Models of Resolving Conflicts: A Guide for Managers

Picture this: You’re leading a team meeting to decide on next season’s crop rotation strategy. One team member insists on expanding the wheat acreage based on current market prices, while another argues passionately for diversifying into specialty crops. The room grows tense, voices rise slightly, and suddenly everyone’s looking at you. Sound familiar? If you’re a manager in any agricultural business, conflicts like these aren’t occasional hiccups-they’re part of your daily reality.

Conflict in the workplace isn’t inherently bad. In fact, when managed effectively, it can spark innovation, reveal hidden problems, and strengthen team relationships. The key isn’t avoiding conflict altogether but knowing how to navigate it skillfully. That’s where understanding different models of conflict resolution becomes invaluable.

Understanding the framework: Two dimensions that shape every conflict 🔗

Before diving into specific models, it’s helpful to understand the underlying framework. In the 1970s, psychologists Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann developed what’s now known as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, a tool that has become the gold standard for understanding conflict behavior. Their research identified two fundamental dimensions that influence how people approach conflict: assertiveness and cooperativeness.

Assertiveness reflects the degree to which you pursue your own concerns and goals during a conflict. Think of it as asking yourself: “How important is it that I achieve what I want here?” On the other hand, cooperativeness measures how much you attempt to satisfy the other person’s concerns. This dimension asks: “How important is maintaining this relationship and meeting the other person’s needs?”

These two dimensions interact to create five distinct approaches to conflict resolution. No single approach is universally “best”-each has its place depending on the situation, the stakes involved, and the relationships at play.

The competing model: When decisiveness matters most 🔗

The competing model sits at the intersection of high assertiveness and low cooperativeness. When you use this approach, you’re prioritizing your own goals over others’, often resulting in a win-lose outcome.

Imagine you’re managing a poultry farm and discover that one of your supervisors has been ignoring critical biosecurity protocols. This isn’t the time for lengthy debate or compromise-immediate action is necessary to prevent disease outbreak. The competing approach allows you to assert your authority quickly and firmly: “These protocols must be followed without exception, effective immediately.”

When to use competing 🔗

This model works well in emergencies requiring quick decisions, when you’re confident you’re right on an important issue, or when you need to stand up for your rights. However, use it sparingly in situations where relationships matter. Overusing the competing style can damage trust, stifle creativity, and create resentment among team members who feel their input isn’t valued.

The collaborating model: Creating win-win solutions 🔗

At the opposite corner from competing, we find collaborating-high in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. This approach seeks solutions that fully satisfy everyone’s concerns. As the National Institutes of Health notes, collaborative conflict management involves active listening, respectful communication, and an open mind to reach the best outcome for all parties.

Consider a scenario where your farm is expanding operations, but your experienced field manager wants to maintain traditional methods while your newly hired agronomist advocates for precision agriculture technology. Rather than siding with one or the other, you bring both together for a series of discussions. Through collaboration, you might discover a phased approach: implementing technology in one section while monitoring results, allowing the field manager to see the benefits firsthand while respecting their expertise.

Why collaboration takes effort 🔗

The collaborative approach requires time, patience, and genuine commitment from all parties. It’s ideal for complex issues where multiple perspectives add value, when buy-in from all stakeholders is crucial, or when the goal is to strengthen relationships while solving problems. The payoff? Solutions that are often more creative and sustainable than those generated through other methods.

The compromising model: Finding the middle ground 🔗

Compromising represents the middle ground-moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness. Here, both parties give up something to reach a mutually acceptable solution. It’s often called a “lose-lose” approach because neither party gets everything they want, though both get something.

Let’s say two of your department heads are vying for budget allocation for new equipment. The maintenance department needs a new tractor, while the processing unit requires upgraded packaging machinery. With limited funds, you can’t fully fund both. Through compromise, you might allocate partial funding to each department, with a commitment to prioritize the remainder in the next budget cycle.

