Most of us have a default way of dealing with conflict.
When a disagreement comes up at work, in business, in a family meeting, or even during a negotiation, some people immediately push to get their way. Others would rather keep quiet and avoid confrontation. Some give in quickly because they value peace. Others look for a middle ground.
The interesting thing is that we often do this without thinking about it.
Understanding your conflict style, and knowing when to move beyond it, is therefore one of the most underrated negotiation skills.
Five Ways People Handle Conflict
In 1974, researchers Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed a framework identifying five common approaches to conflict. The framework remains useful because it helps us understand something simple: people do not all approach disagreement in the same way.
1. Competing: “I need to win.”
The competing style treats conflict as a contest.
The focus is on asserting your position, protecting your interests and getting the best possible outcome for yourself.
There are situations where this is necessary. For example, if someone is taking advantage of you, breaching a contractual obligation or making an offer that is clearly unacceptable, being firm is important.
But if every disagreement becomes a battle to be won, the cost can be high.
You may win the argument and lose the relationship.
This is particularly important in Uganda, where business and professional relationships are often closely connected. The person you negotiate against today may be a potential business partner, client, colleague or referral source tomorrow.
2. Avoiding: “Let’s leave it for now.”
Avoiding means stepping away from the conflict rather than confronting it immediately.
Sometimes, this is good judgment.
If emotions are extremely high, taking time before responding can prevent a small disagreement from becoming a serious dispute. Similarly, not every disagreement deserves a lengthy negotiation.
The problem comes when avoidance becomes your permanent strategy.
A disagreement between business partners that is repeatedly ignored does not necessarily disappear. An employee who is unhappy but never speaks up may eventually resign. A family disagreement over property may remain quiet for years before becoming a much bigger succession dispute.
Silence can preserve peace temporarily without necessarily creating peace permanently.
3. Accommodating: “Let me give in.”
The accommodating style prioritises the other person’s needs, often to preserve harmony.
In Uganda, where relationships, respect for elders and maintaining social harmony can carry significant weight, this approach can sometimes be very useful.
There are moments when giving way is simply the wiser choice.
But constantly giving in has consequences.
If you always accept the lower share, remain silent about unfair treatment or agree to terms you are uncomfortable with just to avoid an argument, resentment can eventually build.
Peace at any price is not always peace.
4. Compromising: “Let’s meet halfway.”
Compromise is probably one of the most familiar approaches to conflict.
Each side gives something up and both parties move towards the middle.
It is useful when time is limited, the issue is relatively straightforward or neither party can achieve everything they want.
But compromise has a weakness: splitting the difference does not always solve the real problem.
Imagine two business partners arguing over whether a particular expense should be UGX 10 million or UGX 20 million. Agreeing on UGX 15 million may look fair. But what if the real disagreement is about whether the expense is necessary at all?
Sometimes, the best solution is not halfway between two positions. It is finding out why the parties are taking those positions in the first place.
5. Collaborating: “Let’s understand what is really important.”
Collaboration goes deeper.
Instead of concentrating only on what each side is demanding, the parties try to understand the interests behind those demands.
For example, a landlord may insist on a particular rent because they need predictable income. A tenant may resist because their business is struggling with cash flow.
The stated positions are:
Landlord: “I need the rent increased.”
Tenant: “I cannot afford the increase.”
But the underlying interests may provide more room for negotiation.
Perhaps the tenant can accept an increase if it is phased over several months. Perhaps the landlord would accept a smaller increase in exchange for a longer lease.
That is the power of collaborative negotiation: it searches for solutions that were not visible when both sides were simply defending their positions.
It usually takes more time and effort, but it can produce agreements that are stronger and more sustainable.
There Is No Single “Right” Conflict Style
It is tempting to conclude that collaboration is always the best approach.
It isn’t.
The real skill is flexibility.
A good negotiator knows when to change approach.
Compete when you need to protect an important interest or firmly establish a boundary.
Accommodate when preserving an important relationship matters more than winning a particular point.
Avoid when emotions are too high for a productive conversation or when the issue is simply not worth engaging.
Compromise when a practical solution is more important than getting everything you want.
Collaborate when the relationship matters, the issue is complex and there may be opportunities for both sides to gain.
The mistake is not having a particular conflict style.
The mistake is using the same style in every situation.
Leave a Reply