Good to know

Conflict Resolution Styles: How to Resolve Disagreements Constructively

Author: The Tester.lt team October 1, 2026

Do constant arguments end in deadlock? Learn about the five Thomas–Kilmann conflict styles and how to manage tension more effectively.

Key takeaways

Conflict behaviour is measured on two axes: assertiveness (defending your own interests) and cooperativeness (attention to the other person’s needs).
In organisational psychology, the Thomas–Kilmann model (TKI) identifies five distinct behavioural strategies.
Each resolution style has strengths and weaknesses—there is no universally correct option for every situation.
Long-term success depends on flexibly changing strategy according to how important the dispute is and what the relationship requires.

Conflict resolution styles test: Thomas-Kilmann behaviour profiles

Disagreements at work and at home arise naturally when expectations, values or resource needs collide. People often assume that arguments themselves damage the bond, yet what most harms long-term relationships is an automatic or unexamined way of resolving those disputes. Analysing behaviour under stress shows that most people rely on one automatic pattern formed early in life. Once you understand your own and others’ behavioural mechanisms, you can break repeating conflict cycles and stay calmer even in the hardest situations.

The scientific basis for assessing conflict

The global standard for conflict management rests on the model created in 1974 by psychology and management experts Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann. Their research showed that during a dispute, two main motives drive behaviour. The first is assertiveness—the effort to meet your own needs. The second is cooperativeness—the effort to take the other party’s interests into account.

Combining these two motives produces five different behavioural profiles. The most common communication mistake is applying only one dominant strategy in every life situation while ignoring changing context.

Five behavioural profiles: strengths, risks and growth tips

To manage tension and find constructive solutions, it helps to recognise both your own and the other person’s behavioural model.

1. Competing (power) style

This style combines maximum assertiveness with minimal cooperation. The person focuses exclusively on their own goals, using arguments, authority or status to win the dispute. In practice this often shows up as interrupting others, raising one’s voice or making categorical statements that leave no room for another view.

Practical example: in a work meeting the team is weighing several project plans. A competing-style person does not let others finish and cuts them off—we will do it my way, because I have the most experience in this area and I know better.
When it works best: in critical situations that require an instant decision (crisis management), and when protecting personal boundaries from manipulation.
Risks: using this style constantly creates a toxic environment . People around you feel unheard, team or family motivation drops, and trust erodes over time.
How to improve: deliberately practise active listening. Before presenting your argument, ask the other person at least one open question and invite them to explain their position in more detail.

2. Accommodating (yielding) style

This model combines minimal assertiveness with maximum cooperation. The person sacrifices personal expectations to meet the other person’s demands and keep the peace. In real life they often apologise even when not at fault and quickly agree to any proposal just to avoid an argument.

Practical example: a colleague asks you to cover their Friday evening shift, even though you have planned important rest. Instead of declining, you smile and say it is no trouble and you can work—while inside you feel used and exhausted.
When it works best: when the issue barely matters to you but is extremely important to the other person. It helps build social capital for the future.
Risks: ignoring personal needs eventually creates deep resentment and inner burnout. The person becomes an easy target for those who exploit others’ kindness.
How to improve: start using partial agreement. Instead of fully capitulating, learn to name conditions. For example, you can say you will cover the shift this time, but next week you will need their help with your project.

3. Avoiding style

In this strategy, assertiveness and cooperativeness are equally low. Conflict is ignored, postponed, or the person withdraws physically and emotionally from solving the problem. This can look like refusing to talk (the silent treatment), changing the subject, leaving the room, or endlessly repeating that you will discuss it later.

Practical example: your partner wants to discuss an important but unpleasant money question. An avoiding-style person says they are too tired now and suggests talking at the weekend. When the weekend comes, they deliberately schedule other activities and never return to the topic.
When it works best: when emotions are too heated and both sides need time to calm down, or when the problem is minor and will resolve itself with time.
Risks: systematically avoiding problems creates a snowball effect. Unresolved small disputes pile up until they finally explode into a major crisis.
How to improve: learn to withdraw constructively. Instead of slamming the door or changing the subject, clearly name a return time—for example, offer to continue the conversation in two hours once the tension has eased.

4. Compromising style

A medium level of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Both sides look for a quick solution and split the win in half—each gets something, but each also gives something up. This person focuses on negotiation, offers trades and quick concessions, without digging into the roots of the problem.

Practical example: two colleagues want the same summer week off, but the company can spare only one. Instead of clarifying why each needs those exact days (perhaps one needs Friday free and the other needs the start of the week), they quickly split the week in half. Both get less than they wanted and remain somewhat dissatisfied.
When it works best: when time is limited, both sides have equal power, and a decision cannot wait. It is an excellent fallback when collaboration is not possible.
Risks: it often creates situations where both sides remain partly unsatisfied. Rushing to compromise loses the chance of a more innovative solution.
How to improve: before offering to split things down the middle, spend five extra minutes clarifying the real motives. Sometimes people’s needs do not overlap at all, and a better way out than partial yielding becomes available.

5. Collaborating (problem-solving) style

Maximum assertiveness combined with maximum cooperativeness. The parties openly state their needs and work together to find a creative solution that fully satisfies both. This style rests on the core Harvard Negotiation Project rule—separating the problem from the people. Conflict becomes a three-sided process: you and the other person stand on one side, and the problem being solved stands on the other. Instead of fighting each other, you join forces against a shared challenge, distinguishing declared positions (what someone demands) from true interests (why they need it).

Practical example: two partners disagree about holidays—one wants mountains, the other the sea. Instead of splitting time in half, they start talking openly. It turns out one needs active movement and nature, while the other needs warmth and relaxation. They find a place that combines morning hikes in a national park with afternoon rest on a sunny beach, fully meeting both sets of expectations.
When it works best: when solving complex problems, building long-term strategies, and strengthening trust in romantic or business relationships.
Worth remembering: because this process demands large amounts of time and emotional energy, do not waste it on small everyday questions. Save this strategy for essential disagreements.

The ability to adapt to the situation and consciously change your communication strategy is one of the key signs of emotional intelligence (as described by psychologist Daniel Goleman). Take the free conflict resolution test —it may help you assess your behavioural habits under tension and find a clear direction for turning disputes into constructive dialogue.

Sources

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. (A widely used scientific instrument analysing five styles of conflict behaviour.)
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. (Harvard Negotiation Project principles distinguishing positions from underlying interests in collaboration.)
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. (On emotional self-regulation and flexibility in managing interpersonal conflict.)

Toxic relationship test: spotting emotional abuse, manipulation, and control

Relationships

Toxic Relationships: How to Recognise Emotional Manipulation

Hidden emotional abuse is far harder to spot than open aggression. Learn the main warning signs of a toxic bond and how to catch quiet manipulation before it takes deeper root.

Read article

Two people surrounded by abstract communication symbols — love languages test illustration