Chart — Leadership & Management

Conflict Resolution Strategies Chart

Five Thomas-Kilmann conflict resolution strategies compared for nursing — avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating — with assertiveness/cooperativeness levels, advantages, limitations, best use cases, and nursing examples.

Educational use only. This content is intended for nursing students and exam preparation. This material supports nursing education and exam review. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for clinical judgment, institutional policy, or medical direction. Always follow facility protocols and current provider orders.

Strategy	Assertive / Cooperative	Description	Advantages	Limitations	Best Use
Avoiding	Low/ Low	Withdrawing from the conflict or postponing it. Neither party's concerns are addressed. The issue is ignored or sidestepped.	+Appropriate when the issue is trivial and not worth the energy +Buys time for emotions to cool before productive dialogue is possible +Prevents harm when immediate engagement risks escalation	−Does not resolve the underlying issue −Tension accumulates — avoidance often leads to larger explosions later −Chronic avoidance creates unsafe environments where problems fester	Trivial issue not worth pursuing; emotions are too high for productive dialogue right now; temporary buy-time strategy before using a more productive approach
Accommodating	Low/ High	One party gives in to the other's concerns, prioritizing the relationship over the outcome. One person's needs are met; the other's are not fully addressed.	+Preserves the relationship when the issue matters less than the connection +Demonstrates flexibility and goodwill +Appropriate when you discover you are wrong	−Consistent accommodation erodes self-advocacy and professional boundaries −Can lead to exploitation if others recognize the pattern −The accommodating party's unmet needs eventually surface as resentment	The issue is more important to the other party than to you; you realize you are wrong; goodwill investment in a long-term relationship is worth the short-term concession
Competing	High/ Low	One party pursues their position firmly, often at the expense of the relationship. Power or authority is used to achieve the desired outcome.	+Decisive — appropriate when immediate action is required +Appropriate for non-negotiable patient safety concerns +Establishes clear boundaries in situations of unsafe practice	−Damages relationships if used routinely in non-emergency situations −Creates resentment, power imbalances, and adversarial dynamics −Does not address the other party's legitimate concerns	Patient safety is at immediate risk and non-negotiable; an unsafe order must be refused; time-critical emergency requiring unilateral decision
Compromising	Moderate/ Moderate	Both parties give up something to reach a middle ground. Each party partially achieves their goals. A temporary or expedient solution.	+Both parties gain something — feels fair +Faster than collaboration for reaching a workable solution +Appropriate when parties have equal power and opposite needs	−Neither party fully achieves what they need — partial satisfaction −May not address root cause — issue can recur −The 'split the difference' mentality can produce poor clinical outcomes if applied to patient care decisions	Temporary solution needed quickly; parties have equal power; relationship and outcome both matter somewhat; full collaboration is not feasible in the available time
Collaborating	High/ High	Both parties work together to find a solution that fully satisfies both — a win-win. Requires open communication, mutual respect, and time investment. The most constructive strategy.	+Fully addresses both parties' needs — highest quality outcomes +Strengthens the relationship and builds trust +Addresses root causes — most durable resolution +Integrates diverse expertise for better patient care decisions	−Time-intensive — not feasible in emergencies or when power differences are extreme −Requires both parties to engage in good faith −Can be exploited if one party is not genuinely collaborative	Both parties' needs are legitimate and important; the relationship is valued; time permits a thoughtful process; long-term resolution is the goal

AvoidingAssertiveness: Low | Cooperativeness: Low

Nursing example: Ignoring a colleague's minor comment during a stressful shift rather than escalating; stepping away from an argument to return when both parties are calmer

NCLEX key: Avoidance is NOT appropriate when patient safety is at stake — always escalate safety concerns regardless of conflict preference

AccommodatingAssertiveness: Low | Cooperativeness: High

Nursing example: Swapping a shift for a colleague because the issue matters more to them; accepting a less desirable assignment to accommodate a team member's need this time

NCLEX key: Accommodation is appropriate for relationship investment. It becomes a problem when it prevents you from advocating for patients or colleagues.

CompetingAssertiveness: High | Cooperativeness: Low

Nursing example: Refusing to administer a medication you know is contraindicated despite provider pressure; activating the chain of command when a provider ignores a critical patient finding

NCLEX key: Competing = appropriate for patient safety emergencies. Using it in routine interpersonal conflicts creates toxic workplace dynamics.

CompromisingAssertiveness: Moderate | Cooperativeness: Moderate

Nursing example: Negotiating a modified schedule that partially meets both nurses' needs; agreeing on a care plan compromise between two providers when both perspectives have merit

NCLEX key: Compromising is not the best strategy — collaborate when possible. Compromising is acceptable when time or power limits collaboration.

CollaboratingAssertiveness: High | Cooperativeness: High

Nursing example: Multidisciplinary care conference to develop a complex patient's discharge plan; nurse-provider dialogue to adjust pain management while preserving safety and comfort

NCLEX key: Collaborating = best strategy for most professional nursing conflicts. Win-win when both parties' needs are legitimate.

NCLEX Quick Reference

Most commonly tested as 'best' strategy

Collaborating — win-win, both needs met

Best for patient safety emergencies

Competing — non-negotiable, immediate action

Best temporary when emotions are too high

Avoiding — defer, then return with collaborating

Best when their need matters more than yours

Accommodating — preserves relationship

Acceptable when time is limited and power is equal

Compromising — both give something

Worst for recurrent or systemic issues

Avoiding — problems accumulate

Most damaging if overused in stable settings

Competing — destroys relationships

Weakest long-term resolution

Compromising — doesn't fix root cause

Source: Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), Kenneth Thomas & Ralph Kilmann; ANA Code of Ethics for Nurses

Related Resources

Conflict Resolution in Nursing GuideCauses of conflict, de-escalation techniques, difficult conversations

Open →

Chain of Command ReferenceCompeting strategy: when to escalate patient safety concerns

Open →

Charge Nurse FundamentalsCharge nurse role in mediating unit-level conflict

Open →

Therapeutic Communication TechniquesCommunication skills underlying collaborative conflict resolution

Open →

Standards & sources

Fact-checked Jun 21, 2026

This page is written to align with Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI); ANA Code of Ethics for Nurses. It is an educational summary, not a citation of any single document — always verify specific doses, values, and protocols against current guidelines and your facility policy. How we source content →