Navigating Workplace Conflicts

Have you ever experienced a conflict in your workplace? Conflicts at work aren't always loud arguments—they can manifest in subtle ways like an eyeroll, a cold shoulder, or feeling unheard in meetings. If these disturbances cause negative emotions and threaten something you value (like your income or reputation), you're in conflict.

Conflict is an inevitable part of work life. It comes from the inevitable fact that we are not clones and we have different personalities, preferences, viewpoints, and realities. Researchers have identified three main types of workplace conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001):

1. Relationship conflict, which happens when people just don’t get along. It could be because of personality clashes or just a general dislike, leading to feelings of annoyance or frustration.
2. Task conflict, which arises from differences in ideas and opinions pertaining to a work task.
3. Process conflict, which arises from controversies regarding how to get the job done, involving issues such as who should take on what responsibilities or how much work each person should do.

Workplace conflicts can take a toll on both our emotional and mental energy. When handled poorly, they can escalate into more serious problems like aggression and bullying, which can severely impact our well-being. Since conflict is uncomfortable for most people, we often try to avoid it. However, because conflict is unavoidable, it's in our best interest to learn various conflict-handling strategies that can help us navigate it more effectively.

Take a moment to recall your most recent work conflict. Who was involved? What triggered you? What emotions surfaced?

Now, reflect on your own actions in that conflict. How did you communicate? Did you withdraw or become visibly tense?

To delve deeper into your conflict-handling style, I invite you to take the Dutch Conflict Handling Survey developed by DeDreu and colleagues (2001). It's quick (less than five minutes) and insightful. After completing it, you'll receive your scores on five distinct conflict handling styles. Click here to take the test.

People tend to deal with conflict in different ways, using various approaches and styles. According to DeDreu and colleagues (2001), there are five common conflict-handling styles: avoiding, acting like there is no problem; yielding, putting the other person’s needs ahead of your own; forcing, pushing your own needs and interests at the expense of the other person; problem-solving, working together to find the best solution for both sides; and compromising, finding a middle ground where both parties give a little to reach an agreement.

It is important to note that even though some conflict-handling styles tend to be more effective than others, there is no one best way to fit every problem and situation. Different situations call for different strategies. Here are some general tips on how each conflict-handling approach can be practiced at work and in what situations it is best used.

Five conflict styles

Source: Adapted from de Drew et al. 2001

Theoretical representation of the five conflict management strategies as a function of concern for self and concern for other (DeDreu et al., 2001)

Source: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Avoiding: Avoiding means simply pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Avoiders try to smooth things over, showing little concern for themselves or the other person. In the workplace, avoiding makes sense if the issue really doesn’t matter to you or you are OK with the outcome if nothing is done. It can also be useful when dealing with a very difficult or toxic person—saving your energy for more important tasks. However, keep in mind that consistently avoiding conflicts, especially those that matter to others, could harm your relationships in the long run.

Yielding: Yielding means giving in completely to the other side’s wishes, focusing on their needs while putting your own aside. This style involves making one-sided compromises, making unconditional promises, and offering help without expecting anything in return. At work, yielding can be useful when the other person is the expert and you are relying on their expertise. Yielding is also appropriate when the other person cares a lot more about the issue or when their interests are truly more important. For example, if you’re in a caretaking role, you might need to focus on accommodating your clients, as their needs are the top priority at that moment.

Forcing: Forcing is the opposite of yielding; it involves putting your interests and needs ahead of others. This style works best when you are the expert and your knowledge, expertise, and interests are truly the strongest. It can also be necessary when you are dealing with someone who is highly competitive, as it helps protect your own interests. Even though the term “forcing” has sort of a negative connotation—implying that you are trying to “win” the conflict—it can be functional at times, especially for leaders. For example, in urgent or high-stakes situations, leaders need to step up to set a course quickly and firmly. However, it is important to remember that forcing can hurt relationships and impair psychological safety in your team. Thus, actions need to be taken afterward to ensure your team feels heard and validated.

Career Essential Reads

To Go or Not to Go (to the Office)

Why Entrepreneurs Often Fail

Problem-solving: Problem-solving is often considered to be the most beneficial style in conflict handling as it aims to find a solution that benefits both parties. It focuses on “expanding the pie” rather than “splitting the pie,” which means creating more options for everyone. Problem-solving involves brainstorming together to come up with creative, out-of-the-box solutions that can meet everyone’s interests. It is best used when both parties bring unique expertise and resources to the table or when they value different outcomes from the conflict. Additionally, problem-solving can strengthen long-term relationships, as it encourages both sides to come up with solutions that work for them over time. However, keep in mind that successful problem-solving requires goodwill and commitment from both parties, as well as significant time and mental effort to find the best solution. Because of this, it might not be the best approach for issues that need a quick fix or for problems that aren't very important.

Compromising: Compromising means searching for a middle ground, where both sides’ interests are considered, but each party makes some concessions. It involves matching the other person’s give-and-take, making conditional promises, and looking for a fair balance between the two sides. It can be considered a “half-way” problem-solving, representing a good alternative when you need a quick solution. Compromising works well when one or both parties aren’t able or willing to openly discuss what their real, underlying interests are. It's an efficient, mutual approach that shows goodwill from both sides.

Again, there is no universally applicable conflict-handling strategy. The five approaches we’ve discussed are all valuable; they could be thought of as a toolkit—you pick the one that works when the situation calls for it. Effective conflict handling involves taking a step back, assessing the situation, choosing the best strategy for that moment, putting it into action, and then evaluating the results to adjust your approach as needed.

This post was co-authored by Debra Gilin and Lanxi Wang. This conflict management course is offered at no cost, thanks to funding support from the Government of Canada’s Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Fund and Impactme.app.