What is it?
The Conflict Styles Model was developed by psychologists Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the 1970s. It identifies five distinct ways people respond when their needs clash with someone else’s needs. Not five ways people should respond, five ways people actually respond, often without realising it.
The model is built on two simple axes: how much you pursue your own needs, and how much you accommodate the other person’s needs. Every conflict response falls somewhere along those two lines, and each style has its place. None of them are inherently wrong. The problems start when one style becomes a default, when you reach for the same tool every time, regardless of the situation.
In relationships, this matters because partners often have different default styles. One person pushes. The other pulls back. One gives in quickly. The other digs in. Understanding these patterns is not about labelling yourself or your partner. It is about seeing the dynamic clearly enough to choose a different response when the situation calls for it.
When to use it
The Conflict Styles Model is useful when:
- You notice that the same arguments follow the same shape, no matter what they are about
- One of you tends to push for resolution while the other retreats
- You feel like you are always giving in, or always having to fight to be heard
- Compromises feel like they leave both of you unsatisfied
- You want to understand why conflict feels so different depending on who you are dealing with
How it works
The five styles sit on two axes: assertiveness (how much you prioritise your own needs) and cooperativeness (how much you prioritise the other person’s needs).
| Style | Core attitude | What it looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Competing | ”I win, you lose” | Pushing for your own outcome regardless of impact on the other person |
| Avoiding | ”Let us not go there” | Stepping back from the conflict entirely, changing the subject, leaving the room, pretending it is fine |
| Accommodating | ”You win, I give in” | Prioritising the other person’s needs over your own, often to keep the peace |
| Compromising | ”We both lose a bit” | Finding a middle ground where both people give up something |
| Collaborating | ”We both find a way” | Working together to find a solution that genuinely satisfies both people |
Visual: How this works in real life
This visual shows the five common ways people tend to handle conflict.
How to read this: No style is always wrong. The problem is when one style becomes the only style a person uses.
The Styles in Detail
Competing is assertive and uncooperative. You have made your mind up and you are pushing for your outcome. This style gets a bad reputation, and sometimes fairly, it can feel dismissive and combative. But it has its place. When a decision needs to be made quickly, when safety is at stake, or when one person’s needs genuinely must take priority, competing is not a flaw. It is a tool. The problem is when it becomes the only tool.
Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. You sidestep the conflict rather than engaging with it. This might look like changing the subject, making a joke to deflect, or simply saying “I don’t want to talk about it.” Like competing, avoiding is not inherently destructive. Sometimes a conversation is better had later, when emotions have cooled. The problem arises when avoiding becomes a permanent strategy, when difficult topics are never addressed, and resentment quietly accumulates.
Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative. You give in. You let your partner have their way, partly because it matters to them and partly because the conflict itself feels worse than the outcome. Accommodating can be genuinely generous, sometimes you concede because you truly do not mind. But it becomes corrosive when you are consistently suppressing your own needs to avoid tension. Over time, the person who always gives in stops feeling like a partner and starts feeling like a bystander in their own relationship.
Compromising sits in the middle of both axes. Both people give something up. Neither gets exactly what they wanted, but neither walks away empty-handed. Compromise sounds fair, and in many situations it is. But it has a blind spot: it assumes that the conflict is a zero-sum game, that there is a fixed amount of satisfaction to go around. In some disagreements, compromise is practical and necessary. In others, it leaves both people feeling slightly diminished.
Collaborating is assertive and cooperative. You and your partner work together to find a solution that genuinely meets both of your needs. This requires more time, more communication, and more willingness to sit with discomfort than the other styles. It is also the style that builds the deepest trust, because it communicates something powerful: your needs matter to me, and I am not going to pretend they do not.
Choosing the Right Style
No single style is always correct. The skill is not in mastering one approach. It is in recognising which situation calls for which response.
| Situation | Effective style |
|---|---|
| A quick decision under time pressure | Competing |
| The issue is trivial and you genuinely do not mind | Accommodating |
| You need time to think before responding | Avoiding |
| Both people’s needs are important and a middle ground exists | Compromising |
| The issue matters deeply to both of you and you want the relationship to feel whole | Collaborating |
The real growth comes from noticing your default. Most people have one or two styles they reach for automatically. Becoming aware of that pattern is the first step towards choosing rather than reacting.
Why it works
The Conflict Styles Model works because it removes the moral weight from disagreement. It does not say that competing is bad or that avoiding is weak. It says that every style is a strategy, and every strategy works in some situations and fails in others.
This is especially useful in relationships, where conflict often carries an invisible layer of judgement. If your partner avoids an argument, you might read it as cowardice or indifference. If your partner pushes hard for their position, you might read it as aggression. The model offers a different reading: they are using a strategy that has worked for them, probably for a very long time, and they may not even know they are doing it.
