Conflict is unavoidable wherever people work together. Managers and team members disagree about priorities. Departments compete for resources. Customers demand what the business cannot provide. Colleagues clash over styles, deadlines or credit. At home, the same patterns appear between parents and children, partners and friends.
Conflict itself is not the problem. Handled well, it surfaces different perspectives, tests ideas and leads to better decisions. Handled badly, through avoidance, aggression or resentment, it damages relationships, productivity and morale, and can drive good people and customers away. The ability to resolve conflict professionally is one of the most valuable skills a manager, employee or business owner can develop.
This article explains five conflict-handling styles and when each fits, a practical five-step resolution process, principles of interest-based negotiation, approaches to common workplace scenarios and when to escalate.
Before you respond: three judgements
Before deciding how to handle a conflict, consider:
- The relationship. How important is your relationship with the other person, now and in the future? A long-term colleague or key customer warrants a different approach from a one-off encounter.
- The situation. What is the conflict really about, and how important is the outcome? No single strategy works for every situation.
- Time and energy. How much time and effort does the situation deserve? Some conflicts need careful, extended resolution. Others are best settled quickly.
Five conflict styles
In the 1970s, researchers Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann described five ways people handle conflict, based on two dimensions: assertiveness (concern for your own goals) and cooperativeness (concern for the other party’s goals). Their model, the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, is widely used in workplace training. The styles are sometimes illustrated with animals.
1. Competing (the shark): assertive and uncooperative
You pursue your position firmly, without much regard for the other party’s view, until they accept it.
When it fits: emergencies requiring quick, decisive action, unpopular but necessary decisions, enforcing safety rules or standards, and protecting the business against unreasonable behaviour.
Risks: overused, it damages relationships, discourages people from speaking up and breeds resentment.
2. Collaborating (the owl): assertive and cooperative
You work with the other party to find a solution that fully satisfies both, listening carefully, exploring the underlying issues and combining perspectives into a win–win outcome.
When it fits: important issues where both sides’ concerns matter, long-term relationships, complex problems that benefit from multiple viewpoints, and building commitment.
Risks: time-consuming, and not worth the effort for trivial issues.
3. Compromising (the fox): moderately assertive and moderately cooperative
Both parties give up something to reach a middle ground. Nobody gets everything they want.
When it fits: deadlines that require a quick, acceptable solution, equally powerful parties with mutually exclusive goals, and temporary settlements of complex issues.
Risks: may produce mediocre outcomes, and can leave both sides partly dissatisfied.
4. Accommodating (the teddy bear): unassertive and cooperative
You set aside your own concerns to satisfy the other party.
When it fits: when the issue matters far more to the other person than to you, when preserving the relationship is the priority, when you realise you are wrong, or when building goodwill for the future, such as with a valued customer over a small matter.
Risks: overused, your own needs and the business’s interests are neglected, and others may take advantage.
5. Avoiding (the turtle): unassertive and uncooperative
You withdraw from the conflict or postpone it.
When it fits: trivial issues, situations where emotions need to cool before discussion, when you cannot win and the cost of conflict outweighs the benefit, or when someone else is better placed to resolve it.
Risks: important issues fester and grow, and avoidance can look like weakness or indifference.
Choosing a style
Everyone has natural preferences, but effective people adapt their style to the situation. A manager might compete on a safety issue, collaborate on a strategic decision, compromise on a scheduling clash, accommodate a long-standing customer’s small request and avoid a petty argument that will blow over.
A five-step conflict resolution process
When a conflict needs active resolution, a structured process helps.
Step 1: Set the scene
Choose an appropriate time and private place. Acknowledge that there is a disagreement and state your intention to resolve it constructively. Make clear that you want to hear the other person’s perspective as well as share your own.
Step 2: Gather information
Understand what actually happened and why. Listen actively, ask open questions and separate facts from interpretations and emotions. Where appropriate, get input from others, such as colleagues or a mentor, on how to approach the situation.
Step 3: Agree on the problem
Different people often see different problems in the same situation. One person thinks the issue is missed deadlines, while the other thinks it is unrealistic workloads. Agree on a shared definition of the problem before seeking solutions. Many conflicts ease significantly at this stage, once each side feels understood.
Step 4: Brainstorm solutions
Generate possible solutions together without judging them immediately. You can also reflect privately, thinking through options before the conversation, and seek advice from a trusted colleague, coach or senior.
Step 5: Negotiate and agree
Evaluate the options and agree on a solution both parties can accept. Be specific about who will do what and by when, and agree how you will review progress.
Throughout, remember three qualities: calm, patience and respect. Do not run away from difficult situations. Face them with a plan.
Interest-based negotiation
Roger Fisher and William Ury’s Getting to Yes (1981) popularised principled, interest-based negotiation. Several of its ideas are especially useful in workplace conflict:
- Separate the people from the problem. Attack the issue, not the person.
- Focus on interests, not positions. A position is what someone says they want (“I need this finished by Friday”). An interest is why they want it (“the customer is visiting on Monday”). Understanding interests often reveals solutions that satisfy both sides.
- Generate options for mutual gain before deciding.
- Use objective criteria, such as policies, standards, data and precedent, rather than a battle of wills.
Common workplace scenarios
An angry customer
A customer demands a refund for a product bought a year ago, well outside the business’s policy. They are raising their voice at a counter, holding up a queue of other customers.
