Conflict shows up in every workplace. You can’t avoid it. But you can choose how you respond. The five conflict resolution strategies are competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. These strategies come from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, a framework developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann that maps your behavior along two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Understanding all five gives you a tactical toolkit. You stop reacting on autopilot and start choosing the approach that fits the situation. Whether you’re navigating a budget dispute, a scheduling clash, or a values disagreement, one of these five strategies offers the clearest path forward.
Book a conflict resolution workshop assessment call if you want hands-on practice applying these strategies with your team.
The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument explained
Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed their conflict mode instrument in 1974. The model rest on a simple insight. Every conflict strategy balances two forces. Assertiveness — how much you pursue your own concerns. And cooperativeness — how much you pursue the other person’s concerns. Plot those two dimensions on a grid and five distinct strategies emerge.
The instrument doesn’t label any strategy as right or wrong. Each one has a time and place. The problem isn’t that you default to one strategy. The problem is defaulting without realizing it. Most people rely on one or two strategies in almost every situation. That rigidity creates blind spots. Your team notices patterns. They learn exactly which buttons to push.
Thomas-Kilmann gives you a shared vocabulary. When your team can name what’s happening, you shift from personal attacks to problem-solving conversations. That shift alone changes the tone of a room. The Conflict Advantage workshop uses this model as its backbone for exactly that reason.
Research on the instrument shows that self-awareness of conflict tendencies predicts better outcomes. Teams who discuss their Thomas-Kilmann results openly report faster resolution of disagreements. The framework also highlights an important fact. You aren’t stuck with your defaults. Each strategy is a skill. Like any skill, it sharpens with practice. The model’s power lies not in the assessment itself but in what you do with that self-knowledge afterward.
The 5 conflict resolution strategies
Competing
Competing sits high on assertiveness, low on cooperativeness. You pursue your own position at the other person’s expense. This strategy works when you need a fast decision, when safety is at stake, or when an unpopular but necessary call must be made.
Workplace example: A project manager insists on shutting down a failing initiative despite team resistance. The choice protects the budget and redirects energy toward viable work. Another example: A compliance officer overrides a team’s preferred approach because the regulation leaves no room for interpretation.
The risk? Overused, competing erodes trust. People stop sharing honest input because they assume you’ll override them anyway. Team members may comply outwardly while disengaging internally. Over time you get surface-level agreement with zero buy-in. Use competing sparingly. Reserve it for genuine emergencies or when you know the alternative is worse.
Collaborating
Collaborating scores high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. You work with the other person to find a solution that satisfies both sets of concerns. This strategy takes more time and emotional energy than any other. It also produces the strongest outcomes.
Workplace example: Two department heads clash over shared resources. Instead of splitting the pie, they redesign the project scope so both teams get what they need without trade-offs. Another example: A product team and a sales team disagree on launch timing. Through honest conversation they discover that a phased launch meets both their revenue targets and quality standards.
Collaboration demands genuine curiosity about the other person’s priorities. You ask questions before you advocate. You listen for interests behind positions. Not every conflict warrants this investment. But for high-stakes, relationship-dependent situations, collaborating delivers results that last. Learn more about matching personality styles to strategies in our DiSC assessment teams guide.
Compromising
Compromising lands in the middle on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. You give something up. The other person gives something up. Both sides walk away with part of what they wanted. It feels fair. It feels fast. It also leaves value on the table.
Workplace example: Two teammates split a week of coverage days rather than finding a schedule that fits both their real constraints. Another example: A vendor and a client settle on a midpoint price rather than exploring alternative contract structures that could serve both sides better.
Compromising works as a fallback when collaboration stalls or time runs out. It’s a reasonable stopgap. Just don’t mistake it for the best possible outcome. Many compromises represent the minimum both parties can tolerate, not the outcome either party actually wants. When you catch yourself defaulting to splits, pause and ask whether the underlying interests could be met another way.
Avoiding
Avoiding scores low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. You sidestep the conflict entirely. Sometimes that’s wise. Trivial issues don’t deserve your limited energy. Low-stakes disagreements fade on their own.
Workplace example: You notice a colleague made a minor formatting choice you disagree with. You let it go because it doesn’t affect the deliverable. Another example: Two peers bicker about lunch plans. You stay out of it because the outcome doesn’t matter to your work.
The danger kicks in when avoidance becomes your default. Important issues go unaddressed. Resentment builds quietly. By the time the conflict surfaces, it has grown bigger and messier than the original disagreement. Knowing when to step back is a skill. Knowing when to step in is just as important.
Accommodating
Accommodating is low on assertiveness and high on cooperativeness. You yield to the other person’s concerns. This strategy preserves relationships and shows goodwill. It signals that you value the connection more than the current issue.
Workplace example: A senior leader lets a junior team member choose the presentation format. The leader knows the team member needs the confidence boost more than the team needs a specific slide deck. Another example: You let a colleague take point on a client call because they have a stronger relationship with that client.
