AdvancedHRManagerPeopleOps

Conflict styles in action: a step-by-step HR playbook with scripts

A practical playbook for HR — diagnose the conflict, pick the right Thomas-Kilmann mode for the situation (not your comfort zone), and run the conversation…

15 min read

On this page▾

Quick recap of the 5 modes
Step 1 — Diagnose stakes
Step 2 — Pick the mode the situation demands
Step 3 — Run the 5-move conversation
Script — Peer-vs-peer conflict
Script — Manager-vs-report conflict
Script — Cross-team conflict
Three anti-patterns to avoid

60-Second Summary

The Thomas-Kilmann modes (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating) are not a personality test. They’re situational tools. The mistake is using your default mode regardless of situation.
Step 1: diagnose stakes (high/low on outcome, high/low on relationship). Step 2: pick the mode the situation demands. Step 3: run the conversation in 5 moves — frame, surface interests, generate options, decide, document.
Three scripts cover ~80% of HR-facilitated conflicts: peer-vs-peer (collaborating), manager-vs-report (accommodating then competing), cross-team-vs-cross-team (compromising or competing depending on authority).
Avoiding is a legitimate mode — for trivial issues or when emotions are too hot to think. Accommodating is legitimate when you’re wrong, or to bank goodwill for a bigger fight.
The HR failure mode is reflexive compromising — splitting the difference on things that shouldn’t be split. ‘Both of you give a little’ on a values violation is malpractice.

Most HR conflict training stops at ‘know your style.’ That’s the first 10% of the work. The other 90% is choosing the right mode for the situation in front of you, regardless of your default, and running the conversation with enough structure that both parties can disagree without dissolving.

Quick recap of the 5 modes

Mode	Assertiveness	Cooperativeness	When to use	When it fails
Competing	High	Low	Emergency, unpopular but correct call, protecting people from harm	Day-to-day disagreements — burns relationships fast
Collaborating	High	High	Both outcome and relationship matter; time available; trust exists	When time/trust is short — turns into theater
Compromising	Medium	Medium	Roughly equal power, temporary fix, moderate stakes	Values or safety issues — splits what shouldn’t be split
Avoiding	Low	Low	Trivial issue, emotions too hot, no decision authority	Recurring or escalating issues — looks like complicity
Accommodating	Low	High	You’re wrong, issue matters more to them, bank goodwill	When pattern becomes ‘I always give in’ — breeds contempt

Step 1 — Diagnose stakes

Before facilitating, write two numbers on a sticky note. Outcome stakes (1–5): how much does the decision itself matter? Relationship stakes (1–5): how much does the ongoing working relationship matter?

High outcome / high relationship → Collaborating (worth the time).
High outcome / low relationship → Competing (decide; manage relationship after).
Low outcome / high relationship → Accommodating (let them have it; bank goodwill).
Low outcome / low relationship → Avoiding (don’t spend the air).
Medium on both → Compromising (a 60/40 split beats a stalled 100/0).

Step 2 — Pick the mode the situation demands

If your default mode (the one your TKI score is highest on) matches the situation, great. If not, pick the situational mode and tell yourself out loud which one you’re running. Naming the mode in your head doubles your odds of staying in it under pressure.

Step 3 — Run the 5-move conversation

The 5 moves (use in this order)

1
1. Frame
‘Here’s what I’m hearing each of you wants. Here’s what I’m hearing each of you is worried about. Did I get it right?’ Confirm before proceeding.
2
2. Surface interests, not positions
‘Why does that matter to you?’ — three times each. Positions clash; interests usually overlap.
3
3. Generate options
Generate at least three options before evaluating any. Forbid evaluation during generation.
4
4. Decide
Name the decision criterion explicitly (cost, speed, fairness, customer impact). Score options against it. Pick.
5
5. Document
Write: who decided, what was decided, by when, how we’ll know it worked. Both parties sign or thumb-up in writing.

Script — Peer-vs-peer conflict (default mode: collaborating)

Two senior ICs on the same team disagree about technical approach. Manager has asked HR to facilitate because the last three meetings ended in shouting.

