In one schema, researchers delineated five categories of conflict style: avoidance, control, accommodation, compromise, and collaboration. While many people tend to use one conflict style more than others, familiarity with each of them gives us versatility, because depending on the specific situation, one style may be more effective than another. From a Buddhist perspective, in every conflict situation, as in all situations, we must check our motivation to see that it is pure. Thus when in a conflict, we should examine two variables: (1) our motivation and (2) the practical effectiveness of various conflict styles for that situation.
With the conflict style of avoidance, we seek to circumvent a conflict by postponing discussion of it, diplomatically changing the topic, withdrawing from the situation, or in some cases denying that conflict exists. This behavior is useful in situations where neither the goal nor the relationship is significant to us and our mind is free from anger or feelings of hopelessness. For example, with a calm mind, Rob ignored his distant cousin’s sarcastic remark. Gayle, however, was closer to this cousin and was upset by the remark; but fearing a quarrel, she pretended she didn’t hear it. Nevertheless, she vented her anger by gossiping about this cousin to the rest of the family, thus creating more problems for herself and others.
With control, we insist on having our way. In some situations, this style is appropriate, if done with compassion. For example, Ms. McGrane interceded and forcefully broke up a fight between two children on the playground. At other times, when we self-centeredly want to accomplish our goal without caring about the effect on others, control is counter-productive. At meetings, Harvey bulldozed the staff into acting on his proposal by threatening not to participate if they didn’t. The staff reluctantly agreed, but because their voices were not taken into consideration during the decision-making process, their work was not well done and arrived late.
With accommodation, we allow or facilitate the accomplishment of the other person’s goal or need, sometimes at the expense of our own. As with the other styles, at certain times emphasizing the relationship rather than our goal is appropriate, while at other times it is not. In an example of the former, John wanted to eat Chinese food, but he happily agreed to his wife’s wish to eat at an Italian restaurant. Even though they had had Italian food earlier in the week, he took delight in her happiness. In an instance of the latter, a battered woman “forgave” her husband and complied with his manipulative actions.
With compromise, we give in a little on reaching our goal in order to maintain the relationship and let go a little of the closeness of the relationship in order to accomplish our goal. For example, neither Joe nor Julie wanted to sort though the mail or do the laundry. They could have argued over this (control); one could have capitulated to the other (accommodation); or they could have let both the mail and the laundry remain undone (avoidance). However, they compromised and each of them did one task. Before they reached this decision, they checked that both of them were happy with it. They knew that if the compromise was made because one of them felt pressured, the bad feelings generated would later interfere in their relationship.
While we often view compromise as a good solution, in some situations it is not. For example, two teenage sisters quarreled over who would get an orange and decided to split it in half. What they did not realize was that one of them wanted orange juice and the other wanted the orange peel to flavor a cake. They both would have been happier had they discussed their needs. Then one sister would have squeezed the orange for juice and given the peel to the other, and both would have received more than they did by dividing the orange.
Collaboration involves working together to enhance both the relationship and the accomplishment of the goals of each party. While resolving the conflict using this approach may be more time-consuming, it often brings a more lasting resolution. This style is useful, then, in situations where both the relationship and the goal are important to both parties. For example, Murray set up a food bank and Joan established a soup kitchen, but because they were in the same neighborhood, they were competing for volunteers and donations. Realizing this, they decided to join their projects together in mutual support, thus cutting labor and financial costs and enhancing their work.
Like each of the preceding styles, collaboration may be motivated by patience or anger. Harry and Joan relinquished their rivalry and happily collaborated. Two other people, however, could have halfheartedly agreed to the merger out of obligation and later sabotaged the project. In such a case, they should have spent more time clarifying their feelings and discussing the situation.
Conflict styles deal with external behavior. Each style can be done with either a good or bad motivation. In addition, depending on the situation, one style may be more effective than another for resolving a situation. When anger clouds our mind, we lack the mental clarity to choose a conflict style appropriate for the situation. Instead, we tend to react in the same habitual way in all situations. For instance, Jeff reacts aggressively to both an inadvertent comment and a genuine threat. Deborah capitulates on issues when she has valid reasons as well as when she does not. Susan insists on collaborating on everything, at times consuming time that could be better spent on other activities. Using only one conflict style is ineffective and in fact may worsen the situation. A clear and patient mind gives us the opportunity to decide which conflict style to use in a particular situation.