Accommodating backfires when you use it to dodge discomfort rather than to build trust. If you always yield, others learn they can push past your boundaries. Your ideas disappear from the conversation. The team misses your input and you feel resentful. Pair accommodating with occasional assertive moments to keep relationships balanced.
For related reading, see our DiSC conflict resolution framework and the workplace conflict resolution guide. These resources expand on the strategies above with team-specific exercises.
When to use each strategy: quick-reference table
| Situation | Best strategy | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Safety or compliance risk | Competing | Fast, decisive action prevents harm |
| High-stakes, long-term relationship | Collaborating | Both parties’ interests deserve full exploration |
| Time-limited negotiation | Compromising | Partial gains beat no gains when the clock is ticking |
| Trivial disagreement | Avoiding | Energy is better spent on what matters |
| Building trust or goodwill | Accommodating | Yielding on small issues earns relational capital |
| Complex problem requiring creative input | Collaborating | Diverse perspectives generate better outcomes |
| Issue with moderate importance to both sides | Compromising | Both parties can accept a midpoint resolution |
No single strategy covers every situation. The table gives you a starting point. Your next step is noticing which strategy your personality bias pushes you toward — and deliberately stretching beyond it.
How DiSC styles map to conflict strategies
Your DiSC style predicts your conflict defaults. D styles lean toward competing. They want quick resolution and they’re comfortable asserting their position. When a D-style leader faces pushback, they tend to double down rather than ask more questions.
I styles prefer collaborating or compromising. They value the relationship and want everyone to feel heard. Their challenge is pushing for their own needs when the other person doesn’t reciprocate. An I-style team member might talk everyone into a compromise that leaves their own priorities underserved.
S styles often accommodate or avoid. They prioritize harmony and may sidestep conflict to keep the peace. An S-style team member might agree to a plan they disagree with just to avoid tension. Over time, that pattern breeds frustration.
C styles default to avoiding. They’d rather analyze quietly than engage in emotional exchanges. A C-style professional might send a detailed email instead of having a direct conversation. The email looks thorough but misses the relational nuance that a face-to-face exchange would capture.
Knowing your DiSC style doesn’t box you in. It gives you a starting point for intentional practice. If you’re a D who always competes, practice collaborating once a week. If you’re an S who always accommodates, try competing on one low-stakes issue that matters to you. Small, deliberate shifts build fluency across all five strategies.
Read our full breakdown of this connection in how to resolve workplace conflict using the DiSC framework. That guide walks you through each style’s conflict triggers and gives you specific phrases to bridge differences.
Book a conflict resolution workshop assessment call to practice these strategies with your actual team dynamics, not hypothetical scenarios.
Frequently asked questions
What are the five conflict resolution strategies? The five strategies are competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. The Thomas-Kilmann model organizes them along two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Each strategy serves different situations. Competing prioritizes your own concerns. Collaborating addresses both sides’ concerns. Compromising meets in the middle. Avoiding sidesteps the issue. Accommodating prioritizes the other person’s concerns. No single strategy works everywhere.
Which conflict resolution strategy is best? No strategy is universally best. Competing works when safety matters. Collaborating handles complex, relationship-heavy issues. Compromising fits tight deadlines. Avoiding saves energy on trivial matters. Accommodating builds relational capital. The real skill lies in matching the strategy to the situation rather than defaulting to one approach. Dr. Rachel’s workshops train teams to make that match deliberately. The best strategy is the one that fits the context.
What does the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument measure? It measures your tendency to use each of the five conflict strategies. The assessment presents conflict scenarios and asks you to choose responses. Your answers reveal which strategies you overuse, which you underuse, and where you have room to grow. Teams that take the instrument together gain a shared language for discussing disagreements. The results aren’t a judgment. They’re a mirror that helps you see patterns you might not notice on your own.
How do I stop avoiding conflict at work? Start small. Choose one low-stakes disagreement each week and address it directly. Name what you observe. State your concern. Ask for the other person’s perspective. Avoiding often comes from fear of damaging relationships. In practice, avoiding important issues damages relationships more than addressing them. Build confidence through low-risk practice. Over time, the discomfort shrinks while your skill grows. Each successful conversation makes the next one easier.
Can you combine multiple conflict resolution strategies? Yes. Skilled communicators blend strategies within a single conversation. You might start by accommodating to build rapport, then shift to collaborating to solve the core problem. Another common pattern: begin with avoiding to let emotions cool, then move to compromising for a quick resolution. The goal isn’t to pledge yourself to one approach. It’s to stay flexible, read the situation, and choose deliberately. That flexibility is what separates reactive communicators from strategic ones.
Conflict is inevitable. How you handle it is a choice. The Thomas-Kilmann model gives you five clear strategies. Your DiSC style tells you which one you’ll probably reach for first. Awareness is the first step. Practice is the next one.
Book a conflict resolution workshop assessment call and start turning disagreements into better decisions.
