What's My Preferred Conflict-Handling Style?

When you differ with someone, how do you respond? Use the following rating
scale to record your answers:
1 = Practically never
2 = Once in a great while
3 = Sometimes
4 = Fairly often
5 = Very often

1. I work to come out victorious, no matter what. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I try to put the needs of others above my own. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I look for a mutually satisfactory solution. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I try not to get involved in conflicts. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I strive to investigate issues thoroughly and jointly. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I never back away from a good argument. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I strive to foster harmony. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I negotiate to get a portion of what I propose. 1 2 3 4 5

9. I avoid open discussions of controversial subjects. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I openly share information with others in resolving 1 2 3 4 5

disagreements.

11. I would rather win than end up compromising. 1 2 3 4 5

12. I got along with suggestions of others. 1 2 3 4 5

13. I look for a middle ground to resolve disagreements. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I keep my true opinions to myself to avoid hard 1 2 3 4 5

feelings.

15. I encourage the open sharing of concerns and 1 2 3 4 5

issues.

16. I am reluctant to admit I am wrong. 1 2 3 4 5

1
 17. I try to help others avoid losing face in a 1 2 3 4 5
disagreement.

18. I stress the advantages of give-and-take. 1 2 3 4 5

19. I agree early on, rather than argue about a point. 1 2 3 4 5

20. I state my position as only one point of view. 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Based on conflict dimensions defined in K. W .Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict
Management," in M. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976), pp. 889-935.

Scoring Key
To calculate your conflict-handling score, add up your totals for each of the five
categories.

Analysis and Interpretation

Research has identified five conflict-handling styles. They are defined as follows:

Competing = A desire to satisfy one's interests, regardless of the impact on the

other party to the conflict. Items 1, 6, 11, and 16 in this instrument tap this style.

Collaborating = Where the parties to a conflict each desire to satisfy fully the
concerns of all parties. Items 5, 10, 15, and 20 in this instrument.

Avoiding = The desire to withdraw from or suppress the conflict. Items 4, 9, 14,
and 19 in this instrument.

Accommodating = Willingness of one party in a conflict to place the opponent's

Interests above his or her own. Items 2, 7, 12, and 17 in this instrument.

Compromising = Where each party to a conflict is willing to give up something.

Items 3, 8, 13, and 18 in this instrument.

2
Your score within each category will range from 4 to 20. The category you score
highest in is your preferred conflict-handling style. Your next-highest total is your
secondary style.

Ideally, we should adjust our conflict-handling style to the situation. For instance,
avoidance works well when a conflict is trivial, when emotions are running high
and time is needed to cool them down, or when the potential disruption from a
more assertive action outweighs the benefits of a resolution. In contrast,
competing works well when you need a quick resolution on important issues
where unpopular actions must be taken, or when commitment by others to your
solution is not critical. But the evidence indicates that we all have a preferred
style for handling conflicts. When "push comes to shove," this is the style we tend
to rely on. Your score on this instrument provides you with insight into this
preferred style. Use this information to work against your natural tendencies
when the situation requires a different style.

3
 FIVE CONFLICT STRATEGIES

Avoidance Competition
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2

Accommodation Compromise
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2

Collaboration
Stage 1 Stage 2

4
 Appropriate Use of Each Strategy

When Collaborating is Appropriate

Integrating is appropriate in most conflict situations. It is particularly effective
when parties to the conflict must work together in the future. This strategy is
extremely useful when the conflict is complex and involves multiple layers. When
the Integrating strategy is used for resolving a conflict, it sets the tone for future
issues to be handled with a similar, problem-solving focus. Although it is clear
that Integrating has the greatest possibility for success in most situations, it is not
always the strategy that is chosen. One reason for this may be that the
Integrating strategy is the most difficult and often the most time-consuming
approach to resolving conflict. In addition, there are times when each of the other
strategies may be useful.

When Compromising is Appropriate

Compromising may be effective when parties to a conflict are having difficulty
moving forward. If each side gains a little, it may be enough to keep the parties
involved in conflict resolution. Compromise can bring some satisfaction to each
party, but in the long run Integrating will achieve the optimal results.

When Competing is Appropriate

Competing is rarely a productive strategy in the long term. However, if there is no
long-term relationship involved, and if your goals demand immediate attention,
then competing may be useful. There are situations in which one party must win
and another lose (e.g., vying for the same job), but even in those situations,
where possible, use of the Integrating strategy would be more productive.

When Accommodating is Appropriate

Smoothing can be a useful, temporary fix in a conflict situation. Giving in on one
issue may be the key to moving the conflict to a new level in which several other

5
issues may be discussed. Smoothing may also be appropriate when an issue is
of much greater importance to the other party than it is to you.

When Avoiding is Appropriate

Some conflict situations can reasonably be expected to work themselves out
over time. In such cases it may be best to leave the situation alone. There are
other conflicts that are so trivial that it is not worth getting involved with them.
Sometimes by avoiding a conflict you can prevent escalation to an even worse
conflict. Finally, there are some conflicts that are irresolvable. For example, if two
people have a conflict stemming from fundamentally different personal values,
they will have great difficulty resolving that conflict.

It should be noted that whatever strategy one chooses, the other party to the
conflict mayor may not use the same strategy. For example, if one party uses an
Integrating strategy but the other party uses Competing, the attempts at
Integrating may be blocked. We have focused on the simplest situations in which
one strategy prevails, in order to present the straightforward effects of each
strategy. When one party's strategy does not match the others, both should be
aware that their attempts to use their own strategy may be hindered.