Use Avoiding strategically, not reflexively
Avoiding has a real place — but only when the issue is trivial, the timing is wrong, or cooling down is necessary.
Why it works
Conflict Avoiding delays or sidesteps the conflict without addressing it. Used reflexively, it allows resentment to accumulate until it explodes in a larger conflict — research on "demand–withdraw" patterns in relationships shows that chronic avoiding by one party tends to amplify conflict over time. Used strategically — to let emotions cool, to gather information, or because the issue is genuinely trivial — it preserves energy for more important conflicts.
How to do it
- Before avoiding, ask: am I avoiding because the timing is wrong, or because I’m uncomfortable? Only the first is strategic.
- If avoiding for timing, name a specific "when" — "I need to step away now; let’s return to this at 4pm." A commitment to return converts avoidance into a deliberate pause.
- If the issue keeps coming up even when you avoid it, that’s a signal it’s not trivial — Collaborating or Compromising is probably required.
Evidence
Demand–withdraw research shows chronic conflict avoidance by one partner correlates with lower relationship satisfaction and unresolved conflict escalation over time. (observational)
The demand–withdraw research is primarily from intimate relationships; generalization to workplace conflict is plausible but involves different power dynamics.
Sources
- Christensen, A. & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81.
Common mistake
Avoiding a conflict and calling it "letting it go" — without explicitly deciding the issue is trivial. Unresolved important conflicts don’t go away; they resurface with more charge.
Practice this with IX Coach
7 days free, then $40/month (~$1.30/day).
More practices for The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)
- Identify your default conflict mode
Before you can choose a mode, you have to know which one you use automatically.
- Use Competing when speed or safety matters more than buy-in
Competing — high assertive, low cooperative — is appropriate when the decision is urgent, high-stakes, and not open for debate.
- Use Collaborating when the relationship and the solution both matter
Collaborating — high assertive, high cooperative — finds a solution that genuinely works for both parties, but it takes time.
- Use Compromising — but know its hidden cost
Compromise splits the difference; it’s fast, but both parties lose something and neither is fully satisfied.
- Accommodate relationships — but not at the cost of important interests
Accommodating is appropriate when you were wrong, the issue is trivial, or preserving the relationship outweighs your stake in the outcome.
- Recognize when to shift modes mid-conflict
The mode that’s right at the start of a conversation may not be right ten minutes in.
Related concepts
- Crucial Conversations, Made Practical
Safety, mutual purpose, STATE, and the stories that drive us
- Difficult Conversations, Made Practical
The three conversations, the learning stance, and an honest read on the evidence
- Nonviolent Communication (NVC), Made Practical
The four components, the mechanisms behind them, and an honest read on the evidence