout your lives as a couple. Psychologist Dan Wile once said that “when choosing a long-term partner, you will inevitably be choosing a particular set of unresolvable problems.” No one escapes this fact. Fortunately, we have real science that helps couples learn how to manage such conflicts and keep their love alive and well.

Click here for more detailed information on Dealing with Conflict and for tips and exercises designed to improve your relationship.

Sign up for Gottman Love Notes

Get the latest on relationships, parenting, therapy and more, from the experts at The Gottman Institute. Includes a free download every month.

Dr. Marni Feuerman, LCSW, LMFT is in private practice in Boca Raton, Florida where she specializes in couples therapy. Dr. Marni is certified in Emotionally-Focused Couples Therapy (EFT) and Discernment Counseling. She also blogs on About.com, Huffington Post and Dr. Oz’s ShareCare. For more information, visit her website .

Workplace Dynamics

It’s not me, it’s you: solving workplace conflicts, the solution is more likely to be found in systems than in personalities..

Posted May 9, 2024 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

• A reflexive response to conflicts at work is to blame “personality clashes.”
• The cause of workplace conflict is more often a systems issue, not personal differences.
• Addressing the organizational reasons for conflict is simpler than changing co-workers' hearts and minds.

“Conflict cannot survive without your participation.” – Wayne Dyer

As an Employee Assistance professional who routinely engages in consultations involving workplace conflict it’s clear to me that the answer to the age-old question of “can’t we all just get along?” is a resounding “Hell no!”

What can we do about the ubiquitous nature of conflict in the workplace? How do we solve what seem to be deep-seated personality clashes to get back to the business of business?

Trying to get to the core of a workplace conflict is not unlike doing couples therapy where each partner points to the other as the instigator and sustainer of tension. Heard separately, the stories sound legitimate and it’s often hard to envision a resolution when the parties involved are so convincing in placing the blame outside themselves.

An example to which I often refer when providing trainings on resolving workplace conflict is an employee who came to me in great distress, stating that her “micro-managing” supervisor did not trust her, was always looking over her shoulder and questioned every decision she makes. Unbeknownst to the employee, said manager came to me complaining of this employee, stating that she seemed incapable of working independently, was never accepting of feedback and, in short, “high maintenance." The one area of common ground between them was that each stated that the stress of the working relationship was becoming unbearable, and each was giving serious thought to switching departments.

One of the reflexive responses to the above is to blame “personality clashes.” This perspective suggests that the flashpoints, or butting of heads, are simply the outgrowth of two people who are just wired differently and have been thrown into the sandbox together and told they must get along.

There are multiple problems with both this diagnosis and remedy. Studies have repeatedly shown that while there are personality issues in any relationship and everyone brings his or her personal history, including how they manage conflict, to the workplace, the reality is that it is the situations they find themselves in that create conflict and that others placed in similar circumstances would also experience conflict.

Examples of system issues that lead to conflict include:

• Someone who had authority and lost it and now resents those in charge.
• Someone who has authority but through its misuse alienates those around him or her.
• Two people sharing the same authority but different goals , each believing his or her way is correct.
• A blurred hierarchy in which no one knows who is really in charge.
• Poorly communicated expectations.
• An organizational culture that fosters unhealthy competition .

The list goes on, but the underlying element is the environment and how each person navigates the hierarchical structure in which they find themselves. This is not to say that dysfunctional people do not show up to work intent on creating drama for the sake of drama, see the workplace as an emotional playground, or are simply bullies kicking sand in everyone’s face. Addressing these individuals takes a strong leader who can implement the 3 C’s of managing problem employees: Coaching , Counseling, and Corrective Action.

The good news in the system approach to conflict resolution is that addressing and adjusting organizational issues is far easier than trying to change hearts and minds in hopes of creating a peaceful work environment.

The first step in addressing the issue is to take a hard look at the organizational culture that surrounds the employees, looking for the built-in power traps that put people at odds or unintentionally create an “us vs them” mentality. Since in many cases the conflict either directly involves a leader or the leader is too close to the issue, a third party, removed from the emotional content, is helpful in getting a broader view.

While many workers cope with the stress of conflict at work through the geographic cure of finding a new job—only to find in many cases that they have the same experience only with new faces—many others, through financial constraints, limited options or liking the work they do, choose to tough it out. The dangers with this approach include the damaging impact of long-term stress, a growing detachment from work—aka presenteeism —to lessen the emotional toll, a growing resentment toward leadership for not appropriately addressing the conflict, or leaning in on a conflictual approach. All of these responses are detrimental to the psychic, mental, and emotional health of the employee and contribute to a toxic work environment.

When counseling clients who seem locked in a battle of wills with a coworker to the point that the negative effects of that struggle are outweighing the benefits of a paycheck I will advise the following reflective questions:

• How invested in the relationship are you?
• How important is the issue to you?
• Do you have the energy for the conflict?
• Are you aware of the potential consequences of continuing the conflict?
• Are you ready for the consequences?
• What are the benefits of disengaging from the conflict?

If the circumstances do not involve bullying , discrimination , or abuse, I find it more helpful to move employees through the conflict by assuring them that “it’s not you” but then add the qualifier that it’s also not the other person. While sounding like a Zen koan, it’s the simple truth that the surrounding circumstances have contributed to a battle that cannot be won by changing someone’s personality. Additionally, I reassure them that as Gandhi pointed out, “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.” Finally, I will ask that their awareness shift from tension mode to accepting the following:

• Our work lives are interconnected with our coworkers but also distinct from them.
• We are responsible for shared success but not for another’s success.
• Our ideas, beliefs, and opinions deserve respect but not necessarily agreement.
• It’s not conflict that destroys relationships; it’s how we address it.

Caesens, et al. Perceived Organizational Support and Workplace Conflict: The Mediating Role of Failure-Related Trust . Frontiers in Psychology, 2019.

Mike Verano, LPC, LMFT, CEAP, CCISM, CCTP, CFRC, is a licensed therapist, author, and public speaker.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution

By eben a. weitzman and patricia flynn weitzman, summary written by: conflict research consortium staff.

Citation : "Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution." Morton Deutsch and Peter T. Coleman, eds.,  The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice  San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 185-209.

The authors describe the conflict resolution process as composed of two component processes: decision-making and problem solving. They describe each component, and develop a simple model of their interaction within the broader conflict resolution process.

The problem solving process involves two main parts: diagnosing the conflict, and developing alternative solutions. Diagnosis emphasizes identifying the parties' underlying interests. The goal of problem solving approaches is to find mutually acceptable solutions to problems. Solutions may take the form of a compromise, or agreement on a fair procedure for generating an outcome. Integrative, or win-win, solutions are the most desirable. Strategies for reaching solutions include increasing contested resources (expanding the pie), finding alternative forms of compensation (nonspecific compensation), trading off small concessions (logrolling), or creating new options that satisfy underlying interests (bridging).

Research shows that problem solving approaches to conflict resolution generate more agreements, more win-win outcomes, more outcome satisfaction in the short and long terms, and more durable solutions. Research also shows that problem solving approaches are more likely to be used by people in fair and cohesive organizations that recognize success and are open to innovation. Problem solving is more likely when parties are concerned for the others welfare, as well as their own.

Cognitive psychologists describe problem solving as a four stage process: Identifying the problem, generating alternative strategies, selecting and implementing a solution, and evaluating consequences. Cognitive psychology also suggests a model of interpersonal negotiation strategies that focuses on the different developmental levels of perspective taking by the parties. An egoistic perspective sees the other party as an object, and typical reactions include whining, ignoring, or hitting. The unilateral perspective recognizes the other as an individual, but interacts with them in terms of obedience, command or avoidance. A reciprocal perspective acknowledges the others' interests but still considers them secondary. Interactions take the form of exchange-oriented negotiations. From a mutual perspective, "the needs of both the self and the others are coordinated, and a mutual, third-person perspective is adopted in which both sets of interests are taken into account."(p. 193) Interactions are collaborative. Adoption of the mutual perspective is very important for high quality problem solving.

Individual and group decision making occurs throughout the conflict resolution process. Individual decisions include choosing strategies, deciding to trust, evaluating offers, and prioritizing concerns. Rational choice theory says that people make decisions based on their calculation of the utility of the desired outcome and the chance of that outcome occurring. There are a number of factors that affect these calculations. Whether an outcome is perceived as a gain or a loss depends on a person's reference point. Anchor points-- for example, the perceived best and worst possible outcomes--can also affect assessment of a choice. Generally people are loss-averse; they see avoiding loss as more important than achieving gain. Stress and emotional reactions also affect decision making.

Group decisions include whether to continue problem solving, whether to get help, which procedures to use, and which solution to choose. The authors identify common biases that interfere with good decision making. These include irrationally escalating commitments, assuming resources are fixed and outcomes must be win-lose, using information because it is available rather than relevant, and overconfidence. People may also be biased by the way information is presented, by irrelevant anchor points, or by failing to take the other party's perspective into account. Generally, people's notions of fairness tend to be biased in their own favor. Groups are more likely to reach integrative solutions when the parties' power is equal and their aspirations are high. When power is unequal, the low-power party is more likely to make mutually beneficial offers. Parties in negative or business relationships often want to do much better than their rivals, whereas parties in positive or personal relationships prefer more equal outcomes.