Opening (HR, 60 seconds)

‘I’m not here to decide. I’m here to make sure you both decide well. Three ground rules: (1) describe behavior, not character; (2) one person speaks at a time; (3) we leave with a written decision and an owner. If we can’t get there in 75 minutes, we escalate to [manager]. Agreed? OK — [A], take 5 minutes to describe what you want and why it matters. [B], you’ll listen and then I’ll ask you to paraphrase what A said before you respond.’

Mid-conversation move

‘Pause. I’m hearing two different things. [A], your interest seems to be [reliability]. [B], your interest seems to be [delivery speed]. Those are both legitimate. Let’s generate three options that take both seriously before we evaluate any of them. I’ll go first to break the ice: option 1 might be…’

Closing

‘OK. Here’s what I’ve written. Decision: [X]. Owner: [A]. Review date: [date]. Success criterion: [Y]. If [Y] isn’t hit, we revisit, no fault. [A] and [B], please both reply to this thread within 24 hours with ‘agreed’ or with the specific edit you need.’

Script — Manager-vs-report conflict (default mode: accommodating, then competing)

Report believes manager has been micromanaging. Manager believes report has been missing commitments. Both have valid data.

First conversation (HR with report, alone, 30 min)

‘I want to hear your version with no manager in the room. Two questions: (1) what specifically has happened in the last 30 days that you’d want to change? — give me 3 examples with dates if you can. (2) If we got those three things right, would the relationship be repairable? If your answer to (2) is no, we’re having a different conversation — about exit or transfer — and I’d rather know now.’

Second conversation (HR with manager, alone, 30 min)

‘Same two questions, mirror image. Three specific examples of missed commitments. And — be honest with me — do you want this person on your team in 90 days? If no, we plan accordingly. If yes, I’m going to ask you to accommodate first — meaning you absorb the relational repair work — because you have positional power and they don’t.’

Joint conversation (45 min, HR facilitates)

‘Both of you have shared what you want changed. Here’s the deal we’re testing for 30 days. [Manager]: you commit to (1) weekly 30-min 1:1 you don’t cancel, (2) no Slack messages between 7pm and 8am except on-call, (3) one written piece of positive feedback per week. [Report]: you commit to (1) Monday written plan with three deliverables and dates, (2) flag slip by Wednesday not Friday, (3) one suggestion per week for how to improve the team. We meet in 30 days. If commitments are kept and trust isn’t back, we move to a harder conversation — that’s the competing mode, and I’ll lead it.’

Script — Cross-team conflict (default mode: compromising or competing)

Engineering and sales disagree on roadmap priorities. Both VPs are escalating. CEO has told HR to ‘fix it.’

Opening (HR + both VPs in the room)

‘The CEO has asked me to facilitate, and she’s asked that we leave with a decision today — not a process. Two paths: (1) compromising — we agree on a split of engineering capacity that you both can live with, even if neither loves it; (2) competing — one of you wins this one outright and the other gets the next one, and we write down which is which. I’ll run path 1 for 45 minutes. If we’re not converging, I’ll switch to path 2 and bring the CEO in to break the tie. Which is fine — that’s her job. Agreed?’

Closing the split (compromising)

‘Here’s what I’m hearing: 60% of Q3 engineering capacity to platform reliability, 40% to top-3 enterprise customer asks, with a checkpoint at week 6. [Eng VP], you give up 10% of platform work. [Sales VP], you give up the next-tier customer asks until Q4. Both of you write to your teams today with the same numbers. If either team hears a different number from you than from the other, we’ve failed.’

Three anti-patterns to avoid

Reflexive compromising on values. If one party violated a policy or a value, you don’t split the difference. You name the violation and run a competing conversation.
Collaborating when there’s no time. ‘Let’s align’ when the deadline is tomorrow is theater. Pick a decider and decide.
Avoiding repeatedly. Avoidance is a legitimate one-time move. The third time you avoid the same issue, you’ve picked a side — the side of whoever is currently winning.

Closing principle

Style is a default. Skill is choosing the mode the situation demands and running it with structure. The best HR facilitators have all five modes in their hands and know which one to put down on the table.