Navigating Conflict Management Styles in Educational Institutions

Conflict is a natural part of any workplace – and educational institutions are no exception. From disagreements between teachers and administrators over policy decisions to friction between faculty members on curriculum choices, conflict surfaces regularly in schools and colleges. What matters most is not whether conflict occurs, but how it is handled. According to the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, one of the most widely used frameworks in organisational behaviour, there are five distinct styles of conflict management: Competing, Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising, and Collaborating. Each style reflects a different balance between two key dimensions – assertiveness (how strongly you pursue your own concerns) and cooperativeness (how much you consider others’ concerns). Understanding these styles helps educators, administrators, and institutional leaders choose the most effective response for each situation.

The Thomas-Kilmann model: a quick overview
The five conflict management styles
1. Competing
2. Avoiding
3. Accommodating
4. Compromising
5. Collaborating
Why collaboration stands out as the most effective style in education
Choosing the right style for the situation
Building a collaborative culture in educational institutions

The Thomas-Kilmann model: a quick overview

Developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the early 1970s, the Thomas-Kilmann model maps five conflict-handling modes on a grid defined by two axes: assertiveness on the vertical and cooperativeness on the horizontal. Each style represents a different combination of how important your own goal is to you and how important the relationship is to you. No single style is universally best. The most effective approach depends on the situation at hand – the urgency of the issue, the people involved, and the importance of the relationship.

In educational institutions specifically, school leaders devote between 20 and 40 percent of their day to managing conflict, dealing with friction among teachers, administrators, parents, and support staff. That makes a working knowledge of these five styles not just useful – it is essential.

The five conflict management styles

1. Competing

The competing style sits at the high-assertiveness, low-cooperativeness end of the model. Competitors come across as aggressive, autocratic, and confrontational – using this style as an attempt to gain power and pressure a change. In plain terms, it is a “win-lose” approach: I win, you lose.

In an educational setting, a principal who overrides a teacher’s input on a new assessment policy without discussion is applying a competing style. This approach has its place – it works well when a quick decision is needed in a crisis, when an unpopular but necessary decision must be implemented, or when a leader needs to clearly assert a non-negotiable position. However, it can easily lead to personal attacks or power struggles if used as a default, and over time it damages trust and collaborative culture within the institution.

2. Avoiding

The avoiding style is characterised by low assertiveness and low cooperativeness – a “lose-lose” outcome where neither party’s concerns are addressed. Avoiders deliberately withdraw from conflict, hoping the problem will resolve itself or that others will take responsibility.

In schools, avoidance can look like a department head who refuses to address ongoing disagreements between two teachers, or an administrator who refers every disputed policy question to endless committee meetings – what Edutopia describes as “orbiting”, a form of institutional procrastination. While there are legitimate uses for avoidance – buying time when emotions are running high, or sidestepping a trivial issue – it becomes destructive when significant concerns are left to fester. Avoidance can breed resentment and allow small frustrations to spiral into dysfunctional conflict over time. Research also shows that managers who overuse avoidance can appear incompetent, as staff perceive them as incapable of handling disagreements.

3. Accommodating

Accommodating sits at the low-assertiveness, high-cooperativeness corner. The person using this style sets aside their own needs to preserve the relationship or keep the peace – an “I lose, you win” dynamic. Accommodation is useful when admitting you are wrong, or when minimising losses to preserve relationships is the priority.

A teacher who consistently agrees to take on extra duties without raising any objection – just to avoid tension with the administration – is using an accommodating style. This works reasonably well in low-stakes situations, when harmony is genuinely more important than winning the argument, or when the other party is likely to benefit more from the outcome. However, the accommodating style risks long-term dissatisfaction when someone repeatedly sacrifices their own concerns, and in teams, it frequently leads to imbalance and unspoken frustration. Chronic accommodation can also result in reduced creativity and increased power imbalances within institutional structures.

4. Compromising

Compromising occupies the middle ground of the model – moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness. Both parties give something up to gain something in return. When compromising, the objective is to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It might involve splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or reaching a quick middle-ground position.

In an educational institution, a teacher and a principal might compromise on the number of periods dedicated to project-based learning in a term – each giving ground to reach a workable schedule. The strength of this style is speed and perceived fairness. Compromise allows both parties to feel heard, and it can set the stage for collaboration further down the road. That said, it also has a clear limitation: compromise may focus on demands rather than underlying needs or goals, meaning the real issues may remain unresolved. It is best used when a timely resolution is needed and when both parties are prepared to be flexible.