Once both partners can see the pattern, not as a character flaw but as a learned response, the conversation shifts. It moves from “why are you like this?” to “what would work better here?” That shift, small as it sounds, is enormous. It is the difference between fighting about the conflict and working with it.
The model also validates something that many couples feel but struggle to articulate: sometimes compromise is not enough. When an issue matters deeply to both people, splitting the difference can leave a lingering sense that something important was lost. Knowing that collaborating exists, that there is another option beyond “we both give something up”, gives couples a path forward when compromise falls short.
Examples
Example 1: The Restaurant Decision
Derek wants to try the new Thai place. Shirly wants Italian. They have been walking for fifteen minutes and the conversation is going in circles.
Derek: “The Thai place has great reviews. I think we would enjoy it.”
Shirly: “I really fancied Italian tonight. I saw a place just round the corner.”
Derek: “We had Italian last week, though.”
Shirly: “So? I like Italian.”
Derek stops walking. “Shall we just go wherever is closest?”
Shirly sighs. “Fine. Let’s just pick somewhere.”
What happened: Derek started by competing, pushing for his preference. When that did not work, he shifted to compromising: whoever is closest wins. Shirly accommodated, agreeing to end the conversation even though she was not satisfied.
The Conflict Styles lens: Both Derek and Shirly defaulted to styles that ended the argument without actually addressing it. Derek pushed, then split the difference. Shirly gave in. Neither got what they wanted. A collaborating response might have been: “What is it about Italian tonight? Is it a specific craving?” That question might have revealed that Shirly wanted comfort food after a hard week, which could have led to a Thai dish that hit the same note, or an Italian place they both felt good about.
Example 2: The Schedule Clash
Derek has agreed to help his mate move flat on Saturday. Shirly had assumed they were spending the day together. She found out on Thursday evening.
Shirly: “You agreed to help Jake on Saturday? We were supposed to have the day off together.”
Derek: “I know, but he asked me last week. I did not think it would take long.”
Shirly: “You did not think. That is the problem.”
Derek: “What do you want me to do? Let him down?”
Shirly: “I want you to think about me before you say yes to things.”
Derek goes quiet. He picks up his phone and texts Jake to say he cannot make it.
What happened: Shirly was competing, naming the problem directly and making her needs clear. Derek started by defending his position, then shifted to accommodating, giving up the arrangement with Jake to keep the peace. But he did it resentfully, and Shirly could tell.
The Conflict Styles lens: Shirly’s competing was appropriate, this was a real issue that needed addressing. Derek’s accommodating, however, was not genuine accommodation. It was withdrawal disguised as agreement. A better approach might have been collaborating: “I did not plan this well. Let me see what Jake actually needs, maybe I can help for a few hours and still have the afternoon with you.” That response acknowledges both people’s needs without either person having to sacrifice their relationship.
Example 3: The Forgotten Birthday
Derek forgot Shirly’s mother’s birthday. The card is still in the shop. Shirly found out when her sister rang to ask if they were coming to dinner.
Shirly: “You forgot my mum’s birthday.”
Derek: “I did not forget. I just, I have been so busy this week.”
Shirly: “You forgot.”
Derek: “Right. I forgot. I am sorry. I will sort it now.”
Shirly: “It is not about the card, Derek. It is that I have to be the one who remembers everything.”
What happened: Derek initially competed, minimising the mistake to protect himself. When Shirly held her ground, he shifted to accommodating, apologising and offering to fix it immediately. But Shirly was not looking for an apology. She was looking for acknowledgment of the broader pattern.
The Conflict Styles lens: Derek’s quick apology was accommodating on the surface, but it skipped over what Shirly actually needed: to feel that he understood why this mattered. Collaborating in this moment might have sounded like: “You are right. I forgot, and I can see this feeds into a bigger thing, that you carry the mental load for family stuff. That is not fair. How do we fix that pattern, not just this card?” That response does not solve the birthday. But it addresses the real issue.
Summary
The Conflict Styles Model gives us a vocabulary for something most couples struggle to name: the way we each approach conflict by default. Competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating are not personality types. They are strategies. And like any strategy, each one works in some situations and fails in others.
The value is not in picking the “right” style. It is in recognising your own default, the one you reach for without thinking, and asking whether it is actually serving you in this particular moment. When both partners can see the pattern clearly, conflict stops being a battle between two people and becomes a shared challenge to navigate together.
Most couples do not need to master all five styles. They need to notice the two or three they rely on most, and build the flexibility to reach for something different when the situation calls for it. That flexibility, the ability to choose rather than react, is what separates couples who fight well from couples who merely fight.
Related stories
See the Conflict Styles Model in action through Derek and Shirly’s story:
- The Restaurant Decision - Competing, compromising, and the cost of not collaborating
- The Schedule Clash - When accommodating masks resentment