Conflict is unavoidable in any school. Teachers disagree over methods, parents challenge policies, and staff members clash over resources. For head teachers, the question is never whether conflict will arise – it’s how they respond to it. Effective conflict management doesn’t mean eliminating disagreements. It means choosing the right strategy for each situation so that relationships stay intact and the school keeps moving forward.
Table of Contents
The five conflict resolution styles
One of the most widely used frameworks for understanding conflict behaviour is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the 1970s. The model maps five distinct conflict-handling styles along two dimensions: assertiveness (how much you try to satisfy your own concerns) and cooperativeness (how much you try to satisfy the other party’s concerns). Every person is capable of using all five styles, but most of us lean on one or two more heavily based on temperament, habit, and circumstance.
Let’s look at each style and what it means in a school leadership context.
Dominance (competing)
The competing style is high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness. A leader using this approach pursues their own position firmly, often using their authority or expertise to push through a decision. In a school setting, this might look like a head teacher overriding a staff objection to implement a new safeguarding procedure because it’s a non-negotiable regulatory requirement.
When it works: Dominance is appropriate when quick, decisive action is needed – during a crisis, when safety is at stake, or when an unpopular but necessary policy must be enforced. It’s also useful when you need to protect your school from decisions that could cause harm.
When it backfires: Used too often, this style damages trust. Staff members may feel resentful or sidelined. As the Journal of Graduate Medical Education notes, competing assumes only one party can win, and it can come at the expense of team morale. Over-reliance on dominance can also stifle innovation because people stop sharing ideas if they expect to be overruled.
Avoidance
Avoidance is low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The leader sidesteps the conflict entirely – they delay the conversation, change the subject, or delegate the issue to someone else. In a school, an avoidant head teacher might ignore growing tension between two departments rather than facilitating a conversation.
When it works: Avoidance makes sense when the issue is genuinely trivial, when emotions are running too high for productive dialogue, or when you need more information before taking a stance. A brief cooling-off period can sometimes prevent a minor disagreement from escalating.
When it backfires: Unresolved conflicts don’t disappear on their own. As Edutopia highlights, when conflict is neglected, it continues to build beneath the surface, creating a toxic environment where faculty stress reaches unsustainable levels and resistance to change becomes the default. For school leaders, habitual avoidance can also undermine their credibility – staff notice when issues are left to fester.
Accommodation
Accommodation is low in assertiveness but high in cooperativeness. The leader sets aside their own concerns to satisfy the other party. A head teacher using this approach might agree to a parent’s demand for a specific classroom arrangement, even if it contradicts the teacher’s professional judgement, simply to keep the peace.
When it works: Accommodation is valuable when the issue matters more to the other person than it does to you, when preserving the relationship is the top priority, or when you recognise that the other party’s position is genuinely better. It can also build goodwill and social capital that you can draw on later.
When it backfires: Habitual accommodation leads to loss of motivation. According to the TKI framework, repeatedly giving in can result in agreeing to things you have little enthusiasm for, which drains your energy and erodes your sense of purpose. If a head teacher always accommodates, staff may start to see them as unable to make hard decisions or stand behind a clear vision.
Compromise
Compromise sits in the middle of both dimensions – moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness. Both parties give up something to reach a workable, if imperfect, solution. For example, when two teachers both want to use the same limited lab space, a compromising head teacher might split the available hours equally between them.
When it works: Compromise is effective when time is short, when both parties hold roughly equal power, or when a temporary settlement is needed while a longer-term solution is developed. It signals fairness and a willingness to meet in the middle.
When it backfires: Because both sides sacrifice something, neither party may feel fully satisfied. This can create resentment over time, especially if the same people are always asked to compromise. It can also become a lazy default – reaching a quick 50/50 split instead of doing the harder work of finding a solution that truly addresses everyone’s needs.
Collaboration
Collaboration is high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Both parties work together to find a solution that fully addresses everyone’s concerns. Rather than splitting the difference, collaborators dig deeper – they explore interests, brainstorm options, and craft a resolution that neither party could have reached alone.
When it works: Collaboration is the ideal approach when the stakes are high, when the relationship matters long-term, and when both parties’ concerns are too important to be sacrificed. In schools, this might involve a head teacher and a group of teachers jointly redesigning the timetable to balance instructional priorities with staff wellbeing.
When it backfires: Collaboration takes the most time and energy. It requires trust, openness, and a willingness to be vulnerable. As the BiteSize Learning analysis of the TKI notes, this style demands full concentration and creativity and may require working through sensitive issues. In a fast-moving school environment, it’s not always practical to invest that level of effort in every disagreement.