5. Collaborating

The collaborating style is positioned at the high-assertiveness, high-cooperativeness corner – the only style where both parties’ goals and the relationship are treated as equally important. Collaboration generates creative solutions that satisfy all parties’ concerns. Collaborators identify the underlying concerns, test assumptions, and understand the views of others.

In a school setting, this might involve teachers and administrators jointly developing a new student assessment policy – openly discussing concerns, examining evidence, and arriving at a solution that everyone has shaped and supported. Research on virtual teams has shown that applying a collaborative conflict resolution approach led to higher satisfaction, stronger perceived decision quality, and greater participation, especially in diverse groups. The collaborating style takes more time and emotional investment than the others, but the outcomes – trust, creative problem-solving, and durable agreements – are worth it.

Why collaboration stands out as the most effective style in education

While all five styles have situational merit, collaboration is consistently recognised as the most effective long-term approach, particularly in educational institutions where relationships matter deeply and decisions affect students, staff, and communities. Research on conflict management in schools supports the view that integration, collaboration, and coherence are the key factors for cultivating a constructive conflict management strategy and enhancing school performance.

A study published in the European Journal of Psychology examined how teachers across five European countries managed conflicts with students. It found that teachers who used collaborative (integrating) styles – seeking to understand feelings, needs, and expectations – reported more constructive outcomes than those relying on dominant or avoidant approaches. Similarly, research on school principals found that senior educational managers who used integrating and compromising styles more frequently, and avoided dominating styles, were perceived as more effective by their staff.

What makes collaboration particularly suited to educational environments is that schools are not just workplaces – they are communities. To foster a harmonious and effective team, school principals need to encourage open communication, establish shared goals, and promote a culture of collaboration to mitigate the negative impact of competition and differing approaches. When conflict is resolved collaboratively, it reinforces exactly the norms – dialogue, mutual respect, shared ownership – that effective institutions are built on.

Choosing the right style for the situation

It would be a mistake to conclude that collaboration should always be the default. The key is not rigid adherence to one style – it is strategic flexibility. Here is a practical guide to when each style tends to work best in educational contexts:

Competing – when a safety policy must be enforced immediately, or when a principal needs to make a firm, non-negotiable institutional decision under time pressure.
Avoiding – when emotions are running too high for a productive conversation, or when the issue is genuinely trivial and not worth escalating.
Accommodating – when a teacher recognises they were in the wrong and wants to rebuild goodwill, or when maintaining a long-term relationship is more important than a specific outcome.
Compromising – when a quick, fair resolution is needed and both parties are flexible, such as resolving timetable disputes or resource allocation disagreements.
Collaborating – when the issue is significant, when both parties’ needs genuinely matter, and when there is sufficient time to explore solutions together – ideal for curriculum planning, faculty policy discussions, or addressing long-standing institutional concerns.

Building a collaborative culture in educational institutions

Moving towards a more collaborative approach to conflict management does not happen automatically – it requires deliberate effort from leaders and educators alike. Conflict resolution strategies give educators the tools to address issues early before they disrupt collaboration or lead to burnout. A few practical steps that educational institutions can take include creating regular structured forums – staff meetings, team retrospectives, or open-door sessions – where concerns can be surfaced before they escalate. Leaders should model collaborative behaviour by being transparent about disagreements and demonstrating a willingness to listen and adapt.

When conflict is managed properly within schools, it need not be a disruption – it becomes an integral stage in the formation of a stronger group. The goal is not to eliminate conflict, but to develop the institutional capacity to handle it constructively. Schools that invest in this capacity build more resilient teams, make better decisions, and ultimately create better learning environments for students.

The Thomas-Kilmann framework offers a clear, research-backed foundation for thinking about conflict management styles. For educators and administrators, the takeaway is straightforward: expand your repertoire, know when to use each style, and where possible, invest in the time and trust that genuine collaboration requires.

What do you think? Reflecting on your own experience in an educational setting – which conflict management style do you find most commonly used, and does it match the situations where it is actually most effective? If your institution were to shift towards a more collaborative approach to handling conflict, what would need to change first – the culture, the structures, or the leadership?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

The Thomas-Kilmann model: a quick overview 🔗

The five conflict management styles 🔗

1. Competing 🔗

2. Avoiding 🔗

3. Accommodating 🔗

4. Compromising 🔗

5. Collaborating 🔗

Why collaboration stands out as the most effective style in education 🔗

Choosing the right style for the situation 🔗

Building a collaborative culture in educational institutions 🔗