Conflicts in the workplace are inevitable. Where people work together, disagreements arise regarding priorities, working methods, or expectations. This does not have to be a problem. In fact, well-handled conflicts often lead to better decisions and stronger teams. However, as a manager or team leader, you need to know how to handle conflict effectively.
In practice, we see that many managers let conflicts simmer for too long. They hope it will blow over on its own or opt for a quick compromise without addressing the root cause. The result: frustration builds up, collaboration deteriorates, and ultimately, good employees leave. In this article, you will learn which conflict styles exist, how to recognize them, and which approach works best in which situation.
What exactly is conflict management?
Conflict management is the process of resolving a difference of opinion or clash between two or more parties in a constructive manner. It is not about avoiding conflicts, but about dealing with them consciously. Effective conflict management takes into account the interests of all involved and seeks an outcome that strengthens cooperation rather than damages it.
Conflicts arise in the workplace for a variety of reasons. These include unclear roles, differing work styles, competition for resources, or simply miscommunication. As a manager, it is your task to pick up on these signals early and deal with them appropriately.
The 5 conflict styles of Thomas-Kilmann
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is the most widely used model for conflict management. It distinguishes five styles based on two dimensions: the extent to which you pursue your own interests (assertiveness) and the extent to which you take into account the interests of the other party (cooperativeness).
1. Competing
With assertiveness, you stand firm on your own position, even if it comes at the expense of the relationship. This style is effective in crisis situations where a quick decision must be made, or when you are certain you are right on an important point. But beware: too much assertiveness undermines trust within your team. Employees feel unheard and stop sharing ideas or concerns.
When to use: emergency situations, ethical issues, protection of team interests against harmful decisions.
2. Giving in (accommodating)
Giving in means setting aside your own interests in favor of the other person. This can be wise when the subject is less important to you than to the other person, or when you want to protect the relationship. However, giving in consistently is risky. You lose credibility, and employees learn that insistence pays off.
When to use: if you are wrong, if the subject is much more important to the other person, or if you want to build goodwill for a future matter.
3. Avoiding
Avoidance means steering clear of the conflict. You postpone the discussion, change the subject, or withdraw. This is sometimes sensible when emotions run high and a cooling-off period is needed. However, as a standard strategy, avoidance is destructive. Unresolved conflicts grow and poison the work atmosphere in the long run.
When to use: if the subject is trivial, if you need more information, or if the timing is bad (for example, just before an important deadline).
4. Reaching a compromise (compromising)
In a compromise, both parties give something up to reach a workable solution. This seems fair, but the result is often that no one is truly satisfied. A compromise is useful as a temporary solution or when the interests of both parties carry equal weight and quick action is required.
When to use: if a quick solution is needed, if the interests are equal, or if a temporary work arrangement is sufficient.
5. Collaborating
Collaboration is the most constructive style. Both parties jointly seek a solution that does justice to all interests. This takes more time and energy, but yields the best long-term results. It strengthens the relationship and increases mutual understanding.
When to use: if the interests of both parties are too important for a compromise, if you want to strengthen the relationship, or if you are seeking a sustainable solution.
Conflict Management in Practice: A Step-by-Step Plan for Managers
Recognizing conflict styles is step one. The real challenge lies in applying them in the workplace. Below you will find a concrete step-by-step plan that you can follow as a manager.
Step 1: Identify the conflict early
Conflicts rarely begin with an open confrontation. Pay attention to subtle signals such as reduced communication between team members, cynical remarks, a decline in cooperation, or an increase in absenteeism. The sooner you intervene, the easier the conflict is to resolve.
Step 2: Conduct individual conversations
First, speak with both parties separately. Ask open-ended questions and listen actively. What is the cause? What are the underlying interests? What emotions are at play? Avoid passing judgment or suggesting solutions at this stage. The goal is to gain a complete picture.
Step 3: Bring parties together
Organize a meeting with all parties involved. Establish clear ground rules: let each other finish speaking, use "I" statements, and focus on the future rather than the past. As a manager, facilitate the conversation without taking sides.