Choosing the right style for the situation
The most important takeaway from the TKI model is that no single style is universally correct. Effective conflict management depends on matching your approach to the context. Here’s a practical way to think about it:
Ask yourself three questions before responding to any conflict. First, how important is this issue? If the stakes are high – student safety, major policy decisions, school values – it’s worth investing in collaboration or, in urgent cases, exercising dominance. For low-priority issues, avoidance or compromise may be perfectly adequate.
Second, how important is the relationship? If you need to maintain a long-term working relationship with the other party (which, in schools, is almost always the case), collaboration and accommodation are safer choices than competing. Research published in Frontiers in Social Psychology underscores that handling conflicts openly, involving teachers in decision-making, and fostering trust significantly enhances a school’s social atmosphere.
Third, how much time do you have? Collaboration is ideal but slow. If a decision must be made by the end of the day, compromise or even a decisive competing approach may be necessary – with a plan to revisit the issue collaboratively later.
Why collaboration leads to better outcomes
While all five styles have their place, research consistently shows that collaboration produces the best long-term results. The reason is straightforward: it’s the only approach where both parties can walk away feeling their core needs have been met.
According to Harvard Business School Online, where compromise results in both parties losing something, collaboration produces a genuine win-win. Both sides invest in the outcome, which means they are more likely to commit to the agreed solution and less likely to revisit the conflict later.
Research from the Center for Creative Leadership reinforces this point. Teams that use collaborative conflict resolution report significantly less interpersonal friction and higher rates of innovation compared to those that default to avoidance or competition. In a school context, this translates to better staff retention, stronger professional relationships, and a more open culture.
What makes collaboration work in practice
Collaboration doesn’t happen by accident. It requires a deliberate process. Here’s what it looks like in a school setting:
Separate positions from interests. When two department heads both insist on more budget allocation, their positions are in direct opposition. But their underlying interests – wanting to deliver high-quality programmes for their students – may overlap considerably. A collaborative leader helps both parties articulate what they actually need, not just what they’re asking for.
Create space for open dialogue. Collaboration requires psychological safety. People need to feel they can speak honestly without being punished. This means the head teacher must model active listening and discourage personal attacks. As Kappan notes, when school leaders skillfully address conflict, the outcomes include stronger collaborative problem-solving skills and a healthier, less stressful work environment.
Brainstorm before evaluating. A common mistake is to jump straight to critiquing proposals. Collaborative conflict resolution works best when you first generate multiple options without judgement, then evaluate them together against shared criteria.
Document and follow up. Once an agreement is reached, write it down. Clarify who is responsible for what and set a date to review progress. Collaboration without follow-through quickly loses credibility.
Building a conflict-competent school culture
Individual conflicts come and go, but the real goal for any head teacher is to build a school culture where conflict is handled constructively as a matter of course – not as a crisis.
Start small. You don’t need to tackle the most divisive issue in your school on day one. Edutopia’s research on conflict management in schools suggests beginning with less provocative issues to build collective confidence in the process. As staff members see that disagreements can be resolved fairly, trust grows, and the school community becomes more willing to tackle harder problems.
Make it routine. Dedicating a few minutes of regular staff meetings to discussing shared concerns normalises conflict as a part of healthy organisational life rather than a sign of failure. The more people practise collaborative problem-solving in low-stakes settings, the better they become at it when the stakes rise.
Invest in training. A study published in Frontiers in Education found that before attending conflict management professional development, school leaders most frequently associated conflict with negative terms like “fight” and “destructive.” After training, they were more likely to describe it as “discussion” and “dialogue” and to choose strategies such as collaboration and active listening. That kind of mindset shift has a ripple effect across the entire school.
Putting it all together
Effective conflict management isn’t about always being nice or always being tough. It’s about reading each situation clearly and choosing the approach that best serves the people involved and the mission of the school. Dominance has its place in emergencies. Avoidance works for trivial matters. Accommodation preserves relationships when the issue isn’t worth a fight. Compromise provides a quick middle ground when time is short.
But for the issues that really matter – curriculum direction, staff morale, equity, school improvement – collaboration is the strategy that builds lasting solutions and stronger teams. The head teachers who develop this skill don’t just resolve conflicts. They transform their schools into places where diverse perspectives are welcomed and disagreements become opportunities for genuine progress.
What do you think? Which conflict resolution style do you find yourself defaulting to most often, and does it serve you well? In your experience, what makes collaboration difficult to sustain in a busy school environment – and what has helped make it work?
References
- https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki/
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4054741/
- https://www.edutopia.org/article/conflict-management-schools/
- https://www.bitesizelearning.co.uk/resources/thomas-kilmann-conflict-model
- https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/articles/10.3389/frsps.2024.1412968/full
- https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/strategies-for-conflict-resolution-in-the-workplace
- https://www.pollackpeacebuilding.com/blog/collaborating-conflict-style/
- https://kappanonline.org/conflict-competent-leadership-feirsen/
- https://frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.899278/full
Leave a Reply