The pragmatic choice 🔗

Compromising works well when reaching any agreement is more important than getting the perfect solution, when time pressure demands a quick resolution, or as a backup when collaboration isn’t yielding results. The Harvard Business School research emphasizes that while compromising doesn’t satisfy everyone completely, it demonstrates that you value both the relationship and forward progress.

The avoiding model: Knowing when to step back 🔗

The avoiding approach involves low assertiveness and low cooperativeness-essentially sidestepping the conflict altogether. At first glance, this might seem like poor leadership, but there are situations where avoidance is actually the wisest choice.

Suppose two employees have a minor disagreement about the color scheme for updated safety signage. The issue is trivial, emotions are high, and engaging might escalate the situation unnecessarily. Sometimes, stepping back and letting people cool down is the best move. As research from the Thomas-Kilmann model shows, avoiding can be appropriate when dealing with minor issues, when gathering more information is necessary, or when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.

The risks of avoidance 🔗

However, habitually avoiding conflicts, especially significant ones, can lead to unresolved issues that fester and grow. In workplace settings where goals are important and relationships matter, chronic avoidance rarely serves anyone well. Use this approach strategically, not as a default escape route.

The accommodating model: Prioritizing relationships 🔗

Accommodating combines low assertiveness with high cooperativeness. When you accommodate, you essentially yield to the other person’s wishes, sometimes at the expense of your own goals. This might sound like weakness, but it’s actually a sophisticated response in the right context.

Imagine a situation where your marketing coordinator has strong feelings about the design direction for your farm’s new website. You have mild preferences, but nothing you feel strongly about. By accommodating their vision, you not only get a design they’re passionate about but also build goodwill and demonstrate trust in their expertise.

Strategic sacrifice 🔗

Accommodating works well when you realize you’re wrong, when the issue is far more important to the other person than to you, when preserving harmony outweighs winning the point, or when you’re building “social credit” for more important battles ahead. The key is intentionality-choose to accommodate strategically, not habitually.

Choosing the right model: Context is everything 🔗

So how do you know which model to use? The answer lies in assessing three key factors: the importance of your goal, the importance of the relationship, and the time available.

Start by asking yourself: Is this issue critical to business operations, safety, or core values? If so, competing or collaborating might be appropriate. Is maintaining a positive relationship with this person crucial? If yes, avoiding, accommodating, or collaborating could work better. Do you have time to work through the issue thoroughly, or is a quick resolution necessary? Time constraints might push you toward competing or compromising rather than collaborating.

Remember that flexibility is crucial. The best managers develop a repertoire of conflict resolution styles and know when to apply each. Research from Harvard Business School emphasizes that effective leaders adapt their approach based on the specific situation rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all strategy.

Practical application: Building your conflict resolution toolkit 🔗

Understanding these models intellectually is one thing; applying them in the heat of the moment is another. Here are some practical tips to help you choose and execute the right approach:

First, develop self-awareness about your natural conflict style. Most people have a default mode they fall back on under stress. Do you tend to avoid confrontation? Do you always try to keep everyone happy? Recognizing your patterns helps you consciously choose a different approach when appropriate.

Second, practice emotional regulation. Conflict often triggers strong emotions, but effective conflict resolution requires staying calm and clear-headed. Take a moment to breathe, acknowledge your feelings, and then deliberately choose your response rather than reacting automatically.

Third, communicate your approach clearly. If you’re going to use competing in an urgent situation, explain why: “I know we usually discuss these decisions, but this is a safety emergency and we need to act now.” If you’re choosing accommodation, make it clear it’s a choice: “I can see this matters more to you than to me, so let’s go with your suggestion.”

Finally, evaluate and learn. After each significant conflict, reflect on what worked and what didn’t. Did the approach you chose achieve the desired outcome? How did it affect relationships? What would you do differently next time?

What do you think? Reflecting on recent conflicts in your workplace, which resolution model do you tend to use most often? Are there situations where you might benefit from trying a different approach? How might consciously choosing your conflict resolution strategy improve both outcomes and relationships in your management role?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Kilmann_Conflict_Mode_Instrument
2. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/strategies-for-conflict-resolution-in-the-workplace
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470432