The first step in conflict resolution involves deciding what sort of conflict it is, and understanding the problem by identifying parties interests, goals, reasons, options, etc. Parties need to coordinate their perspectives. The next step is to brainstorm for alternative solutions to the problem. Techniques such as idea checklists or What If questions may also be helpful. The third step is to evaluate the alternatives and decide on a solution. Individual evaluative decisions must be brought together to reach a group decision. Here parties must be on guard against the various factors and biases that can undermine rational decision making. Finally, the parties must commit to their decision.

The authors suggest that problem solving and decision making techniques should be taught together in conflict resolution training programs. Training should explain the conditions that encourage adoption of a problem solving approach, and factors that undermine good decision making.

The Intractable Conflict Challenge

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.
• Attack the Problem, Not the People -- "Separate the people from the problem" might be the most often violated fundamental conflict resolution principle, even by people who know better. And it is hurting us.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

Conflict Resolution Strategies In Project Management (PMP)

Conflict resolution is an art of recognizing and handling disputes in a sensible, efficient, and balanced manner.

According to the PMBOK Guide (A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge) 7th edition, there are 6 conflict management strategies. These are:

• Confronting/Problem Solving
• Collaborating
• Compromising
• Smoothing/accommodating
• Withdrawal/avoiding

Let’s understand the overall conflict resolution process and discuss the above 6 strategies in a little bit more detail. Let us also find out which is the most effective strategy for successful conflict resolution.

Note: The 6th edition of PMBOK Guide had 5 conflict resolution strategies. It did not list ‘Confronting’ as a conflict resolution technique. If you are planning to take the PMP certification exam (Project Management Professional) in the near future, you should consider all six techniques including ‘Confronting’.

Table of Contents

Why do Conflicts Happen?

Workplace conflict arise when two or more people have difference of opinion or different priorities.

Conflicts are part and parcel of every project. Conflicts happen in every group setting whether they are business or personal. People always find ways to disagree on one thing or the other.

There are many reasons for workplace conflict. The disputes can arise because of interpersonal conflict, personal working styles, and project priorities. Here are some of the main causes of disagreements that can lead to conflicts:

• Scarcity of resources
• Scheduling preferences
• Administrative procedures
• Technical options and solutions
• Budgetary allocations
• Project changes
• Personal differences

The conflicts must be proactively resolved otherwise they can cause:

• Low team morale
• Distrust among team members
• Reduction in team productivity
• Loss of authority of the project manager
• Poor quality outputs

How to Resolve Conflict?

Ground rules and common understanding among team members can prevent conflict. Project management techniques like effective communication, proper role definition, and periodic meetings can also reduce quantum and magnitude of disputes.

The disputes should be addressed immediately as soon as they arise. They should be dealt early and should not be allowed to fester. It is better to resolve the disputes in private by employing an open and collaborative approach.

The project manager along with the team members is responsible for resolving the conflicts and reaching a satisfactory solution.  The project managers can employ conflict resolution skills including active listening, emotional awareness, problem solving, negotiation, and effective communication skill for managing conflict.

If a conflict gets out of hand and becomes disruptive, project managers can follow formal procedures, which could include disciplinary actions.

Project managers must keep the following points in mind while tackling the disputes:

• Disagreements are natural. No one should be blamed for them.
• Disputes can be fixed by exploring the alternatives.
• An unresolved conflict can become a serious problem.
• Openness can resolve conflict early.
• The resolution mechanism should be centered on the issues and not on individuals.
• The possible solution must focus on the present and not on the past.

6 Conflict Management Strategies in Project Management

Effective conflict management leads to positive working relationships, greater cohesion, and higher productivity. When differences of opinion are managed well, they can lead to creative solutions and improved decision making.

A conflict management strategy is a way to resolve dispute. There are six formal strategies to sort out the disputes. Anyone of these methods can be employed to resolve the issue at hand. The project managers must learn the nuances of these to methods resolve interpersonal conflict.

1. Confronting/Problem Solving

This technique resolves conflicts by having an open discussion about the disagreements. The disagreeing parties treat the conflict as a problem that needs to be solved. They find and eliminate the root cause of the conflict in order to resolve it completely. They collectively bring about a solution that is acceptable to everyone.

This method works only when there is openness, good relationship, and mutual trust among the involved parties.

The major downside of this technique is that it usually takes longer to arrive at a solution than the other methods. However, the major advantage is that everyone agrees to the final solution and it fixes the root cause of the problem.

It is also called as win-win strategy.

2. Collaborating

This technique resolves conflicts by looking at the conflict from different perspectives and incorporating multiple viewpoints. It requires an open dialogue and collaborative attitude.

Collaboration doesn’t work if the views of the disagreeing parties are not harmonious with each other. It provides a great platform to learn from each other.

3. Compromising/Reconciling

This technique resolves conflicts by finding a middle ground that is acceptable to conflicting parties. It involves bargaining and tradeoffs by accepting something in exchange for something else.

E.g. if two people are disagreeing on two different points, they resolve the conflict by accepting the viewpoint of the other person on one point each.

The main drawback of this approach is that sometimes essential aspects of the project are sacrificed to meet individual goals.

This approach brings in some degree of satisfaction to all the parties involved. It, usually, brings a temporary or partial solution because all disputing parties give away something. That is why, it is also called as a lose-lose strategy.

4. Smoothing/Accommodating

This technique resolves conflicts by emphasizing on areas of agreement and not discussing about the disagreements.

Smoothing is an effective way of maintaining harmony and preventing outwardly conflicting situations. it is a way to make people comfortable.

E.g. if two people have an agreement on three points but a disagreement on one point they they move forward by ignoring the point of disagreement. They might not even discuss the point of disagreement and just say that it is a trivial and minor point in the larger scheme of things.

The major downside of this technique is that it is a delay strategy – it only brings in a temporary solution as the point of disagreement was never really discussed. It maintains peace in the short term but can lead to more intense and acrid problems in the future.

5. Forcing/Directing

This technique resolves conflicts by using one’s positional power to force a viewpoint. Usually, there is little or no discussion and one person imposes his viewpoint on the other to settle the issue.

This technique can be employed when you are in hurry and have to deal with an emergency. It can be also used when there is no base for negotiation or when when the disputing parties are not cooperative and resolute.

This is a perfect strategy when project managers need to make quick decisions on unpopular issues like budget cuts. schedule compression, resource reduction etc.

Forcing is usually less time-consuming than other techniques but it creates disenchantment among staff members. It is also called as win-lose strategy since one person wins and other person loses in the conflict when this strategy is employed.

6. Withdrawal/avoiding

This technique resolves conflicts by withdrawing oneself from actual or potential conflict situation. It is a way of avoiding the conflict. In this, one of the disagreeing persons refrains from taking a position and yields to the other person’s point of view.

This method allows time to cool off and take stock of the situation It is a good approach when one of the conflicting parties is non-cooperative and unresponsive.

This strategy gives a temporary solution as it doesn’t really solve any problem – it only postpones the problem. It can also weaken your standing and authority in the project.

Conflict Resolution Techniques and PMP Exam

We already know that between 6th edition and 7th edition, PMI (Project Management Institute) introduced a new method to resolve conflicts.

It would seem that the field of project management is progressing in the right direction. PMI (Project Management Institute) is doing some research and adding new knowledge to the project management knowledge-base as it becomes known.

However, this is not true.

The fact is that PMI had listed six strategies to resolve conflicts in PMBOK Guide 4th edition but they dropped one when the fifth edition was published. The 6th edition continued with what was described in the 5th edition.

PMI didn’t drop one strategy. Rather, it merged two strategies “confrontation” and “compromise” together. To me, this doesn’t seem right as, we will find later in the article that, these strategies have two completely different meanings.

So, how many techniques are actually there? Should we follow 7th edition or 6th edition?

I believe PMI listed five strategies in previous editions because the conflict model defined by Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann had defined five techniques.However, I think, the conflict model with six techniques is a better model.

Which is the Most Effective Conflict Resolution Strategy?

There is no single method that can be considered as most effective or potent. Different techniques are useful at different junctures. In fact, what may work today with person X may not work again tomorrow with the same person.

The project managers should analyze the situation and figure out what action is best suited for the correct situation. Here are some of the things that they should consider while employing a conflict management strategy:

• Degree and intensity of the discord.
• Emotional intelligence of the people involved.
• Interpersonal relationships.
• Importance of conflict.
• Time pressure to resolve the dispute.
• Maintenance of good relation between disagreeing parties.

Over to you

What is your take on the conflict management strategy? Do you think confrontation should be treated as the sixth strategy?

Which technique do you regularly employ at your workplace to resolve task conflict?

