One sort; the main distinction, however, between the

One of them can be recognized as a competitive type – which
can also be referred as a forcer or a fighter. As a rule, this conflict style
maximizes concern of self (commonly named as assertiveness) and minimizes sympathy
for others. Which may sound a little bit too much like an egoistic approach to
a situation of the sort; the main distinction, however, between the two would
be the fact that the competitive type is to seek dominance & enjoy the whole
process of negotiation as well as to control the interaction between the
members. As a general tendency these are greater focused to rather win the debate, and pay little to no
attention to the whole relationship scheme between the group members (as noted
by Goldfien & Robbennolt, 2007).

An accommodating,
or yielding – conflict style is quite the opposing force as compared to
competitive. It cares more about maintaining & sustaining relationships
within a group and often neglects or rather “forgets” about his/her own
concerns. As noted in a recently mentioned journal article (Goldfien & Robbennolt,
2007): “(…) accommodating types derive satisfaction from meeting the needs of others,
are perceptive and intuitive about emotional states, detect subtle verbal and
nonverbal cues, and tend to have good relationship building skills; they tend
to deflect or give up in the face of conflict out of concern for the
relationship, and tend to be vulnerable to competitive types”. As a major
consequence of that, the accommodating holds an opinion that agreeableness and
high concern for others rather than the self is more important than winning.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Right in the middle of the issue the compromising conflict style is to reside. As the name itself
states, the compromising is an intermediate on both the assertiveness and
empathy dimensions (which is, broadly speaking, high concern for self &
others). “Compromisers value fairness and expect to engage in some give and
take when bargaining.  A compromise
approach allows those in conflict to take a reasonable stance that often
results in an efficient resolution to the conflict”. (Goldfien & Robbennolt,
2007).  As a twist, compromisers may occasionally
miss the suitable opportunities & options for resolution “by moving too
fast to split the difference, failing to search for trades and joint gains, and
may neglect the relational aspects of the dispute”.

The fourth type is a Collaborative.
These types are score higher in terms of assertiveness & empathy at the
same time (which sounds a lot like a compromising, at the very beginning). “Collaborators
often see conflict as a creative opportunity and do not mind investing the time
to dig deep and find a win-win solution, but may be inclined to spend more time
or resources than are called for under the circumstances” (by Goldfien & Robbennolt,
2007). According to that, the collaborative is often seen as “the brain”, or
simply speaking, as a main problem-solving side of the conflict that searches
for the middle ground – or optimal, – of conflict resolution.

And lastly, the one that simply avoids the situation just by
packing its things and straight leaving an auditorium. That`s avoidant conflict style which is both
low in assertiveness and low in empathy. It firmly beliefs that the issue can
be solved just by… leaving and letting someone else resolve the issue. They can
be seen as not caring about the whole relationships-within situation as well as
not caring about themselves, equally. “(…) the worst feature of theirs is neglect
underlying relationships, allow problems to fester by ignoring them”. The
passivity and lack of concern about the issue of conflict in their case can be
perceived by others in a negative light – and arguing more about it leads to greater