A professional approach: invite the customer to a quieter area or a separate counter, so the queue can keep moving and the customer can be heard properly. Listen fully and acknowledge their frustration. Explain the policy calmly, and look for an acceptable middle ground, such as a repair, a partial credit or a goodwill gesture, where appropriate. The customer feels heard, the other customers are served and the relationship may be saved.
Remember that Australian consumer guarantees can apply regardless of a business’s own refund policy, for example where goods have a major fault. Make sure staff understand the law as well as your policies.
A trivial argument
Small disagreements between colleagues, or between teams, can grow if ignored. Address them early through a calm conversation and mutual agreement. Where someone is deliberately provoking conflict or acting in bad faith, avoiding the bait and escalating appropriately may be the wiser course.
Standing firm for the right reasons
Sometimes a customer or other person becomes abusive towards staff and does not calm down despite genuine efforts. In such cases, standing firm protects your people and your business. Calmly set boundaries, and if the behaviour continues, ask the person to leave or end the interaction. Employees notice whether their employer protects them, and other customers notice too.
Conflict between team members
When two team members clash, avoid taking sides prematurely. Meet each person individually to understand their perspective, then bring them together with a clear process: agree on the problem, focus on interests, generate options and agree actions. Follow up to make sure the agreement holds.
Conflict with your manager
Disagreeing with a manager can feel risky. Choose the right moment, raise the issue privately, focus on the business outcome and come with options rather than only complaints. Respect their decision if it goes against you, unless it involves something unsafe, unethical or unlawful.
When to escalate
Some conflicts require more than a conversation:
- Bullying, harassment and discrimination must be addressed through proper processes. In Australia, employers have legal obligations to provide a safe workplace, including psychological safety, and to prevent harassment and discrimination.
- Safety issues must be raised immediately with appropriate people.
- Serious misconduct requires formal investigation.
- Persistent conflicts that informal efforts have not resolved may need mediation by a neutral third party.
Document significant conflicts and the steps taken to resolve them, especially where formal processes may follow.
Preventing unnecessary conflict
Many workplace conflicts can be prevented:
- Clear roles and responsibilities reduce disputes over who should do what.
- Clear policies and expectations reduce arguments about what is acceptable.
- Regular communication surfaces issues before they escalate.
- Fair processes, applied consistently, reduce perceptions of favouritism.
- A culture of respect, modelled by leaders, makes disagreement safe and constructive.
Phrases that help in difficult conversations
The right words can calm a tense situation:
- Acknowledging: “I can see this has been really frustrating for you.”
- Clarifying: “Can you help me understand what happened from your point of view?”
- Checking understanding: “So the main concern is… is that right?”
- Focusing on the shared goal: “We both want this project delivered on time. Let’s work out how.”
- Separating person and problem: “This isn’t about blame. It’s about fixing the process.”
- Setting boundaries: “I want to help, and I need us to keep this conversation respectful.”
- Moving to action: “What would a good outcome look like for you?”
Avoid phrases that inflame: “calm down”, “that’s not my problem”, “you always” and “you never”.
Frequently asked questions
What if the other person refuses to engage? Explain why resolving the issue matters, offer a different time or format, and if necessary involve a manager or neutral third party. Document your attempts.
Should conflicts be resolved by email? Rarely. Email strips out tone and easily escalates misunderstandings. Use a conversation, in person or by video, and confirm agreements in writing afterwards.
How do I handle my own anger? Pause before responding, take a break if needed and return when calm. It is better to say “I need some time to think about this” than to say something you regret.
Is some conflict healthy? Yes. Disagreement about ideas, approaches and priorities, handled respectfully, leads to better decisions. Teams with no visible disagreement are often hiding problems, and the issues tend to surface later, when they are harder and more expensive to fix. The goal is constructive conflict about issues, not personal conflict between people.
A worked example
Two supervisors at a manufacturing plant clash repeatedly over the use of a shared forklift and the loading dock. Arguments break out at shift changeovers, and their teams have started taking sides.
The operations manager meets each supervisor individually. One is frustrated that inbound deliveries arrive during her team’s loading window. The other complains that outbound loading blocks the dock when his materials arrive. The positions were “my team needs the forklift first”. The interests were predictable access to the dock for each team’s critical deliveries.
In a joint meeting, the manager sets the scene, confirms the shared problem of unpredictable dock access causing delays for both teams, and invites options. Together they design a dock schedule with fixed windows for inbound and outbound activity, agree to notify suppliers of the delivery windows and assign a second forklift for peak hours. The arguments stop, and dock delays fall for both teams.
Summary
Conflict is part of working life, and handling it professionally is a core skill. Before responding, weigh the relationship, the situation and the time it deserves. Choose among the five styles of competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating and avoiding according to the situation, rather than defaulting to one. Use a structured process: set the scene, gather information, agree on the problem, brainstorm solutions and negotiate an agreement, staying calm, patient and respectful. Focus on interests rather than positions, handle customer conflicts with care and within the law, stand firm when people behave abusively, escalate serious issues and prevent unnecessary conflict through clarity, fairness and respect.
Sources: small-business training notes on resolving conflicts professionally, together with the Thomas–Kilmann conflict model and Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes (1981). Examples are illustrations. This article is general information, not legal or HR advice.