Similar Posts

To Complete Performance Index (TCPI) Formulas | PMP Exam

To Complete Performance Index (TCPI) is the estimated cost efficiency required to complete the remaining project work within a defined budget. The defined budget could be the original budget i.e., Budget At Completion (BAC) or it could be the revised budget Estimate At Completion (BAC). TCPI is different from Cost Performance Index (CPI). TCPI is…

Earned Value Management & Analysis: Formulas & Examples

Earned Value Analysis (EVA) or Earned Value Management(EVM) is a project management technique that combines scope, schedule, and cost to measure project progress and performance. The earned value system uses three basic values for measuring the current performance viz. Planned Value (PV), Earned Value (EV), and Actual Cost (AC). In addition, it also uses Budget…

9 Frequently Asked Questions on Lead and Lag

Lead and Lag Demystified There are many terms that perturb project management professionals. Lead and Lag are two such terms. I interact with many professionals on a regular basis. I often find that many of them are not fully aware of meaning of these terms. Even though they know the correct definitions of these terms,…

PMBOK Guide Change Management Process For PMP Exam

You need to understand PMI’s change management process flow in order to answer PMP change request questions. The questions related to project changes in the PMP certification exam are long, confusing, unnerving, and difficult. Sometimes, all options seem to be the correct answer but they tend to become easy if you understand the steps involved…

Project Effort vs Duration vs Elapsed Time With Examples

There main difference between effort, duration and elapsed time is that effort refers to the amount of exertion or work done to complete a task, duration refers to the length of (working) time to complete a task, and elapsed time is the total amount of (working and non-working) time that passes between start of an…

Estimate to Complete (ETC) Formulas In Project Management

Estimate To Complete (ETC) is an estimation of funds required to complete the remaining work of a project. I have written this post to explain ETC with the help of an example. You will find a complete discourse on ETC in this post, which includes: significance of ETC in project management. definition and meaning of…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 Conflict Resolution Techniques in Project Management

Fahad Usmani, PMP

July 24, 2022

Today we will discuss the five conflict resolution techniques we use in project management to resolve conflict.

These techniques are universal to any type of workplace. 

However, in project management, the work environment is dynamic and stressful, unlike the functional environment. Conflicts are common occurrences. If you are managing projects , you know how important it is to manage conflicts, and that is why you should understand conflict resolution techniques. 

Conflict Resolution Techniques

Conflict can occur when two or more stakeholders have different opinions or interests. 

Schedule priorities, scarce resources, technical reasons, and personal issues can all cause clashes. According to the American Management Association, managers manage conflicts 24% of their time.

Don’t panic; the situation is usually not as bad as you think. Resolving conflicts appropriately can build trust and sometimes bring new ideas and opportunities. This can make the difference between a positive and negative outcome.

If you don’t solve the conflict, your team members will lose trust. It will weaken your position as a project manager and the ability of your team to bond, which may affect your project’s success. You must deal with conflict before it is beyond resolution.

The following are a few consequences of improper conflict management:

• Low team morale
• Negative impact on the project manager’s authority
• Increased number of personal clashes
• Low productivity and efficiency
• Low-quality work

If required, project managers must monitor and resolve conflicts as quickly as possible to keep them from becoming bigger issues.

Now, we will talk about conflict resolution techniques.

This blog follows the PMI guidelines and PMBOK Guide. Here are the five techniques:

• Withdraw/Avoid
• Smooth/Accommodate
• Compromise/Reconcile
• Force/Direct
• Collaborate/Problem Solve

These conflict management strategies are also known as Thomas-Kilmann’s five approaches to resolving conflict.

Let’s discuss each technique in detail.

#1. Withdraw of Avoid

In this conflict resolution technique, you avoid the conflict or retreat and allow the conflict to resolve itself. This is for when stakes are low, and the conflict is likely to disappear on its own.

Use this technique in the following cases:

• Individuals involved in the conflict are not influential stakeholders.
• The issue does not require a time investment.
• An intense argument has already happened, and the individuals need time to cool off.
• You do not have enough information to pursue other techniques.

This technique saves time that you can invest elsewhere. It is a good conflict management strategy to apply to low-level disagreements and gives you enough time to prepare if the conflict re-emerges.

Disadvantages

Withdrawing or avoiding is not really a resolution, does not resolve a conflict, and may weaken your position because parties may assume you have an unfair bias. Team members may think you are lacking skills or are not authoritative.

Many experts don’t consider this technique as a conflict management strategy because avoiding and escaping is not a solution.

#2. Smooth or Accommodate

In this conflict resolution strategy, you find areas of agreement, try to smooth out the situation, and circumvent tough discussions.

The smoothing technique gives more consideration to one party than the other. You downplay the seriousness and behave as if the conflict never existed.

This technique is helpful in the following cases:

• You don’t have time to deal with it.
• You require a temporary solution to the problem.
• The conflict is minor and involves less influential stakeholders.

This conflict resolution strategy does not require much effort. You can focus on essential issues by ignoring unimportant arguments. Situations can be potentially handled simply while bringing harmony, creating goodwill, and providing enough time to find a permanent solution.

If you fail to bring a balanced approach, one party may take advantage since you are giving them more consideration. Other parties not being accommodated may question your authority or stop reporting conflicts.

This conflict resolution strategy is not recommended as it often weakens the project manager’s authority.

#3. Compromise or Reconcile

In this conflict management strategy, you take suggestions from both sides and partially satisfy them. This technique is useful when the stakeholders involved hold equal power.

You may use this technique in the following cases:

• All parties involved need to win
• When you have an equal relationship with both parties
• Collaborative and forcing techniques have failed
• When you need a temporary solution 

This technique brings quick results, lowers stress, and keeps all parties placated until you can find a permanent solution. You can cool off and revisit the situation later.

This conflict management technique does not generate trust in the long run; all parties remain unsatisfied, and the conflict could resurface at any time. Morals are not being strengthened. You may have to ensure all parties abide by the agreement.

#4. Force or Direct

In this conflict management strategy, you agree with one party’s viewpoint and enforce their wishes. This is a win-lose situation and risks demoralizing the team.

You can use this conflict resolution technique in the following cases:

• When you need a quick solution
• When you know that one party is right
• You do not have time to investigate
• When the conflict is not very important
• When the relationship with stakeholders is not essential

This technique provides a quick solution. It requires almost no effort from the project manager and may help establish their authority.

Using this technique may cause a negative impression on you. You may lose opportunities gained from the opposing party’s viewpoint. You cannot apply this technique with powerful stakeholders. It may backfire and worsen the conflict.

#5. Collaborate or Problem Solve

In a collaborative conflict resolution strategy, you discuss the issue with all parties and agree on a solution while considering multiple viewpoints.

• When incorporating multiple views
• If influential stakeholders are involved
• When a consensus is required
• If you want to distribute responsibility 

This is a real problem-solving technique that provides a solution to the conflict. It brings consensus, commitment, and shared responsibility for the outcome. This technique creates a win-win situation, builds your team’s confidence, earns respect, and establishes your authority.

You cannot use this technique when you need a quick solution because it takes time and effort. It is generally used for conflicts that may affect your project, not all issues.

Which Conflict Resolution Technique Should I Use?

The PMI does not recommend using any specific technique for all conflicts; it depends on the situation and the stakeholders involved.

For example, if two ground-level laborers have a conflict, what should you do?

 You may ignore it.

However, if you see that some important stakeholders have a conflict, you will intervene, solve the conflict, and spare your project from harm.

Although no single technique can be used for all conflicts, it is thought that the “Collaborate or Problem Solve” method brings the most consensus and commitment.

How to Prevent Conflict 

You cannot keep all conflict from happening, but following a few rules can minimize it. These guidelines are:

• Establish Strict Ground Rules: These help discipline team members, which results in less conflict.
• Have an Effective Communication Plan: This can help you avoid many conflicts. Define how much and how often you will communicate with your stakeholders.
• Have a Better Stakeholder Management Plan: Your project is successful if your stakeholders are happy. Project management is all about managing stakeholders’ requirements. 
• Solve Conflict Early: This takes less time and effort. Make sure an unresolved conflict doesn’t resurface again later.

The Role of the Project Manager in Conflict Resolution

I have explained all strategies to resolve conflicts and how you can use them. As a project manager, you have to respond rationally and reach a solution that best serves your objective.

While resolving a conflict, keep the following points in mind:

• Each participant deserves respect
• Be calm and rational.
• People are separate from problems
• Each participant should be listened to patiently
• There are always areas of agreement and disagreement
• You should explore all possible solutions.
• Mind your biases and don’t pick sides
• Don’t force or pressure participants
• Postponed conflicts may fester. 
• Focus on the conflict, don’t let escalate the issue or generalize it.

As a project manager, you are responsible for keeping conflicts under control. You cannot use any single technique for all types of conflict. However, you should use a conflict resolution strategy that inspires consensus and commitment from team members.

This is where this blog post on conflict resolution techniques ends.

Below is my old blog post on conflict resolution strategies based on the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide. Since I have re-written it based on the sixth edition of the PMBOK Guide , the old blog post is no longer relevant, but I am keeping it archived. 

 “Conflict Resolution Techniques” was one of my favorite topics during my PMP certification exam preparation . Although, I observed a discrepancy between the PMP exam reference books and the PMBOK guide.

All the reference books suggest that confronting is the best conflict resolution technique and that a project manager should use this technique to resolve conflicts in all cases. However, the PMBOK Guide (fourth edition) favors the collaborative technique.

I have repeatedly reviewed this edition of the PMBOK Guide but could not find any support for this. To my surprise, nobody is discussing this discrepancy.

Therefore, I am launching my blog to address this issue, which is my first blog post.

Let’s get started.

Conflict happens while managing projects. The PMI recognizes this fact, and they have incorporated conflict resolution techniques into the PMBOK Guide.

Sources of conflict include scheduling priorities, technical problems, personal issues, scarcity of resources, etc. 

