Where workplace conflict comes from
Conflict doesn't appear out of nowhere: it builds up gradually, from an isolated disagreement to persistent tension, then to open conflict if nothing is done in between. The most common sources at work are well documented: diverging goals between teams or individuals, unclear or overlapping roles, limited resources to share, incompatible values or priorities, incomplete or poorly shared information, and a sense of insufficient recognition.
Most of these sources are structural, not personal: two reasonable people can end up in conflict simply because their respective goals, set by the organisation, are in tension with each other. Identifying the real source of a conflict — rather than attributing it to the other person's character — is often the first step toward de-escalating it.
According to the CPP Global Human Capital Report (2008), 85% of employees at all levels experience workplace conflict to some degree, and US employees spend close to 2 hours per week dealing with it on average. Most employees have never received any conflict management training.
CPP Inc. (2008). CPP Global Human Capital Report: Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Thrive.The 5 conflict-handling styles (Thomas-Kilmann)
In 1974, Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann published a model that has since become a reference in conflict management: the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), with more than ten million copies distributed since. The model maps each person's conflict behaviour along two axes: assertiveness (how far you pursue your own interests) and cooperativeness (how far you take the other person's interests into account).
The 5 styles identified by Thomas and Kilmann
Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperativeness): you hold your position without seeking a compromise, useful in an emergency or on a non-negotiable point. Avoiding (low assertiveness, low cooperativeness): you postpone or sidestep the conflict, useful when the stakes are minor or emotions are too high for a constructive exchange right now. Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperativeness): you give way to preserve the relationship, useful when the issue matters more to the other person than to you. Compromising (mid-range on both axes): each side gives up part of its position to reach a quick middle ground. Collaborating (high assertiveness, high cooperativeness): you seek a solution that fully satisfies both parties, the most demanding in time and effort.
Choosing the right style for the situation
The classic mistake is treating collaborating as the "superior" style to apply in every case. But collaborating takes time, trust, and a stake that justifies it — it's poorly suited to an urgent decision or a minor disagreement. Conversely, avoiding or accommodating, often seen as "weak" styles, are perfectly appropriate in certain situations: a secondary issue doesn't warrant a full negotiation, and letting tension settle before revisiting a topic is sometimes the better option.
The "healthy conflict" myth to correct
A widely held belief in management is that task conflict (disagreement over ideas, methods, decisions) is healthy and boosts team performance, as long as it stays distinct from relationship conflict (over personalities, personal dynamics). Carsten De Dreu and Laurie Weingart's (2003) meta-analysis, covering the full body of available research, seriously qualifies this belief.
- Treating collaborating as the only legitimate style, regardless of available time and actual stakes
- Letting a disagreement over substance (method, decision, priority) slide into personal attacks
- Systematically avoiding any conflict until tension explodes without warning
- Confusing expressing a disagreement with a lack of respect
- Ignoring the structural sources of conflict (goals, roles, resources) and addressing only the visible relational symptom
Contrary to what some management books suggest, De Dreu and Weingart found that task conflict is negatively correlated with both team performance and team member satisfaction — just like relationship conflict. The distinction remains useful for diagnosing a conflict, but it doesn't justify encouraging task conflict without limit.
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.How to embed these reflexes for good
Knowing the 5 Thomas-Kilmann styles isn't enough to pick the right one the exact moment a conflict arises — under pressure, instinct usually takes over from reasoning. Like any behavioural skill, embedding it comes from spaced repetition over time.
That's the approach behind the "Conflict Management Fundamentals" and "De-escalating Tension" decks on memia: flashcards that regularly revisit sources of conflict, the 5 styles, and de-escalation techniques, until these reference points become reflexes you can use in real situations.
Continue on conflict management
Frequently asked questions
What are the most common sources of conflict at work?
The most documented sources are diverging goals, unclear or overlapping roles, limited resources to share, incompatible values or priorities, incomplete information, and a sense of insufficient recognition. Most are structural rather than tied to the character of the people involved.
What are Thomas and Kilmann's 5 conflict-handling styles?
Competing (holding your position without seeking a compromise), avoiding (postponing the conflict), accommodating (giving way to preserve the relationship), compromising (partially giving up your position to reach a middle ground), and collaborating (seeking a solution that fully satisfies both parties).
What is the best conflict-handling style?
No style is best in absolute terms. Collaborating is often presented as the ideal but requires time and a stake that justifies it. Avoiding or accommodating are perfectly suited to a minor issue or tension too high for an immediate constructive exchange. The right style depends on context: the stakes, the time available, and the relationship with the other party.
Is task conflict really healthy for a team?
Not automatically. De Dreu and Weingart's (2003) meta-analysis found that task conflict (over ideas, methods, decisions) is negatively correlated with both team performance and satisfaction, just like relationship conflict — contrary to a belief found in some management books.
How do you know if a conflict needs formal mediation?
When the parties can no longer talk it through on their own, or when the person meant to manage the conflict (manager, colleague) is involved themselves and can no longer stay neutral. In these cases, mediation by a neutral third party becomes necessary — see the "Conflict Resolution and Mediation" deck.
Can conflict management be learned with flashcards?
Flashcards don't replace practising in real situations, but they anchor the sources of conflict and the 5 handling styles until they become usable without conscious effort the moment tension rises. That's the role of the "Conflict Management Fundamentals" and "De-escalating Tension" decks in memia's Conflict Management guide.