How Well Do You Handle Workplace Conflict?

Consider it a weekly tax, but paid in mental energy, not money. A 2021 report by Acas estimated the cost of workplace conflict to UK employers at roughly £28.5 billion per year. For context, that is over £1,000 per employee. You are not imagining the drain. Thirty-five per cent of employees reported experiencing interpersonal conflict at work in the preceding year. Of those, 56% said it led to stress, anxiety, or depression. Five per cent resigned because of it.

We often hear that a bit of ‘task conflict’ can be productive. The meta-analysis suggests otherwise. On average, across teams, task conflict correlates negatively with team performance. Relationship conflict, the personal kind, correlates even more strongly with lower team satisfaction.

This is not about avoiding conflict. It is about your default setting when it arrives. Research on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, drawing from a norm sample of 8,000 full-time employees, shows a clear pattern: the most commonly used style is Compromising. Furthermore, women, on average, score higher on Compromising, Avoiding, and Accommodating, while men score higher on Competing. In one study, the average score for men on Competing was 5.23, compared to 4.33 for women.

Your automatic mode has a cost. It might be a project that moves forward with a mediocre solution because you opted for the middle ground too quickly. It might be the resentment of consistently smoothing things over for others. Or it could be the relational damage of pushing too hard for a win. The goal is not to have one ‘right’ style, but to have access to the right one for the situation.

Eight questions. Under two minutes. You might not love the answer.

More Quizzes

What Your Conflict Mode Really Means

Competing means you treat conflict as a contest to be won, using authority, position, or persistence to get your way. You land here because you prioritise your own outcome over the relationship or the other party’s concerns. The real-world cost is relational. In a 2007 experimental study, the competing strategy produced the most relationship conflict and the least satisfaction among participants. If this is your overused mode, you may get short-term results but create long-term friction. One concrete thing to do this week: in your next disagreement, before stating your position, ask two genuine questions to understand the other person’s underlying needs.

Collaborating involves digging for the root interests behind positions to find a solution that fully satisfies both sides. You score here because you see conflict as a joint problem-solving exercise, not a battle. The cost is time and energy. Collaborating is intensive, and using it on every minor issue is inefficient. It can also frustrate others who want a quicker resolution. If you default to collaborating even on trivial matters, practice triage. This week, pick one low-stakes disagreement and consciously choose a faster path, like a simple compromise, instead of launching a full collaborative exploration.

Compromising is the ‘split-the-difference’ approach, seeking a middle ground that is acceptable to all. You likely land here because it feels fair, efficient, and safe. This is the most commonly used style overall. The cost is that you often leave value on the table. By aiming for the middle from the outset, you may forfeit a more creative, integrative solution that could have met more of everyone’s needs. If compromise is your reflex, delay it. This week, in one discussion, resist the immediate urge to propose a 50/50 deal. Instead, ask, “What would a perfect outcome look like for you?” and see if that reveals new options.

Avoiding means you sidestep, delay, or withdraw from the conflict altogether. You do this because the perceived emotional or social risk of engaging seems higher than the benefit. The research on gender backlash, like Bowles et al.’s 2007 study, shows why this can feel rational: women negotiating with male evaluators were significantly less inclined to initiate. The cost is that issues fester, and your needs go permanently unmet. If avoidance is your pattern, practise a micro-engagement. This week, identify one minor, low-risk issue you’ve been avoiding and state your preference on it in a single sentence. Do not justify or argue. Just state it.

Accommodating is when you neglect your own concerns to satisfy those of the other person. You sacrifice to preserve harmony. The immediate cost is to your own priorities and potentially to the quality of the work if your input was needed. The longer-term cost is a pattern where others learn your concessions are guaranteed. If you consistently accommodate, you need to build a ‘no’ muscle. This week, the one concrete thing is to defer. When asked for something that conflicts with your priorities, do not say yes or no immediately. Say, “I need to check my priorities and get back to you in an hour.” Use the hour to formulate a polite counter-proposal or decline.