According to the PMBOK Guide (fourth edition), you can use six conflict resolution techniques to resolve conflicts:

• Withdrawing or Avoiding
• Smoothing or Accommodating
• Compromising
• Collaborating
• Problem Solving or Confronting

Now I will discuss each technique and the best conflict resolution as per the PMBOK Guide.

• Withdrawing or Avoiding: The project manager chooses to avoid the conflict, and those involved find a solution.
• Smoothing or Accommodating: The project manager is involved in the conflict, tries to avoid areas of disagreement and tough discussions, and focuses on commonalities. Smoothing is a way to avoid tough discussions.
• Compromising: This is a mid-way approach. Here, everybody gains some, but no one gets exactly what they want. This is a lose-lose approach.
• Forcing: The project manager favors one party at the expense of the others. This technique risks demoralizing team members and may cause serious conflict in the future. This is a win-lose approach.
• Collaborating: The project manager works with all parties to find a resolution that involves multiple viewpoints to create the best solution. This technique reinforces mutual trust and commitment. This is an example of a win-win approach.

In the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide, Collaborating and Problem Solving were different techniques. However, the fifth and sixth editions, both are the same technique. Also, problem-solving was known as confronting in the fourth edition, but it no longer appears in current PMBOK Guides. 

A Note on Problem Solving or Confronting Technique

In confronting technique, the project manager must find a solution for a conflict. He will conduct a root cause analysis and provide a platform for all parties to express their disagreements and arrive at a solution.

So, Which is the Best Technique to Resolve a Conflict?

I have reviewed many books and internet resources to discover the best conflict resolution technique. Amazingly, I got the same answer: Confronting or Problem-Solving is the best technique for conflict resolution.

However, I do not agree with this.

A project manager’s job is not easy; they must constantly deal with multiple conflicts. No two conflicts are the same, so why would you always use one technique?

Project managers must use their judgment and experience to decide which conflict resolution technique is most suitable for each situation. The technique selected depends on the situation, timing, and the individuals involved.

The primary objective of the project manager is to complete the project successfully.

A project manager is not a detective. It’s not their job to look for the root cause, dig every available detail and scraps of evidence, and then reach a conclusion.

With problem-solving techniques, one person wins, and another loses; this is not a win-win situation and will leave one party unsatisfied even if they are in the wrong.

A prudent project manager will try to avoid this situation and look for a solution to satisfy all parties. The collaborating conflict resolution technique, which is a win-win situation for all.

Let us see what the PMBOK Guide says:

Page-239, second paragraph:

“If conflict escalates, the project manager should help facilitate a satisfactory resolution. Conflict should be addressed early and usually in private, using a direct, collaborative approach.”

Page-229, last paragraph:

“… managing conflicts in a constructive manner, and encouraging collaborative problem solving and decision-making.”

No statement in the PMBOK Guide suggests using the problem solving/confrontation technique for all conflicts; however, I noticed that the PMBOK Guide recommends the collaborative technique.

It seems that the PMI agrees with me too!

I do not recommend using the collaborative technique to solve all conflicts. However, it is the only technique that leads to consensus and commitment among all parties involved in the conflict.

The strategy of conflict management depends on the conflict. You can use the technique you think best suits the situation to resolve the conflict. However, I cannot agree that confronting is the best conflict resolution technique, and you should not use it blindly.

What conflict resolution techniques help you most to resolve conflicts? Please share your experience through the comments section.

I am Mohammad Fahad Usmani, B.E. PMP, PMI-RMP. I have been blogging on project management topics since 2011. To date, thousands of professionals have passed the PMP exam using my resources.

PMP Question Bank

This is the most popular Question Bank for the PMP Exam. To date, it has helped over 10,000 PMP aspirants prepare for the exam. 

PMP Training Program

This is a PMI-approved 35 contact hours training program and it is based on the latest exam content outline applicable in 2024.

Similar Posts

Validated Deliverables Versus Accepted Deliverables

This blog post was written based on the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide. Since the arrival of the PMBOK Guide 5th Edition, this post is no longer valid. However, I am leaving it intact as part of organizational process assets. If you wish to review old definitions you can read them here.

Many PMP aspirants may confuse validated deliverables and accepted deliverables. They seem similar, but they are not.

Validated deliverables and accepted deliverables are important concepts in project management. You will see a few questions on these topics on your PMP exam.

Verification Vs Validation

Validation and verification are two important terms in project management; they seem very similar, and it’s easy to get them confused.

These are important concepts and any PMP aspirants needs to understand them well. I will explain these terms fully, so you will have a better understanding of them when you finish this blog post.

This topic is not very important from the PMP exam point of view. However, as a project manager, you must know the difference between these terms.

Leadership Styles: Definition, Meaning, & Types of Leadership Styles

Definition: A leadership style is a method of managing, directing, and motivating followers. Leadership styles define how leaders strategize their relationships with their followers. Therefore, knowing the leadership style is vital to gaining followers’ loyalty and increasing the leader’s effectiveness.  This article overviews seven leadership styles, their pros and cons, factors affecting leadership styles, and…

Common Cause Variations Vs Special Cause Variations

Processes always have variations, which can be common cause variations or special cause variations. The factors that cause variances in project performance are: Changes in project scope. Lack of resources. Wrong estimates. Incorrect identification of scheduled activities. Wrong project reviews. Poorly implemented project management processes. Poor risk review. Inefficient change control procedures. Modifications in the…

What is an Action Plan? (Template and Example Included)

An action plan makes easier to achieve your goal using a planned approach. It does not matter whether you manage a project or a department; an action plan will provide you with a path that you can follow to success. Action plans also help you achieve goals in your personal life. It helps you or…

Quality Assurance Vs Quality Control (QA Vs QC)

Quality assurance and quality control are most important processes for any project, as the project’s success depends on these processes.

Every project has a quality control section to take care of these functions. The quality assurance function usually stays with the organization and the quality control section has to communicate with the organization to coordinate between these two processes.

Since these processes are connected and work in coordination, many professionals, especially those working in small and medium sized organizations, do not understand their differences.

This reminds me of one interaction when I was in my ISO 9001 training course a few years back. I met with many professionals involved in quality management. These people were all from different backgrounds and were working in various fields.

64 Comments

Sir, i realy appreaciat your idea and its very educative, please sir what technique should be use in resolving the conflict over land.

I am really impressed with the topics dealt with conflict resolutions

Thanks Elfatih.

what the role as the PM or team member if conflict start to effect core project or one constrains should i start interfere to solve it or ask them to solve it by them self.

or should i report it

If you are not PM, you should report to PM.

If you are a PM you should use your best judgement to handle the issue.

Thanks for your notes and questions bank. Your notes really inspired me how to study PMP exam and I got it passed yesterday.

Congratulations Albert on passing the PMP exam.

Very informative,thanks.

You are welcome Rondity.

Hi Fahad, I failed my first test and preparing for the second one.I prepared well with lot of material including PMBOK. But,i am unable to justify my weak areas.I purchased your 400 questions and scored 80% .Practiced well in all the areas.Can you advise me please?

Send me an email at [email protected] with all details, I will reply you.

Is I have to explain again the need of new requirements to members, which technique should I use? And when we are discussing alternative which one? I found the blog quite clear but to be honest I fail to differentiate when to use collaboration and compromise. Pls can you help me

Compromise is relatively quicker process where you take suggestion from both parties and reach on a conclusion.

In collaborative approach you have a detailed discussion with both parties to reach on a best solution.

may be you are right but in my opinion all strategy are for work and in my case the compromise is the best option for me. Thankyou for your material.

It depends on the situation and stakeholders involve with the conflicts.

Hello Fahad,

I successfully completed the exam and now Certified PM :) I want to thank you for these notes that really helped me understand the processes better in simpler terms. You are great teacher! I had purchased your formula guide and EVM guide as well which was immense help as well. Thank you and God bless you.

Congratulations Hazra on passing the PMP exam.

Your blog is great help. I am currently preparing for my PMP exam. Every time I am stuck or fail to understand a term/usage/formula, I come here and your explanation(s) helps me understand it. I want to thank you for that. And I also appreciate that you update your notes when there is a new edition of PMBOK. So this is a great reference site for people like me preparing to give their exams. Best

You are welcome Hazra. Now the six edition of the PMBOK is arriving next year, so I will have update them again.

Thanks for your comment.

Hey Fahad, Thanks for your awesome notes. I also purchased the question set on Kindle. Helped me clear the test on first attempt.

Regards, Amol

Congratulations Anmol on passing the PMP exam, and I am glad that I could be of help to you.

I like your post, Thank you for the efforts in updating to latest PMBOK and helping the community.

Thanks Qhayum

Thanks Qhayum.

Can I please ask this question?

Is problem solving the most effective, sustainable conflict resolution technique? Please provide reasons to substantiate your response. Discuss your opinion point by point. Thank you

Please read the blog post again till end. This topic has been explained in detail.

Okay Ram, in future update I will try to include some scenario based examples.

I do see 3 to 5 questions coming out in MOCK Exams from Conflict resolution techniques. They are very close in resemblance among each other. However I commit the mistake between Smooth/Accomodate, Compromise/Reconciliation and also between Force/Direct, Withdraw/Avoid.

