When Conflict Avoidance Is the Right Choice

Zoie Newman • March 3, 2026

Exploring Healthy Boundaries and Emotional Intelligence

Conflict Modes, a concept developed and taught by Thomas-Kilman, is the belief that we have different approaches to conflict on a scale of assertiveness and cooperation. These modes are avoidance, competing, collaborating, compromising, and accommodating. Individuals often favor one style based on comfort and their relationship to conflict influenced by their upbringing. Today I want to pull out conflict avoidance. Avoidance gets a bad reputation and often isn’t the best method to managing conflict, but as we take a deeper dive into this way of handling conflict, I hope to showcase some ways in which conflict avoidance can be a positive and necessary.


As with other methods of self-identification, conflict modes should be applied thoughtfully. According to theories based on emotional intelligence, understanding ourselves begins with recognizing that each individual has the capacity to utilize various conflict modes depending on the context. The same principle applies to communication and leadership styles; while certain tendencies may be predominant, expanding emotional awareness involves learning to adapt our approach and respond flexibly to circumstances that may call for different modes than those we typically employ or have been taught to avoid.


When avoidance is harmful


Most of us can relate to having someone in our lives who avoids conflict at all costs. This has come up a lot online lately with the overuse of “protecting our peace” to avoid any challenging discussion that might come our way. Chronic avoidance, not doubt, is harmful. Some of us might see this more specifically with a boss or someone who is in a leadership role. When leaders consistently evade addressing conflicts, it can be perceived as an immature approach to management and may result in staff handling disputes independently or inadequately—often leading to HR concerns, investigations, and significant disruptions in team dynamics. I have personally had many a boss and leader that has led with the belief that conflict within the team isn’t their responsibility. In most workshops I have run I ask leadership if conflict is something that they feel ok with, and almost no one raises their hand. Such avoidance creates a culture where mismanagement of disputes is perpetuated, resulting in unresolved issues and unmet needs within the team. Without clear examples and guidelines for effective conflict resolution set by leadership, disputes often remain unsettled.


When conflict avoidance is healthy


Conflict avoidance on its own is not necessarily problematic, it’s another tool in our toolbox, but one to use with care. As we have established, used in the wrong way avoidance degrades relationships and doesn’t help us access the healthy generative side of conflict. When used appropriately, avoidance can help us understand when conflict will move us forward in a relationship vs keep us stagnant, blaming or unsatisfied with an outcome that may never meet our needs or the needs of others.


I have again had many instances where conflict avoidance would have served me better than continuing to engage and here are a few of the things I have learned from these interactions. First, if you have attempted to engage someone in hard conversations with not being heard and the continued engagement will not help you get anything constructive out of that conflict it’s time to step away. Either step away from that conflict and resolve your own needs to the best of your ability, or its time to step away from the relationship.


Sometimes conflict avoidance also looks like an extended pause. I can think of a particular instance with a friend over a political discussion that became very devaluing to me, that avoiding continued discussion around this has been a thoughtful process of how I can understand my own needs and get some of my big emotions under control so I can set clearer and firmer boundaries. This is a strategic way of using emotional avoidance to help me process. Ethan Kross's book Shift suggests that distraction and avoidance are useful strategies for managing emotions. By using avoidance flexibly, we can express emotional conflict when it benefits us. While there is no one-size-fits-all method for managing conflict, avoidance is an evolved strategy for stepping back from overwhelming situations.


Conflict avoidance is deemed low on the scales of assertiveness and cooperativeness. When we are low on those scales our value of the relationship has either diminished or was never there. But this measure is not only for ourselves, but how we believe others measure us. If the person who we’re locked into conflict with diminishes the relationship and will not reflect on their impact, then avoiding hard conversations might be the best use of our time and energy. Although it's not always feasible to disengage with coworkers or supervisors, adjusting your strategy for handling conflict can help you focus your effort where it matters most.


In summary, conflict avoidance is not inherently negative; rather, it is a nuanced tool that, when applied thoughtfully, can protect relationships and promote emotional health. By recognizing when avoidance serves a constructive purpose and when it becomes detrimental, we gain the ability to navigate challenging situations with greater wisdom. Ultimately, the goal is to develop self-awareness and flexibility, allowing us to choose the conflict mode that best supports our needs and the needs of those around us, fostering a healthier and more resilient environment.



