There’s no single “best” way to handle workplace conflict. The right approach when choosing a conflict management style depends on the situation, the people involved, and the stakes. Some conflicts need collaboration. Others need a quick compromise. Some require you to step back, and a few require you to stand firm.

For managers and HR across various industries, knowing which conflict management style to use and when, is a critical skill. We’ll be sharing a practical guide to the main conflict management styles and when to use each.

The 5 main conflict management styles

Most used conflict management styles include:

1. Collaborating – working together to find a win–win
2. Compromising – finding a middle ground
3. Avoiding – stepping back or delaying
4. Accommodating – yielding to the other party
5. Competing – asserting your position firmly

Each style can be helpful or unhelpful, depending on the situation.

1. Collaborating

Collaborating means working together to find a solution that fully meets both parties’ needs.

Use collaborating when:

• The issue is important to both parties.
  Collaboration is mandatory most of the time when employees involved gave stakes too high to back down. It considers different viewpoints to ensure the final outcome is fully supported.
  
• You have time to explore options.
  True collaboration cannot be rushed. It requires a significant amount of time to be invested to hold honest discussions, practice active listening, and explore creative alternative pathways.
  
• The relationship is important and worth investing in.
  Often time we advise that if colleagues involved work closely long-term (e.g., cross-departmental heads, co-founders, or key clients), collaboration is the ultimate tool.
  It values the bond between people as much as the outcome itself.
  
• You need a long-term solution.
  By completely different perspectives are merged, teams can generate ideas that neither party could have conceived alone.

Avoid overusing collaborating when:

• The issue is trivial
• There is no time for a deep discussion
• The other party is not willing to engage

2. Compromising

Compromising means each side gives up something to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

Use compromising when:

• Goals are moderately important to both sides.
  If the issue is worth resolving but not critical enough to justify the lenghty time required for deep collaboration, compromising is the ideal baseline.
  
• You need a quick, temporary solution.
  Compromising is also what my team refers to as a “stopgap” solution. Especially when deadlines are close. It allows teams to agree on an immediate, middle-ground fix now, while buying time to address the root issue thoroughly later.
  
• Collaborating has been attempted but not fully successful.
  Compromising is an effective conflict management style when two well-intentioned parties try to collaborate but find themselves completely deadlocked on a few final points. Switching to a compromise allows them to break the gridlock and avoid total project stagnation.
  
• Both sides have equal power and are willing to meet halfway.
  When two team members or departments with equal organizational leverage stand completely opposed, neither can force a “competing” win. Meeting halfway becomes the only realistic way to prevent a toxic, long-term operational standstill.

Avoid overusing compromising when:

• Core values or legal requirements are at stake
• You repeatedly give up too much
• The compromise doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem

3. Avoiding

Avoiding means not addressing the conflict immediately, or stepping away. This may not seem ideal, however, it can be used strategically.

Use avoiding when:

• The issue is trivial.
  If an issue has zero long-term impact on productivity, safety, or company core values, it is far more effective to let it go and channel your effort where it is most needed.
  
• Emotions are too high and a pause is needed.
  Sometimes when handlings conflict, discussions can become heated and cognitive reasoning shuts down. Stepping away is not a sign of weakness, it is a tactical choice to buy time so that angry parties can cool down, regain perspective, and process their emotions before speaking.
  
• You need more information before acting.
  Making a rushed decision during a conflict often results in a poor outcome. Avoiding is a conflict management style that lets you deliberately postpone a confrontation, allowing you to gather necessary documentation, consult historical data, or seek advice from neutral third parties.
  
• The risk of confrontation outweighs the benefit for now.
  There are situations when confronting someone will directly backfire, such as dealing with an unpredictable client or handling a volatile workspace situation where personal safety or severe corporate liability is on the line.

Avoid using avoiding when:

• The issue is important and will not go away
• Delay makes the problem worse
• People will likely misinterpret avoidance as ignoring or indifference

Sometimes a planned pause is strategic; chronic avoidance is not.

4. Accommodating

Accommodating means yielding to the other party’s needs or wishes.

Use accommodating when:

• You realise you’re wrong or less informed.
  The “Avoiding” conflict management style should naturally come in when new evidence or technical insights prove that your initial stance is flawed. Stubborn resistance damages your professional credibility. Yielding immediately shows intellectual honesty, respects the superior expertise of others, and mitigates project errors.
  
• The issue is more important to the other person.
  If a decision holds immense personal or operational value for the other party but only trivial significance to you, conceding is highly efficient. It allows them to secure a meaningful victory while costing you very little structural leverage.
  
• You want to build goodwill for a future issue.
  In long-term professional relationships, conflict management operates like an emotional bank account. Accommodating an employee on a current issue functions as a deposit of goodwill, creating a reciprocal social expectation that they will support you when a high-stakes issue arises later.
  
• Preserving the relationship is more important than “winning”.
  When managing critical, sensitive relationships, such as with a primary client (which could be a staff/employee), a valuable co-founder, or an emotionally exhausted team member, forcing your way can cause permanent damage. Prioritising peace over being right protects foundational trust.
  

Avoid overusing accommodating when:

• You repeatedly give in, damaging your credibility
• Core values, safety, or legal requirements are at stake
• It encourages disrespectful behaviour

5. Competing

Competing means asserting your position firmly, prioritising your needs. But be warned that this should be used sparingly.

Use competing when:

• There is clear legal, safety, or ethical requirement.
  In these scenarios, compromise as a conflict management style is a liability. For example, if a team member attempts to bypass a critical data privacy regulation (like GDPR) to hit a deadline, a manager must use a competing style to enforce compliance immediately.
  
• You need to make a quick, decisive decision.
  During a crisis or an emergency, time spent building consensus is time wasted. Leadership requires taking immediate command to deploy resources, even if it upsets team members who wanted their suggestions heard.
  
• Protecting people or the organisation is the priority.
  This applies to vital, unpopular corporate actions. Examples include implementing necessary budget cutbacks, terminating a toxic employee, or enforcing strict disciplinary measures.
  
• The other party is acting unreasonably or unethically.
  When negotiating with someone acting in bad faith, an accommodating or compromising stance will simply allow them to take advantage of you. Asserting power acts as a protective shield.

Avoid overusing competing when:

• The relationship matters long-term
• The issue is not critical
• You shut down useful input and creativity

Competing is sometimes necessary (e.g., safety, compliance), but overuse damages trust.

Choosing the right style in your local workplace

As workplaces, state and district vary, you should consider:

• Public sector constraints and policy requirements
• Cultural tendency towards politeness and avoidance of direct conflict
• Power dynamics in hierarchical organisations
• The importance of long-term relationships and reputation

Your natural style may lean towards compromising or accommodating. The key is to consciously choose the right conflict management style for the situation.

Want to build conflict management capability across your organisation?

If you want your managers to properly understand and use these styles effectively, while keeping in mind workplace policies applicable to your district:

• Book a consultation about our conflict management training
• Request a proposal for a workshop in Aberdeen or online
• Ask about combining conflict management with communication and legal awareness training