Judgement becomes tough & above explanations are quite lengthy to recall/remember. In such case, is it possible to provide one scenario(Same people) with different situations that match the 5 conflict resolution techniques to understand?

Many Thanks.

Regards, Ram Narayan

No more conflicts. These techniques are great(Withdraw/Avoid,Smooth/Accommodate, Compromise/Reconcile,Force/Direct,Collaborate/Problem Solve) http://ku.ac.ke

Thanks James for visiting and leaving comment.

I checked the PMOBOK fifth ed. and as you mention, but I also noticed the word confront (in pencil) near the word collaborate. I remembered that our instructor told us they have same meaning.

“but I also noticed the word confront (in pencil) near the word collaborate” – I did not understand what do you mean?

Another nice post. In fact, conflict management technique is a fav topic of mine as well.

However, I am unable to get – how compromise is loose-loose. Wont it be loose-win, even if temporary?

In compromise both parties have to give up something to reach on a common consensus.

(Please note that this article is based on the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide, in fifth edition, PMI has amalgamated collaborative and problem solving techniques.)

Hello All Which one is the worst conflict resolution method? I think its :forcing/directing, but ive seen places which advocate that withdrawing/avoiding is the worst one. Please share your thoughts.

It depends on situation.

In PMBook 5th edition, collaborating and problem solving are given as synonyms. As for confronting it disappeared, however I just did the exam and it is still the term they use for this. The way I see it, confronting is the same general ideology than collaborating and problem solving, all seeks win-win situation.

Here is an excerpt from 5th ed.: “There are five general techniques for resolving conflict. As each one has its place and use, these are not given in any particular order” […] “Collaborate/Problem Solve. Incorporating multiple viewpoints and insights from differing perspectives; requires a cooperative attitude and open dialogue that typically leads to consensus and commitment.”

I also think confronting/problem solving/collaborating leads to best solutions. As with many other things in life, we often have to select optimal result given the constrains rather than the very best one.

Confronting is not a win-lose, its aim at win-win. you confront ideas of both party and the aim (the very reason why it’s time consuming) is by sharing actively their point of view, a common agreement will emerge (which can be to agree about one or the other party position or on a new position). Since it must be common agreement, it can only be win-win (unless it is a disguised compromise because one of the party pretend to agree). It is really the equivalent of collaborating/problem solving.

In the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide, confronting and collaborative approach were different, now they are synonyms….

I’m sorry. Read the PMBOK again, and your sources. The PMBOK and PMI reinforce that the book is a “best practices” book, every management book is; take great care to understand and internalize that because the real world is quite different. No credible source can provide us with the “one and only” way, or the best way for all management situations.

The PMBOK does not say (quoting you) “applying the same technique to all conflicts” would be justified.

It actually says the opposite, which ironically is the case your’re making. “…each one has its place and use,”. For example, avoiding a problem, can be VERY effective in certain situation; particularly on a “high functioning” team.

Now, you’re right about the industry consensus on confronting providing the best outcomes and usually as the favorable approach… It is! You just have to know when you have the OPPORTUNITY to use it, and how to employ it.

(I’m a PMP and a “seasoned” Construction PM) Good luck to you!

I should add; collaborating and confronting are cross from parallels. That might be confusing you. If you read the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument; that definition of collaboration is very close to confronting. That and correctly diagnosing the issue goes hand in hand.

However, collaboration is less optimal since it takes time. Every time a conflict comes up; there’s not always time to have a campfire and roast marshmallows. I think the PMBOK is trying to show that finding the root problem, is not always an outcome of collaboration.

You said that:

‘No credible source can provide us with the “one and only” way, or the best way for all management situations.’

I am agree with you on it.

Again you’ re saying:

The PMBOK does not say (quoting you) “applying the same technique to all conflicts” would be justified.

I’m totally agree with you here again, and in fact to prove this point I wrote this blog post. In this blog post I’m only trying to say that PMBOK does not say that you should apply one technique on all conflicts.

I would agree on collaborating is best solution and that also eventually goes to the root cause and as well buys in everybody OK which is a permanent solution than confronting/problem solving.

for the purpose of get few marks we have to choose confronting !

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I feel Fahad is right. Collaborating is the best technique to resolve the conflicts. In most of the real situations , we need all the team members to get along / participate without any grudges. This technique generally helps to take all the team members towards goals without hurting individual’s self esteem. Confronting can not be win – win always. I feel usage of techniques depends upon situation and project managers understanding.

thank you for this post. I really liked it. Although I am still not sure I fully understand the difference between confonting and collaborating. Are there any specific features of these techniquest that can help differentiate them clearly? Currently, I have a feeling that Confronting and Collaborating are almost the same thing

In collaborating, you incorporate multiple viewpoints and negotiate for the best solution. It is a win win approach, on the other hand confronting is problem solving technique. In confronting you will find the root cause of the problem and then reach to its solution. Confronting is a win lose situation.

I was going through the above comments where you mentioned that confronting is a win-lose situation. But if go by Rita Mulcahy , she mentioned confronting as Win-win situation. Even in some of the multiple choice questions is it considered as win-win situation. can you please help to understand this better. Thanks in advance.

Regards, Gagan

In problem solving one loses and other wins regardless of who is on right path.

Not exactly. 2 people may be, dont have any right path, they go to discussion/argument to figure out what is the best way to deal with the conflict.

Confronting/problem solving includes: – Find the root cause of problem, not what is presented to you or what appears to be the problem – Analyze the problem – Identify solution – Pick a solution – Implement a solution – Review the solution and confirm that the solution can deal with the problem.

Hence, Confronting is win-win situation. Win-lose situation refer to Forcing solution (1 win, 1 lose)

Two team members are having conflict, most of the time one is correct and other is wrong.

In this case, if you go for the confronting then obviously the person who is in right path will win and other loses.

Collaborating does not necessarily fix the problem and may show up again, only Confronting does this, it gets to the “root cause”

Yes, you are right but it does not mean that the project manager should always go for confronting.

A project manager has to decide that which technique suits best to the situation.

I see your point thank you.

You are welcome.

What technique is used when a PM suggests to the Team members to contribute their respective PROS and CONS about the issue at hand and then suggests they discuss it. Is this collaborative or confronting?

It depends on what resolution he takes at the end. If he combines multiple view point and find the best agreeable solution, then it will be collaborative. And if he takes resolution of conflicts based on only facts then it will be confronting.

I think confronting will work here because PM trying to go to the root cause of this problem

You may be right but only discussion does not mean that he will chose the confronting. He may also go with the collaborative technique or try to smooth the situation. All depends on the situation and problem at the hand.

Yes you are absolutely right ! good

Thanks for agreeing with me! :)

I like your post very much and am in a project management class right now. Although confronting has a negative connotation, it is not always such. Confronting a problem and dictating how it should be resolved is the PM's job and if the other techniques do not work this approach should be taken. PM'S will run into personalities that will have a conflict with everything or everyone. Taking a direct confrontational approach may be required and should not be seen as a negative componant. Your assessment is great and accurrate.

Thank you for liking my post.

My point is—there is no single universal technique which applies to all conflicts and the PMBOK Guide does not recommend using conflict resolution technique every time a conflict occurs.

good I appreciate yourwork I using as a projects references

Thanks Nasry.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You have courses in your cart

Conflict Resolution Certificate

Become an expert in managing conflict, facilitating peaceful problem solving, and fostering collaborative decision-making.

Program Type

Graduate Certificate

Semester Start

Fall, Spring

Study Options

Online, On Campus, Hybrid

Minimum Duration

UMass Boston's 12-credit Conflict Resolution graduate certificate program provides professionals with training to manage conflict in a variety of settings. The program is designed for professionals who want to develop knowledge of conflict management techniques and add a professional certificate to their résumé. Students will focus on a range of approaches to the resolution of conflict, collaborative decision making, and problem solving through courses that encompass the theory, methods, and ethical perspectives of conflict resolution.

You can also apply for and transfer the 12 credits towards the 36-credit Master's degree in Conflict Resolution.

Attend an info session.

• This program consists of four 3-credit courses, or 12 credits.
• Online tuition is $575 per credit, or $6,900 for 12 credits.
• Other fees may apply. Request Info to connect with a program representative for further details about curriculum.
• Applications to start classes in the fall semester are due by June 1
• Applications to start classes in the spring semester are due by November 1

Application Checklist

• Online application and fee ($75)
• Official transcripts (completed Bachelor’s degree required)
• International applicants* may have to satisfy the English proficiency requirement. Review International Graduate Applicant page to research testing and exemption requirements.
• 2 letters of recommendation
• Describe one or more specific experiences you have had with conflict. What was your role? What were your rewards and frustrations? (500-750 words)
• How will you apply the skills, knowledge, and perspective acquired through the program in your current and/or future employment? (500-750 words)

*Please note the certificate does not meet eligibility requirements for issuance of an I-20.

The program consists of four (3 credit) courses totaling 12 credits and can be completed in 2 semesters (2 courses per semester). Each semester, you'll take one required course and the elective offered for that particular semester.

