Conflict is a normal part of human interaction – in workplaces, families, friendships, and broader social life. What sets people apart is not whether they experience conflict, but how they respond to it. In the 1960s, psychologists Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed a framework that mapped out five distinct strategies for handling conflict, each reflecting a different balance of two core drives: the desire to meet one’s own goals and the desire to maintain relationships with others. Understanding these strategies can sharpen your awareness of how you – and the people around you – instinctively respond when tension arises.
Table of Contents
The origins of the model
Blake and Mouton’s dual concerns theory, first published in their 1964 book The Managerial Grid, proposed that individuals facing interpersonal conflict are driven by two primary motivations: concern for achieving their own goals (concern for production) and concern for preserving relationships with others (concern for people). By plotting these two dimensions on a grid – each on a scale of 1 to 9 – five distinct conflict-handling strategies emerge. The conflict grid used a 1 to 9 scale on each axis, with the horizontal axis representing concern for results and the vertical axis representing concern for people. The position a person occupies on this grid predicts which strategy they are likely to use when conflict arises.
Originally developed to understand managerial behavior, the model was later extended to apply to interpersonal conflict more broadly. It has since become one of the most widely cited frameworks in conflict resolution research, forming the conceptual foundation for instruments like the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument and influencing decades of scholarship in organizational psychology.
The five strategies
Withdrawing (lose-lose)
Withdrawing involves stepping away from the conflict – avoiding it, denying it exists, or simply refusing to engage. Traditional conflict avoidance was seen as low in both assertiveness and cooperation on Blake and Mouton’s grid. It is classified as a lose-lose strategy because neither party’s concerns are addressed, and underlying issues are left to fester.
That said, withdrawing is not always counterproductive. It can provide time to see things from a different perspective, collect information, and take a lower-stress approach – particularly when the conflict is short-lived or minor. A manager might reasonably withdraw from a heated debate about a mandatory policy change that is already decided, avoiding a fight that serves no purpose. However, over-reliance on this strategy risks allowing problems to escalate, and prolonged silence can be mistaken for agreement. Research has consistently found that withdrawing behavior is negatively related to constructive use of differences and to healthy superior-subordinate relationships.
Smoothing (lose-lose)
Smoothing prioritizes harmony over resolution. The person using this strategy plays down the conflict, focuses on areas of agreement, and avoids drawing attention to disagreements. Smoothing is characterized by high concern for others and low concern for oneself – it is a passive, pro-social approach that emerges when someone values maintaining stable, positive relationships above asserting their own position.
Like withdrawing, it is considered lose-lose because the real source of tension is never addressed. There is a high risk of being taken advantage of when choosing this option, and if priority interests are at stake, it is not a viable long-term solution. A team member who constantly smooths over disagreements with their manager may preserve surface-level goodwill while quietly accumulating resentment. Smoothing may be appropriate as a temporary measure – to de-escalate emotion and buy time – but it becomes problematic when used as a substitute for genuine resolution.
Compromising (lose-lose)
Compromising sits at the center of the grid – moderate in both assertiveness and cooperation. Compromise was seen as simultaneously winning and losing: a situation in which neither party is completely satisfied or dissatisfied. Both sides make concessions, and both gain something, even if it falls short of what they originally wanted.
It is technically classified as lose-lose in Blake and Mouton’s framework because both parties give something up. However, many practitioners and researchers view it as a pragmatic and often necessary tool. Compromising can be effective in maintaining relationships and reaching quick resolutions, though it may leave underlying issues unresolved. In time-pressured situations, or when a perfect solution is simply not feasible, a fair compromise is often the most practical outcome available. Research found that compromising was not significantly related – positively or negatively – to constructive use of differences, suggesting it occupies a neutral middle ground in terms of outcomes.
Forcing (win-lose)
Forcing is the most competitive of the five strategies. It involves low cooperation and high assertiveness – pushing one’s own position at the expense of the other party. The result is a win-lose outcome: one party achieves their goal, the other does not. Blake and Mouton’s grid places forcing at the high end of concern for results and the low end of concern for people.
Forcing may be justified in specific circumstances – when a quick decision is required, when safety is at stake, or when ethical boundaries cannot be compromised. But as a general strategy, the price of competing can be an irreparably damaged relationship. Research has confirmed the costs: forcing strategy showed a strong direct relationship with workplace frustration, making it one of the most damaging approaches when applied routinely or inappropriately.