Share

The Sage Source: Insights in HR & Development

How HR Can Do Better

By Zoie Newman • June 1, 2026
Most people have a story about HR, and often that story includes disappointment. Through layoffs, FMLA requests, harassment, difficult managers, and other workplace challenges, HR is meant to support employees. It should be a resource for people during some of the hardest moments, because we do not leave our personal experiences at the door when we come to work. But in many modern workplaces, that role has changed. HR is often feared, avoided, and burdened by a negative reputation. So how did we get here, and how can we do better? HR emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when organizations began to recognize that employee well-being was closely connected to productivity during the industrial revolution. Over time, the field gained momentum through labor strikes in the early 1900s, and ideas influenced by the Hawthorne Studies which changed our understanding of management theory. By the 1950s and 1960s, HR had become more established. Given its roots in improving working conditions, the question is: how do we return HR to that purpose? Recently, I’ve been reading Get It in Writing by Ryan Stygar, known online as Attorney Ryan. As someone starting a new HR business, I felt it was essential to add this perspective to my knowledge base and deepen my understanding of labor law. In the book, Stygar explains in detail what employees need to know about their rights at work. But after reading case study after case study—and seeing HR repeatedly framed as a form of “risk management” for companies—I began to question whether that description is accurate. I’ve had my own painful experiences with HR. In some cases, HR failed to protect me from harassment, bullying, and a hostile work environment until I eventually quit. I was often told that dealing with unacceptable behavior was simply part of my job. What stands out most to me is that, in trying to protect themselves, HR departments often do the opposite of effective risk management. Too often, they break the law instead, exposing their organizations to lawsuits, investigations, and damage to their own professional credibility. The truth is that a people-centered approach to HR is risk management. When organizations put the human experience at the center of how they lead and employ people, they reduce risk by addressing needs early and building healthier workplaces. Prioritizing people over short-term business interests is not a liability—it is one of the strongest protections an organization can have. So how can HR do better? It starts with returning to its original purpose: protecting people by creating safer, fairer, and more accountable workplaces. That means addressing harm early, responding to employee concerns with integrity, and recognizing that compliance alone is not enough. HR must be willing to challenge ineffective leadership, confront patterns of mistreatment, and advocate for systems that support both dignity and trust. Also, actively know the boundaries of the law, so you don’t go outside of it. If the field wants to rebuild credibility, it must stop asking employees to fear it and start giving them a reason to believe in it. For HR professionals, leaders, and organizations alike, the call is clear: build systems that protect people, listen before harm escalates, and treat trust as a responsibility—not a talking point.

The Difference Between Conflict Resolution & De-escalation

By Zoie Newman • May 4, 2026
Have you ever wondered if your team needs conflict resolution skills, de-escalation training, or perhaps both? What separates these two approaches? People often use the terms interchangeably, but conflict resolution and de-escalation are distinct skill sets to use at different stages of conflict. It can be crucial to deploy the right tools at the right time. When trying to repair a relationship when the emotions aren’t dealt with first, you can unintentionally escalate a conflict. Let’s break down the differences between de-escalation and conflict resolution and when to use both. What is De-escalation? Think of conflict resolution and de-escalation as tools in a toolbox: de-escalation is like a fire extinguisher, used to quickly cool down heated emotions and prevent the situation from getting out of control. Heated moments can come in waves, and deploying de-escalation can often happen repeatedly while we wait for others to processes the conflict. The most important part of de-escalation is to first learn to de-escalate yourself. Our own ability to self-regulate is crucial when it comes to practicing de-escalation. When we can self-regulate, we’re not as easily influenced to contribute to escalation. When self-regulated we can lean into the knowledge that we are all co-regulating with on another all the time and knowing this gives us the power to guide ourselves and those we’re in conflict with into a calmer state. De-escalation is both a verbal and nonverbal process, however our nonverbal cues are dominate and more important when trying to de-escalate someone. When someone is emotionally hijacked or in flight or fight, they are not listening but observing. Our nonverbal cues send the message of safety, and when that is backed by empathetic statements in a nonthreatening tone, a person can start to engage with their thinking brain and trust that others regard their concerns as highly as they do. To lean into co-regulation and cue de-escalation, stand openly and non-threateningly, maintain distance, keep a neutral expression and open palms, and soften your gaze, and head nodding to show listening and engagement. Lean in and mirror some cues to show empathy. Use a quiet, low voice for calm. What is Conflict Resolution? Conflict resolution, meanwhile, is like a set of blueprints and construction tools; once the immediate flames are out, you use these to investigate, rebuild understanding, and find lasting solutions. Conflict resolution consists of getting curious about what each party needs from resolution. When we focus on needs and move away from blame, judgement and criticism of the conflict we can get to the root of why we are in conflict. This is where our verbal communication starts to take center stage. When we articulate our own values and needs and ask the right questions and lean into the relationship building part of our preferred communication style we can resolve conflict in a health manner. Moving into conflict resolution and out of de-escalation, we engage in whole body listening, this means listening to all the verbal and nonverbal communication going on in the conflict. It is about reframing what you heard to clarify understanding, and finding common ground where understanding, adaption and resolution take place. Each approach plays a vital role, while de-escalation and conflict resolution are often mentioned together, each serves a unique purpose in managing workplace tension. De-escalation provides the immediate calm needed to create a safe environment, allowing everyone involved to regain composure. Only then can true conflict resolution begin, focusing on understanding core needs, values, and building lasting solutions. By equipping ourselves and our teams with both skill sets, we not only prevent unnecessary escalation but also pave the way for genuine connection and growth. Ultimately, mastering both approaches empowers us to turn moments of discord into opportunities for deeper trust, collaboration, and a healthier workplace culture.