Required Courses (2 — one offered each semester, Fall and Spring)

• Introductory Theory (CONRES623) This course examines the theories and assumptions underpinning the practice of negotiation and mediation. It identifies the major schools of thought that influence models in practice and shape research agendas. It examines theories critically, with three aims-uncovering implicit assumptions of practice, testing those assumptions against empirical evidence or other theories, and gleaning insights to assist practitioners.
• Negotiation (CONRES621) Negotiation is the bedrock skill in this field. This course addresses the development of negotiation techniques and fosters student knowledge of the substantial body of negotiation theory that is now available.

Electives (2 — one offered each semester, Fall and Spring; topics vary by semester — below is a sample of what may be offered) Sample Electives:

• Third Party Interventions Study a range of third-party interventions, from arbitration and ombuds work to mediation, dialogue, and circle processes, among others. Explore the underlying logic and theories of change beneath the various third-party interventions, as well as foundational questions of neutrality and positionality, and develop cross-cutting skills like conflict analysis, effective communication, and evaluation. Learn how various interventions work in practice, and explore cases, hear directly from practitioners, and practice through exercises and simulations in order to understand the strengths and drawbacks of different interventions for various contexts and types of conflict.
• Nonviolent Action In this online course, you will get an introduction to the foundational concepts and theories of nonviolent action, explore the research on its effectiveness, study cases from the United States and around the world of how it has worked even in very challenging or repressive contexts, and introduce tools to analyze and plan a campaign relying on nonviolent action to address an injustice or threat.
• Cross-Cultural Conflict (CONRES625) This course emphasizes the special characteristics of conflict based in religious, ethnic, national, or racial identity-conflicts that the field calls ''intractable.'' The primary focus of the course is on intervention techniques that have been used and that have been proposed for use in these settings.
• Collaborative Governance Actors in local, state, and federal governments must find ways to work collaboratively, manage conflicts, and build consensus on ways to address complex social programs with other public actors as well as with private and nonprofit organizations, citizen groups, and other stakeholders. This is often a challenging task, particularly when dealing with high conflict, competition, and distrust between stakeholders, and when practiced poorly can impede rather than promote effective action. On the other hand, collaboration can be vital to creating and implementing sustainable, successful policies.

At the end of this two-semester program, you’ll be awarded a graduate certificate in Conflict Resolution. The certificate will demonstrate your expertise in the field on your résumé, as well as in interviews and workplace evaluations. You can also apply for and transfer the 12 credits towards the 36 credit Master's degree in Conflict Resolution.

This certificate provides the theoretical foundations and practical skills to advance your current career trajectory or help you transition to a new one. You will gain a thorough grounding in the theory of conflict and its resolution. Through the program, you'll explore the social, psychological, political, structural, and cultural factors which give rise to conflict and shape its course, and gain an understanding of the effects of different types of conflict on people and the relationships among them. You will learn about conflict management and resolution methods relevant to a broad range of contexts and groups, including mediation, facilitation, negotiation, organizational change, and consensual decision making.

Alumni work in many fields, including business; government; education; health care; human resources; law; ministry; international humanitarian work; and individual, couples, and family counseling.

Why UMass Boston Online?

Among the lowest online tuition rates of an accredited, public research university.

Flexibility

Study full-time to finish fast, or part-time to suit your schedule. Live sessions scheduled with the working professional in mind.

Authenticity

The same courses taught by the same academic departments as on campus. No third-party providers.

Get the inside scoop on the program and connect with the people who run it.

Related programs.

Counseling MEd

Graduate Program Master’s Programs | 2 Years

Gender, Leadership & Public Policy Certificate

Graduate Certificates | 9 Months

Public Administration - MPA (Gender & Leadership)

Master’s Programs | 2 Years

• Online Degree Explore Bachelor’s & Master’s degrees
• MasterTrack™ Earn credit towards a Master’s degree
• University Certificates Advance your career with graduate-level learning
• Top Courses
• Join for Free

9 Key Management Skills: How to Show Them on Your CV

Are you seeking a step up in your next role? Here’s how to highlight key management skills on your CV.

Managers are good leaders and collaborators. They are adept at managing others’ time and outputs, taking the initiative to mentor them, and helping facilitate a positive work environment.

Suppose you are applying for a position where management skills are listed in the job description or for a manager role at an organisation. In that case, your CV should reflect your managerial capabilities. Hiring managers want to know that you have relevant experience.

This article will explain management skills, provide a list of essential management skills, and demonstrate how to highlight them on your CV.

What are management skills?

Management skills are abilities and traits needed to perform specific duties, usually as they pertain to overseeing a team, such as solving problems, communicating well, and motivating employees. Such skills can be learned through practical experience or in courses and sharpened on the job. Interpersonal skills are essential to maintaining good relationships and team spirit, while technical skills enable managers to coach newer team members knowledgeably.

Management skills are necessary across industries: managers work in investment firms, start-ups, bars and restaurants, government agencies, and more. Here is a list of critical management skills you might consider including on your CV:

Project management

Negotiating

Interpersonal skills

Communication

Problem-solving

Coordinating

Organisation

Conflict resolution

Strategic thinking

Public speaking

Technical knowledge

Networking/outreach

Collaboration

Decision-making

Listing these skills is not enough. To demonstrate to a potential employer that you have the management skills to succeed, you’ll want to illustrate how you managed a team and how much impact you had so that your resume shines in a competitive applicant pool.

How to highlight management skills on your CV. (Hint: Show, don’t tell.)

You can include management skills in two different sections of your CV. You can list them in a skills section; however, another, and perhaps better, place for skills is in the work or education sections. Describing how your management skills contributed to your team’s workflow, productivity, or success can be a more effective use of precious space. 

A strategic move is to detail a line or two about your management skills in your most relevant work experience. Later, you can add more about this in your cover letter or interview. This helps paint a better picture of your capabilities so that hiring managers aren’t just reading an arbitrary list of management skills.

Showing vs Telling

I am results-oriented and organised when leading a team

I am good at planning and thinking strategically

My empathy and coaching make me an effective leader

I led a team to complete two Agile sprints in one month

I executed a strategic plan that resulted in 25% more sales

Under my mentorship, the team created an award-winning product that helps save lives

Some management skills are transferable. Restaurant or shop managers can leverage their resumes to demonstrate good organisation and communication skills. Mothers or fathers who hope to transition into a job after years of managing a household can speak to this experience in a job interview. 

Below are nine examples of management skills and how you can incorporate them into your CV. 

1. Leadership

Leadership skills are key to successful management and a great skill set to include on your CV. An effective leader means guiding a team to achieve the company’s objectives and contributing to a positive, productive work environment. Despite whether the role explicitly states leadership as a requirement, employers look for signs of leadership in a CV. They want to hire people who can inspire others and lead by example.

Example of leadership skills on a CV:

Topia Agency, Marketing Manager

London, UK. July 2022-January 2024

Assembled and led a team of social media influencers to create content and launch a brand of sportswear on TikTok

2. Delegation

Delegating is a management skill that strategically distributes tasks to the most qualified employees. It’s more than bossing people around—good leaders delegate because a team must accomplish more. Assigning suitable projects requires observing and understanding employees’ strengths and weaknesses. When done well, direct reports can feel that even the most tedious tasks are purposeful and that they are contributing to the team.

Example of delegation skills on a CV:

Helping Hands, Healthcare Facility Supervisor

Liverpool, UK. May 2019-December 2022

Managed a team of 7 healthcare and 4 custodial staff, including delegating nurses to specific patients, taking into consideration their personalities, areas of expertise, and years of experience

Empathy is essential to leading, delegating, and other critical management skills. It is the ability to understand how others are feeling and to see things from their perspective. Empathetic leaders and managers are effective because they know when their team needs nurturing or more independence. Employees, in turn, feel comfortable sharing concerns or feedback.

Example of empathy on a CV:

Justice for Women, Paralegal

London, UK. December 2015-April 2019

As a paralegal working on domestic violence cases, I conducted research and interviewed clients to understand their needs and distribute resources when necessary

4. Project management

Project management involves leading and organizing a team to complete a project within a specific time frame and budget. It involves managing people, systems, tools, software, and budgets and usually requires plenty of training, technical skills, and interpersonal skills. 

Example of project management skills on a CV:

Baraka Conservancy, Project Manager

Birmingham, UK. September 2020-Present

Implemented Trello and Salesforce systems to a 20-person non-profit organisation team and increased efficiency by 10% in one year

5. Communication

Demonstrating that you are an effective communicator can prove your worth to a hiring manager.  Communicating effectively and efficiently across diverse teams through verbal and written exchanges is an essential management skill. When delegating a task, good communicators are professional and articulate. They are good at coordinating, collaborating, and organising.

Example of communication skills on a CV:

Center for Migration, Partnership Coordinator

Lancaster, UK. February 2012-2019

Performed outreach by cold-calling and communications materials, developed partnerships with 5 grassroots organisations, and secured 3 international funders

6. Planning

Managers are required to think ahead to ensure the current activities and projects align with overall business goals. Planning and taking the initiative to brainstorm plans for the future shows future employers that you are goal- and results-oriented, organised, and ready for any obstacles that may come your way.

Example of planning skills on a CV:

Nobita, Head Chef

Wolverhampton. November 2015-January 2020

Supervised all raw ingredients orders, ordered and created a 15% buffer to mitigate potential supply chain shortages

7. Negotiation

Negotiation is a management skill that demonstrates an ability to persevere in problem-solving, persuade clients or customers with hard facts, and find mutually beneficial solutions. Using their interpersonal and communication skills, a good negotiator influences others and convinces them to make an evidence-based decision.