Problem-solving (win-win)
Problem-solving – also called confronting or collaborating – is the only strategy in Blake and Mouton’s model that positions itself as genuinely win-win. Problem-solving created a win-win option combining both high assertiveness of one’s own needs coupled with high cooperation in solving the needs of others. Both parties openly discuss the conflict, share their perspectives, and work together toward a mutually acceptable solution.
Research shows that problem-solving approaches to conflict resolution generate more agreements, more win-win outcomes, and greater outcome satisfaction than any other strategy. In one set of studies with managers, only confronting or problem-solving was always positively related to constructive use of differences and healthy workplace relationships – the other four strategies produced mixed or negative results.
The downside is practical: problem-solving takes more time and effort but often results in more sustainable resolutions, addressing core issues rather than just symptoms. It requires both parties to be willing to engage honestly and invest in the process. When those conditions are present, though, it consistently outperforms the alternatives.
The role of assertiveness and cooperation
The five strategies are not arbitrary categories – they are expressions of two underlying psychological dimensions. Assertiveness refers to the extent to which a person pursues their own needs and goals. Cooperation refers to the extent to which they attend to the needs and goals of the other party. Every conflict strategy reflects a particular combination of these two drives.
Withdrawing is low on both. Smoothing is high on cooperation but low on assertiveness. Forcing is high on assertiveness but low on cooperation. Compromising sits in the middle of both. Problem-solving, with its win-win outcome, is the ideal method for disagreements that are important to both parties, and the collaboration process frequently results in growth in knowledge, respect, and understanding. The key insight of Blake and Mouton’s model is that assertiveness and cooperation are not opposing ends of a single spectrum – they are independent dimensions. It is possible to be high on both at once, which is exactly what problem-solving requires.
Choosing the right strategy
While problem-solving is widely considered the superior approach, Blake and Mouton’s framework does not advocate for using it in every situation. The ideal style will look different in different contexts – factors like the type of work, the people involved, and the external environment all influence what effective conflict management looks like.
Withdrawing may be appropriate when a conflict is trivial or emotions are running too high for productive dialogue. Smoothing can be a useful short-term tool when the relationship matters more than the immediate issue. Compromising works well when time is limited and a workable middle ground is acceptable to both sides. Forcing is sometimes necessary when safety, ethics, or urgent decisions are at stake. And problem-solving is best deployed when the issue is significant, both parties are motivated to find a lasting resolution, and the relationship warrants genuine investment.
Since each conflict situation is unique and dynamic, it is difficult to recommend a single best approach. Forcing, smoothing, and withdrawing are generally less effective in resolving conflicts because they fail to address the real cause of the tension. They may, however, be appropriate when the goal is simply to create a temporary period of peace – provided that a more substantive resolution is eventually pursued.
Cultural considerations and limitations
One important caveat in applying this model is the role of culture. Blake and Mouton acknowledged that the problem-solving style is more popular as a choice for respondents from the United States than from any other countries, pointing to an ethnocentric bias embedded in their original framework. In collectivist cultures, for example, maintaining social harmony may take clear precedence over direct confrontation – making smoothing or compromising the culturally preferred and situationally effective choice.
Additionally, the model presents the five styles as distinct categories, but in reality there is a continuum between them. Most people do not use a single strategy consistently – they shift depending on the relationship, the stakes, and the context. Recognizing which strategy you default to, and whether it is serving you well, is often the first step toward more effective conflict resolution.
What do you think? When you face conflict in your personal or professional life, which of these five strategies do you tend to reach for first – and does it actually resolve the issue, or just manage it? And in situations where you’ve seen forcing or withdrawing used, how did it affect the relationship long-term?
References
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176705000702
- https://ncmr.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/372/galley/376/view/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919307330
- https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Clo-Con/Conflict-Management.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0030507370900292
- https://www.imt-pm.com/compromising-vs-problem-solving-which-one-is-the-true-win-win-approach/
- https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/resolve-project-conflicts-everybody-wins-10453
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14330237.2006.10820105
- https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/weitzman-problem
- https://mediate.com/win-win-solutions-the-role-of-collaboration-in-resolving-problems/
- https://www.bitesizelearning.co.uk/resources/blake-mouton-managerial-grid-explanation
- https://www.hrpersonality.com/resources/conflict-management-techniques
Leave a Reply