Conflict management style

According to Thomas and Kilmann collaborating is mutually problem solving to solve the needs of both parties. This falls on the scale of being both assertive and cooperative.[9] This style can be beneficial to close relationships because individuals dig deeper to find the root of the conflict and find an alternative solution. You learn the other parties insights to try and find a more creative solution to the conflict.[3] This model is best used when you need an integrative solution because both parties needs are too important to not be addressed, you want to join together insights or work through hard feelings in the relationship.[3]

Compromising is exchanging concessions, both parties will give up a want or need in order to satisfy the conflict. This is intermediate in assertiveness and cooperation.[9] Compromising is similar to collaborating, in that you find a mutually beneficial solution to the problem. The difference is compromising does address the issue, but it doesn't seek the root of the issue as is done in collaborating.[3] Compromising is used when issues are important, but not worth using an assertive approach, you want a temporary fix or when collaboration or competing fail.[3]

Different than the first two styles this style is one in which the individual tries to win their own position. It is assertive and uncooperative.[9] This style could hurt a close relationship due to the competitive nature, leaving the losing party unsatisfied. Competitiveness can take things further than just the conflict and potentially permanently hurt feelings. In this style the individual will be standing up for their rights, defending their position or simply trying to win.[3] This style is typical used when a quick decision needs to be made, issues where you need to protect yourself or when you know your side of the issue is correct.[3]

Rather than trying to win your own position, in the accommodating style an individual satisfies the other parties goals while being unassertive and cooperative.[9] When accommodating an individual makes a sacrifice of their own needs in order to make the other party involved content. This can be good in a relational sense, but this can also lead to the party making sacrifices to become burnt out of using this style.[3] This is typically used when you know you are wrong, you need to build up credit for a later situation that may be more important to you or you would rather keep the peace.[3]

The avoiding style simply avoids conflict by postponing or steering clear of any potential conflict. This style is unassertive and uncooperative.[9] Avoiding is stepping out of the way, delaying or simply avoiding a situation. This style can be beneficial in moderation, but eventually the conflicts will build up and create an unhealthy relationship.[3] Popular uses of this style are when you find an issue unimportant, another problem is more pressing or you need to allow time for tension to be reduced.[3]

In a study written by the Management International Review different subcultures in Turkey were studied on the styles of conflict management they prefer to use. Although this study took place in Turkey, it opened up the door for cross cultural research on conflict management. This study focused on the handling of conflict by adversaries.[10] They define each of the five styles to be higher in one of the two dimensions.[10] These are explained as, competing is high in assertiveness, collaboration is high in both, avoiding low in both and compromise as a mid-point. Researchers studied the choice of style and what influenced it in the subculture using Schwartz's inventory of value.[10] What they found was that the traditional main culture used the avoiding style, the power seeking culture preferred competing and egalitarians chose to use accommodation.[10] This study shows that there is a correlation with sub-cultures and their chosen style of conflict management, not every culture selects one style to use.[11]

Relationship theorists study relationships in stage developments, the first time a close relationship encounters a conflict and how they come out of it, is a breakthrough in many close relationships. John Siegert and Glen Stamp write about the "FBF" or First Big Fight as an episode of conflict as discussing first time feelings that may include doubt or disappointment in the relationship and this event becomes memorable because of its intensity or timing.[12] The intensity may put the relationship at risk and the timing may occur after a couple officially enters a relationship or are clearing up what that relationship is to them.[12] This study was given to over 250 undergraduate communication students at a university who were split into three categories based upon if they had survived a FBF with their partner, individuals who had not yet had a FBF with their partner and individuals who had ended a relationship due to the FBF. Interviews of 50 participants were conducted and they were asked open-ended questions about their first FBF where conducted and personalized to each of the classifications.[12] The results were divided into sections of the relational circumstance, outcomes and effects of the fight on the relationship and the difference between those who stayed in the relationships and those who did not. Researchers found that the FBF is a significant turning point that impacts the future of the relationship either positively or negatively depending on the preliminary circumstances and feelings about the relationship.[12]

Conflicts arise frequently in marriages, a study was conducted on the effect of relational power and an individuals decision to withhold their complaints in order to avoid a conflict. According to Solomon et al. the first step is deciding whether to voice a complaint or not and this decision is based on the amount of power your spouse holds over you.[13] This is determined through interpersonal power, or the degree of influence one exerts over the other in a relationship through the ability to sway the costs and rewards the partner undergoes.[13] Marital schemas are cognitive structures that contain organized knowledge about marriage relationships.[13] This research was conducted by having communication students present a questionnaire to a married individual studying six different types of power as independent variables. The dependent variables were the conflicts that were not brought to the spouses attention.[13] There were a few different results from the findings, the first being that partners felt more comfortable expressing concerns in a relationship where there was less power held over them. The second major result showed that when the spouse shows aggression more information that could cause conflicts is withheld from them.[13] Marital schemas can foresee what information will be withheld and shapes individuals decisions on what to express to their spouses.[13]