Example of negotiation skills on a CV:

Adobe Agents, Real Estate Agent

London, UK. June 2020-Present

Closed 12 cash deals within the first three months of working at Adobe

8. Problem-solving

Finding solutions to problems is a skill needed in nearly every job. Teams need leaders who can resolve issues creatively, using any resources available to approach and tackle them successfully. 

Example of problem-solving skills on a CV:

Blue Cube, Software Engineer

Edinburgh, UK. April 2017-September 2021

Advised customers on maintenance of software system, troubleshooting and coaching them when issues arise

9. Conflict resolution

Any organisation may experience disagreements between employees, teams, or the company and its customers. Employees or managers equipped to step in and resolve the conflict are valuable. Using mediation and empathy, they can suggest a compromise to make everyone happy.

Example of conflict resolution skills on a CV:

Sweet Mountain High School, School Counsellor

Sheffield, UK. September 2020-Present

Handle and mediate conflict between students, between students and teachers, including initiating conversations with family members for additional counselling 

Boost your management skills with Coursera.

If you want to boost your CV, consider the Leading People and Teams Specialisation from the University of Michigan. You’ll learn from exceptional leaders how to inspire and motivate individuals, manage talent, and lead teams in about six months.

If managing projects is more your style, the Google Project Management Professional Certificate can equip you with the right tools to launch your career in this high-growth field. Prepare to learn technical skills such as Agile project management, implementing Scrum events, and building Scrum artefacts.

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System

A times investigation found climate change may now be a concern for every homeowner in the country..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. And this is “The Daily.”

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Today, my colleague, Christopher Flavelle, on a “Times” investigation into one of the least known and most consequential effects of climate change — insurance — and why it may now be a concern for every homeowner in the country.

It’s Wednesday, May 15.

So, Chris, you and I talked a while ago about how climate change was really wreaking havoc in the insurance market in Florida. You’ve just done an investigation that takes a look into the insurance markets more broadly and more deeply. Tell us about it.

Yeah, so I cover climate change, in particular the way climate shocks affect different parts of American life. And insurance has become a really big part of that coverage. And Florida is a great example. As hurricanes have gotten worse and more frequent, insurers are paying out more and more money to rebuild people’s homes. And that’s driving up insurance costs and ultimately driving up the cost of owning a home in Florida.

So we’re already seeing that climate impact on the housing market in Florida. My colleagues and I started to think, well, could it be that that kind of disruption is also happening in other states, not just in the obvious coastal states but maybe even through the middle of the US? So we set out to find out just how much it is happening, how much that Florida turmoil has, in fact, become really a contagion that is spreading across the country.

So how did you go about reporting this? I mean, where did you start?

All we knew at the start of this was that there was reason to think this might be a problem. If you just look at how the federal government tracks disasters around the country, there’s been a big increase almost every year in the number and severity of all kinds of disasters around the country. So we thought, OK, it’s worth trying to find out, what does that mean for insurers?

The problem is getting data on the insurance industry is actually really hard. There’s no federal regulation. There’s no government agency you can go to that holds this data. If you talk to the insurers directly, they tend to be a little reluctant to share information about what they’re going through. So we weren’t sure where to go until, finally, we realized the best people to ask are the people whose job it is to gauge the financial health of insurance companies.

Those are rating agencies. In particular, there’s one rating company called AM Best, whose whole purpose is to tell investors how healthy an insurance company is.

Whoa. So this is way down in the nuts and bolts of the US insurance industry.

Right. This is a part of the broader economy that most people would never experience. But we asked them to do something special for us. We said, hey, can you help us find the one number that would tell us reporters just how healthy or unhealthy this insurance market is state by state over time? And it turns out, there is just such a number. It’s called a combined ratio.

OK, plain English?

Plain English, it is the ratio of revenue to costs, how much money these guys take in for homeowner’s insurance and how much they pay out in costs and losses. You want your revenue to be higher than your costs. If not, you’re in trouble.

So what did you find out?

Well, we got that number for every state, going back more than a decade. And what it showed us was our suspicions were right. This market turmoil that we were seeing in Florida and California has indeed been spreading across the country. And in fact, it turns out that in 18 states, last year, the homeowner’s insurance market lost money. And that’s a big jump from 5 or 10 years ago and spells real trouble for insurance and for homeowners and for almost every part of the economy.

So the contagion was real.

Right. This is our first window showing us just how far that contagion had spread. And one of the really striking things about this data was it showed the contagion had spread to places that I wouldn’t have thought of as especially prone to climate shocks — for example, a lot of the Midwest, a lot of the Southeast. In fact, if you think of a map of the country, there was no state between Pennsylvania and the Dakotas that didn’t lose money on homeowner’s insurance last year.

So just huge parts of the middle of the US have become unprofitable for homeowner’s insurance. This market is starting to buckle under the cost of climate change.

And this is all happening really fast. When we did the Florida episode two years ago, it was a completely new phenomenon and really only in Florida. And now it’s everywhere.

Yeah. And that’s exactly what’s so striking here. The rate at which this is becoming, again, a contagion and spreading across the country is just demolishing the expectations of anyone I’ve spoken to. No one thought that this problem would affect so much of the US so quickly.

So in these states, these new places that the contagion has spread to, what exactly is happening that’s causing the insurance companies to fold up shop?

Yeah. Something really particular is happening in a lot of these states. And it’s worth noting how it’s surprised everyone. And what that is, is formally unimportant weather events, like hailstorms or windstorms, those didn’t used to be the kind of thing that would scare insurance companies. Obviously, a big problem if it destroys your home or damages your home. But for insurers, it wasn’t going to wipe them out financially.

Right. It wasn’t just a complete and utter wipeout that the company would then have to pony up a lot of money for.

Exactly. And insurers call them secondary perils, sort of a belittling term, something other than a big deal, like a hurricane.

These minor league weather events.

Right. But those are becoming so frequent and so much more intense that they can cause existential threats for insurance companies. And insurers are now fleeing states not because of hurricanes but because those former things that were small are now big. Hailstorms, wildfires in some places, previous annoyances are becoming real threats to insurers.

Chris, what’s the big picture on what insurers are actually facing? What’s happening out there numbers-wise?

This is a huge threat. In terms of the number of states where this industry is losing money, it’s more than doubled from 10 years ago to basically a third of the country. The amount they’re losing is enormous. In some states, insurers are paying out $1.25 or even $1.50 for every dollar they bring in, in revenue, which is totally unsustainable.

And the result is insurers are making changes. They are pulling back from these markets. They’re hiking premiums. And often, they’re just dropping customers. And that’s where this becomes real, not just for people who surf balance sheets and trade in the stock market. This is becoming real for homeowners around the country, who all of a sudden increasingly can’t get insurance.

So, Chris, what’s the actual implication? I mean, what happens when people in a state can’t get insurance for their homes?

Getting insurance for a home is crucial if you want to sell or buy a home. Most people can’t buy a home without a mortgage. And banks won’t issue a mortgage without home insurance. So if you’ve got a home that insurance company doesn’t want to cover, you got a real problem. You need to find insurance, or that home becomes very close to unsellable.

And as you get fewer buyers, the price goes down. So this doesn’t just hurt people who are paying for these insurance premiums. It hurts people who want to sell their homes. It even could hurt, at some point, whole local economies. If home values fall, governments take in less tax revenue. That means less money for schools and police. It also means people who get hit by disasters and have to rebuild their homes all of a sudden can’t, because their insurance isn’t available anymore. It’s hard to overstate just how big a deal this is.

And is that actually happening, Chris? I mean, are housing markets being dragged down because of this problem with the insurance markets right now?

Anecdotally, we’ve got reports that in places like Florida and Louisiana and maybe in parts of California, the difficulty of getting insurance, the crazy high cost of insurance is starting to depress demand because not everyone can afford to pay these really high costs, even if they have insurance. But what we wanted to focus on with this story was also, OK, we know where this goes eventually. But where is it beginning? What are the places that are just starting to feel these shocks from the insurance market?

And so I called around and asked insurance agents, who are the front lines of this. They’re the ones who are struggling to find insurance for homeowners. And I said, hey, is there one place that I should go if I want to understand what it looks like to homeowners when all of a sudden insurance becomes really expensive or you can’t even find it? And those insurance agents told me, if you want to see what this looks like in real life, go to a little town called Marshalltown in the middle of Iowa.

We’ll be right back.

So, Chris, you went to Marshalltown, Iowa. What did you find?

Even before I got to Marshalltown, I had some idea I was in the right spot. When I landed in Des Moines and went to rent a car, the nice woman at the desk who rented me a car, she said, what are you doing here? I said, I’m here to write a story about people in Iowa who can’t get insurance because of storms. She said, oh, yeah, I know all about that. That’s a big problem here.

Even the rental car lady.

Even the rental car lady knew something was going on. And so I got into my rental car and drove about an hour northeast of Des Moines, through some rolling hills, to this lovely little town of Marshalltown. Marshalltown is a really cute, little Midwestern town with old homes and a beautiful courthouse in the town square. And when I drove through, I couldn’t help noticing all the roofs looked new.

What does that tell you?