Step 4: Look for solutions together
Invite both parties to brainstorm solutions. Assess each option for feasibility and acceptability. The best solution is one that makes both parties take ownership. Document the agreements and schedule an evaluation.
Step 5: Follow up
A conflict is only resolved when the agreements are honored and the working relationship is restored. Schedule a brief evaluation meeting after two to four weeks. Ask how the collaboration is progressing and whether the agreements are working. Adjust where necessary.
Common mistakes in conflict management
Even experienced managers fall into pitfalls when it comes to conflict management. These are the most common mistakes.
Waiting too long. The most common problem. Managers hope that the conflict will resolve itself, but that rarely happens. The longer you wait, the more it escalates and the more difficult it becomes to deal with it constructively.
Taking sides. As a leader, you lose your credibility as soon as you openly take the side of one party. Your role is that of a neutral facilitator, even if you personally agree with one of the parties.
Downplaying the conflict. Phrases like “stop making such a fuss” or “it’s not that bad” are disastrous. They signal that the employee’s feelings do not matter and undermine trust.
Focus only on the content. Many conflicts surface about substantive matters (a deadline, a working method), but have a deeper cause: a lack of recognition, unclear expectations, or damaged trust. If you only resolve the substantive issue, the conflict will return in another form.
Wanting to solve everything yourself. Some conflicts call for external help. A mediator, HR advisor, or coach can be valuable if the conflict has become too personal or too complex. There is nothing wrong with that.
Conflict management and communication: inextricably linked
Effective conflict management stands or falls with good communication. A few communication principles that make the difference:
Active listening. Repeat what the other person says in your own words. This prevents misunderstandings and shows that you take the other person seriously. Active listening is one of the most important. conversation techniques for managers.
use I-messages. Say “I notice I get frustrated when…” instead of “you always do…”. This prevents the other person from becoming defensive.
Asking further questions about interests. Behind every position lies an interest. Ask further: “What makes this so important to you?” or “What would you most like to achieve?” This way, you get to the core of the conflict.
Naming emotions. Conflicts evoke emotions. By naming them (without judgment), you create space for a more rational conversation: “I see that this affects you. I understand.”
When do you call for help?
As a manager, you cannot resolve every conflict on your own. Enlist professional help when the conflict has been ongoing for more than a few weeks without improvement, when intimidation, bullying, or discrimination is involved, when you as a manager are part of the conflict yourself, or when previous attempts at resolution have failed.
An external mediator or coach brings a fresh perspective and a neutral position that is sometimes difficult to achieve internally. At Kenneth Smit, we offer communication training en management training that help you effectively address conflicts in the workplace. You will learn practical techniques that you can immediately apply in your team.
Conflict management as a leadership skill
Good conflict management is not a side issue; it is a core competency of effective leadership. Managers who address conflicts constructively build stronger teams, foster innovation, and create a work environment where employees feel safe to express their opinions.
It takes courage not to shy away from a conflict. It takes skill to resolve it constructively. And it takes consistency to honor agreements. But the reward is great: a team that works together, even when things get tense.
Do you want to improve your conflict resolution and other communication skills as a manager or team leader? Then take a look at the communication training courses by Kenneth Smit or contact us for a no-obligation consultation.
The five conflict styles according to the Thomas-Kilmann model are: forcing (self-interest comes first), yielding (others' interest comes first), avoiding (shunting conflict), compromising (both parties give something up), and collaborating (jointly seeking the best solution).
Identify the conflict early, first hold individual conversations with those involved, then bring them together with clear ground rules, jointly seek solutions, and schedule an evaluation. Remain neutral and do not take sides.
Engage a mediator when the conflict has been ongoing for more than a few weeks without improvement, in cases of intimidation or discrimination, if you as a manager are part of the conflict yourself, or if previous resolution attempts have failed.
In a compromise, both parties give something up, meaning no one is completely satisfied. In collaboration, both parties jointly seek a solution that does justice to all interests. Collaboration takes more time but yields better results and stronger relationships.