Expanding Your Conflict Range

Diagnose the conflict type before you choose a mode. Is it primarily about the task—ideas, processes, resources? Or has it become personal—clashing personalities, perceived disrespect? A large meta-analysis found that while both are harmful, relationship conflict has a much stronger negative link with team satisfaction. If you sense a task disagreement turning personal, your priority should shift to de-escalation. Explicitly label it: “I think we’re both focused on the best outcome for the project, but the tone is feeling personal. Can we rewind to the core problem?” This redirects energy back to the shared goal.

Increase your threshold for using Compromising. Because it is the common default, we often use it as a first resort. Treat it as a fallback, not a starting point. Before you propose meeting in the middle, ask one round of clarifying questions. You might discover the other person’s ‘must-have’ is your ‘nice-to-have’, creating an easy trade rather than a mutual sacrifice. This turns a compromise into a more efficient deal. The goal is to move from simply splitting the difference to making intelligent trades.

Practise a relational account when you need to be assertive. Research by Bowles and Babcock on relational accounts suggests that framing a negotiation or assertive request in terms of collective benefit or organisational norms can reduce social backlash. Instead of “I need this,” try “To get the team report done on time, I’ll need access to those figures by Wednesday.” This grounds your ask in a legitimate, work-focused reason, making it harder to dismiss as merely self-interested.

Schedule conflict. This sounds counterintuitive, but for chronic avoiders, it works. If a recurring issue with a colleague makes you tense, send a calendar invite for a 15-minute chat to discuss it. The formality of the appointment lowers the emotional spike of an ambush conversation and gives you both time to prepare. Frame it neutrally: “Topic: Smoothing out our handover process.” Showing up becomes the commitment, making it harder to back out.

Use Avoiding strategically, not reflexively. The TKI framework states no mode is inherently bad; avoiding is rational when an issue is trivial, when you lack information, or when you need to cool down. The problem is using it for important issues out of discomfort. This week, consciously make one avoidance decision. When a minor complaint arises, literally say to yourself, “This is not worth my bandwidth,” and let it go. This practises intentional choice, rather than fear-based reflex.

Calibrate your Collaborating efforts. True collaboration is resource-intensive. Apply it selectively to conflicts where the outcome is highly important and the relationship is worth preserving and investing in. For less critical issues with trusted colleagues, a quick compromise or even a gracious accommodation might be more efficient. Ask yourself: “How important is the optimal outcome here, on a scale of 1 to 10?” If it’s below a 7, choose a faster style.

Apply the Dual Concern lens to your diagnosis. The Thomas-Kilmann model is based on Dual Concern Theory, which assesses your assertiveness for your own goals versus your cooperativeness for others’ goals. Before reacting, ask two quick questions: “How important is my goal here?” and “How important is maintaining this relationship?” Your honest answers map directly to the five styles. If both are high, collaborate. If your goal is low but the relationship is high, accommodate. This 10-second check can prevent you from defaulting to your habitual style.

Track your conflict energy for one week. Keep a simple log: note each minor tension or disagreement, which style you used, and how drained you felt afterward (1-5 scale). You’ll likely see a pattern linking your default style to your energy expenditure. Competing and Avoiding often create lingering stress, while unthinking Accommodating builds resentment. The data makes your automatic cost visible, which is the first step toward choosing differently.

Sources

Acas. (2021). Estimating the costs of workplace conflict. Retrieved from https://www.acas.org.uk/estimating-the-costs-of-workplace-conflict

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103. Retrieved from https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Negotiation_and_Conflict_Management/De_Dreu_Weingart_Task-conflict_Meta-analysis.pdf

DeChurch, L. A., Hamilton, K. L., & Haas, C. (2007). Effects of conflict management strategies on perceptions of intragroup conflict. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(1), 66–78. Retrieved from https://atlas.northwestern.edu/papers/conflictEffect.pdf

Thomas, G. F., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Sample Interpretive Report. CPP, Inc. Retrieved from https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TKI_Sample_Report.pdf