Turns out Marshalltown, despite being a pastoral image of Midwestern easy living, was hit by two really bad disasters in recent years — first, a devastating tornado in 2018 and then, in 2020, what’s called a derecho, a straight-line wind event that’s also just enormously damaging. And the result was lots of homes in this small town got severely damaged in a short period of time. And so when you drive down, you see all these new roofs that give you the sense that something’s going on.

So climate had come to Marshalltown?

Exactly. A place that had previously seemed maybe safe from climate change, if there is such a thing, all of a sudden was not. So I found an insurance agent in Marshalltown —

We talked to other agents but haven’t talked to many homeowners.

— named Bobby Shomo. And he invited me to his office early one morning and said, come meet some people. And so I parked on a quiet street outside of his office, across the street from the courthouse, which also had a new roof, and went into his conference room and met a procession of clients who all had versions of the same horror story.

It was more — well more of double.

A huge reduction in coverage with a huge price increase.

Some people had faced big premium hikes.

I’m just a little, small business owner. So every little bit I do feel.

They had so much trouble with their insurance company.

I was with IMT Insurance forever. And then when I moved in 2020, Bobby said they won’t insure a pool.

Some people had gotten dropped.

Where we used to see carriers canceling someone for frequency of three or four or five claims, it’s one or two now.

Some people couldn’t get the coverage they needed. But it was versions of the same tale, which is all of a sudden, having homeowner’s insurance in Marshalltown was really difficult. But I wanted to see if it was bigger than just Marshalltown. So the next day, I got back in my car and drove east to Cedar Rapids, where I met another person having a version of the same problem, a guy named Dave Langston.

Tell me about Dave.

Dave lives in a handsome, modest, little townhouse on a quiet cul-de-sac on a hill at the edge of Cedar Rapids. He’s the president of his homeowners association. There’s 17 homes on this little street. And this is just as far as you could get from a danger zone. It looks as safe as could be. But in January, they got a letter from the company that insures him and his neighbors, saying his policy was being canceled, even though it wasn’t as though they’d just been hit by some giant storm.

So then what was the reason they gave?

They didn’t give a reason. And I think people might not realize, insurers don’t have to give a reason. Insurance policies are year to year. And if your insurance company decides that you’re too much of a risk or your neighborhood is too much of a risk or your state is too much of a risk, they can just leave. They can send you a letter saying, forget it. We’re canceling your insurance. There’s almost no protection people have.

And in this case, the reason was that this insurance company was losing too much money in Iowa and didn’t want to keep on writing homeowner’s insurance in the state. That was the situation that Dave shared with tens of thousands of people across the state that were all getting similar letters.

What made Dave’s situation a little more challenging was that he couldn’t get new insurance. He tried for months through agent after agent after agent. And every company told him the same thing. We won’t cover you. Even though these homes are perfectly safe in a safe part of the state, nobody would say yes. And it took them until basically two days before their insurance policy was going to run out until they finally found new coverage that was far more expensive and far more bare-bones than what they’d had.

But at least it was something.

It was something. But the problem was it wasn’t that good. Under this new policy, if Dave’s street got hit by another big windstorm, the damage from that storm and fixing that damage would wipe out all the savings set aside by these homeowners. The deductible would be crushingly high — $120,000 — to replace those roofs if the worst happened because the insurance money just wouldn’t cover anywhere close to the cost of rebuilding.

He said to me, we didn’t do anything wrong. This is just what insurance looks like today. And today, it’s us in Cedar Rapids. Everyone, though, is going to face a situation like this eventually. And Dave is right. I talked to insurance agents around the country. And they confirmed for me that this kind of a shift towards a new type of insurance, insurance that’s more expensive and doesn’t cover as much and makes it harder to rebuild after a big disaster, it’s becoming more and more common around the country.

So, Chris, if Dave and the people you spoke to in Iowa were really evidence that your hunch was right, that the problem is spreading and rapidly, what are the possible fixes here?

The fix that people seem most hopeful about is this idea that, what if you could reduce the risk and cause there to be less damage in the first place? So what some states are doing is they’re trying to encourage homeowners to spend more money on hardening their home or adding a new roof or, if it’s a wildfire zone, cut back the vegetation, things that can reduce your risk of having really serious losses. And to help pay for that, they’re telling insurers, you’ve got to offer a discount to people who do that.

And everyone who works in this field says, in theory, that’s the right approach. The problem is, number one, hardening a home costs a fantastic amount of money. So doing this at scale is hugely expensive. Number two, it takes a long time to actually get enough homes hardened in this way that you can make a real dent for insurance companies. We’re talking about years or probably decades before that has a real effect, if it ever works.

OK. So that sounds not particularly realistic, given the urgency and the timeline we’re on here. So what else are people looking at?

Option number two is the government gets involved. And instead of most Americans buying home insurance from a private company, they start buying it from government programs that are designed to make sure that people, even in risky places, can still buy insurance. That would be just a gargantuan undertaking. The idea of the government providing homeowner’s insurance because private companies can’t or won’t would lead to one of the biggest government programs that exists, if we could even do it.

So huge change, like the federal government actually trying to write these markets by itself by providing homeowner’s insurance. But is that really feasible?

Well, in some areas, we’re actually already doing it. The government already provides flood insurance because for decades, most private insurers have not wanted to cover flood. It’s too risky. It’s too expensive. But that change, with governments taking over that role, creates a new problem of its own because the government providing flood insurance that you otherwise couldn’t get means people have been building and building in flood-prone areas because they know they can get that guaranteed flood insurance.

Interesting. So that’s a huge new downside. The government would be incentivizing people to move to places that they shouldn’t be.

That’s right. But there’s even one more problem with that approach of using the government to try to solve this problem, which is these costs keep growing. The number of billion-dollar disasters the US experiences every year keeps going up. And at some point, even if the government pays the cost through some sort of subsidized insurance, what happens when that cost is so great that we can no longer afford to pay it? That’s the really hard question that no official can answer.

So that’s pretty doomsday, Chris. Are we looking at the end of insurance?

I think it’s fair to say that we’re looking at the end of insurance as we know it, the end of insurance that means most Americans can rest assured that if they get hit by a disaster, their insurance company will provide enough money they can rebuild. That idea might be going away. And what it shows is maybe the threat of climate change isn’t quite what we thought.

Maybe instead of climate change wrecking communities in the form of a big storm or a wildfire or a flood, maybe even before those things happen, climate change can wreck communities by something as seemingly mundane and even boring as insurance. Maybe the harbinger of doom is not a giant storm but an anodyne letter from your insurance company, saying, we’re sorry to inform you we can no longer cover your home.

Maybe the future of climate change is best seen not by poring over weather data from NOAA but by poring over spreadsheets from rating firms, showing the profitability from insurance companies, and how bit by bit, that money that they’re losing around the country tells its own story. And the story is these shocks are actually already here.

Chris, as always, terrifying to talk to you.

Always a pleasure, Sabrina.

Here’s what else you should know today. On Tuesday, the United Nations has reclassified the number of women and children killed in Gaza, saying that it does not have enough identifying information to know exactly how many of the total dead are women and children. The UN now estimates that about 5,000 women and about 8,000 children have been killed, figures that are about half of what it was previously citing. The UN says the numbers dropped because it is using a more conservative estimate while waiting for information on about 10,000 other dead Gazans who have not yet been identified.

And Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, gave a press conference outside the court in Lower Manhattan, where Michael Cohen, the former fixer for Donald Trump, was testifying for a second day, answering questions from Trump’s lawyers. Trump is bound by a gag order. So Johnson joined other stand-ins for the former president to discredit the proceedings. Johnson, one of the most important Republicans in the country, attacked Cohen but also the trial itself, calling it a sham and political theater.

Today’s episode was produced by Nina Feldman, Shannon Lin, and Jessica Cheung. It was edited by MJ Davis Lin, with help from Michael Benoist, contains original music by Dan Powell, Marion Lozano, and Rowan Niemisto, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you tomorrow.

• May 16, 2024   •   30:47 The Make-or-Break Testimony of Michael Cohen
• May 15, 2024   •   27:03 The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System
• May 14, 2024   •   35:20 Voters Want Change. In Our Poll, They See It in Trump.
• May 13, 2024   •   27:46 How Biden Adopted Trump’s Trade War With China
• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand
• May 9, 2024   •   34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
• May 8, 2024   •   28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
• May 7, 2024   •   27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
• May 6, 2024   •   29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
• May 3, 2024   •   25:33 The Protesters and the President
• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Christopher Flavelle

Produced by Nina Feldman ,  Shannon M. Lin and Jessica Cheung

Edited by MJ Davis Lin

With Michael Benoist

Original music by Dan Powell ,  Marion Lozano and Rowan Niemisto

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Across the United States, more frequent extreme weather is starting to cause the home insurance market to buckle, even for those who have paid their premiums dutifully year after year.

Christopher Flavelle, a climate reporter, discusses a Times investigation into one of the most consequential effects of the changes.

On today’s episode

Christopher Flavelle , a climate change reporter for The New York Times.

Background reading

As American insurers bleed cash from climate shocks , homeowners lose.

See how the home insurance crunch affects the market in each state .

Here are four takeaways from The Times’s investigation.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Christopher Flavelle contributed reporting.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Christopher Flavelle is a Times reporter who writes about how the United States is trying to adapt to the effects of climate change. More about Christopher Flavelle

Advertisement