Profiles of Common, But Ineffective, Approaches to Conflict
Introduction:
This table outlines the profiles of five common approaches to conflict as well as why these approaches are
ineffective. (See next table for reasons why people approach conflict in this way and suggestions on how to deal
with people who engage in conflict in this manner.)
Approach Type
Avoiders
Characteristics

Profile/Description: Avoiders believe (or at
least want to believe) that conflicts will just go
away if we just pretend they do not exist. There
are several different sub-types:





BAND-AID Appliers



Problems with this Approach
Bubble Avoiders believe that by insulating
themselves from differences of opinion (i.e.
by avoiding relationships with people who
differ from them in terms of values, ideas,
lifestyles or other characteristics), conflict
can be avoided.



Issues go unresolved.
Frustrations (among all parties) are typically
exacerbated by avoidance, and the conflict
worsens.
This approach ultimately deprives the
individual parties involved of important
opportunities for growth – both personally and
in the relationship.
Pretender Avoiders tend to simply pretend –
both internally and externally – there is no
conflict.
Side-Stepping Avoiders, unlike Pretenders,
inwardly acknowledge conflict exists; they
just simply refuse to address it or confront the
other party.
Common Behaviors: Avoiders expend a great
deal of energy developing creative strategies and
diversions to avoid conflicts (far more energy
than if they faced the issues directly). They
believe if the focus can be turned to
peripheral/unrelated matters, they may never
have to deal with the real problem.
Things an Avoider Might Say/Think: Say
nothing or just complain “you are being blamed
for everything.” Think “time will heal all
wounds.”
Profile/Description: Eternal searchers for the
‘quick-fix’, BAND-AID appliers are so
uncomfortable with conflict they find simple
solutions to ANY problem – and fast.
Common Behaviors: Regardless of
reason/motivation, the BAND-AID applier likes
to tip-toe around the actual problem and offer
indirect solutions in an attempt to resolve an
issue – one that is typically only remotely related
to the actual conflict. They act quickly to
extinguish the flame without much thought given
to what caused the fire in the first place.
Things a BAND-AID Applier Might
Say/Think: General need to “take care of it
quickly”, without much effort/thought.
1


This approach creates the illusion that the
fundamental problems of a conflict have been
addressed and that things will be fine. This
allows important matters to go unresolved, and
therefore typically causes the conflict to
worsen.
It often temporarily rewards the quicker-fixer,
who can cleverly create the illusion that the
BAND-AID is covering the gaping wound
(when, in reality, it barely covers a section of
the wound). The temporary reward will, of
course, be fleeting and inevitably the conflict
will worsen because the underlying cause(s)
has not been addressed.
Profiles of Common, But Ineffective, Approaches to Conflict (cont’d)
Approach Type
Barterers
Characteristics



Conquerors



Problems with this Approach
Profile/Description: The barterer is a firm
believer in the spirit of compromise. They
believe that dealing with conflict requires
skillful negotiation. As such, they focus on the
demands each side is making, rather than the
core needs of those involved.
Common Behaviors: The barterer defines
success in a conflict by how much each party
concedes. The goal is not to produce a winner,
but rather to ensure that each side give up the
same amount as part of a compromise solution.
The compromise is not intended to make all
parties happy or arrive at a decision that makes
the most business sense, but rather to ensure that
they arrive at a solution is just and equitable.



Things a Barterer Might Say/Think: “I’ll do
‘this’, if you agree to do ‘that’.” “That seems
fair (or even) to me.”
Profile/Description: Winning is of the utmost
importance to the conqueror. The conqueror’s
greatest focus is on scoring some type of victory
and proving just how wrong the opponent is.
Above all else, the conqueror seeks power and
control in the conflict.
Common Behaviors: The conqueror attempts
to weaken the opponent somehow, assuming
that by weakening his/her opponent he/she will
somehow become stronger himself/herself.
These attempts might include belittling the
opponent, highlighting the opponent’s
weaknesses, bullying, dominance and
manipulation. As such, conquerors frequently
raise their voices during conflict and rely on
non-verbal cues (as well as verbal) to help
intimidate their ‘opponent’.
 Note: It’s not that conquerors are not nice
people; even nice people sometimes find
themselves doing not-so-nice things when
faced with conflict.
Things a Conqueror Might Say/Think:
General threats, insults and nasty looks. “I’m
not going to let you win!” “I’m not going to
give in on this.”
2


This approach focuses on the demands each
party is making, rather than focusing on the
needs, perceptions, values, goals and feelings
of the people involved – all of which are at the
heart of the conflict. As such, the true conflict
is not addressed.
Spin-off conflicts are often created as each
party maneuvers for advantage and continues
to make unrealistic demands they know will
not be accepted (which they then use to
demonstrate how the other party is ‘unwilling
to compromise’).
It allows power to be defined in terms of what
one party can either coerce from or get the
other to give up. It puts too much focus on the
‘numbers’ of who is conceding what, versus
the relative value of concessions made.
The party who is already the most coercive and
dominating in the relationship usually has a
distinct advantage in determining the
outcomes. This greatly restricts the options
(perceived and otherwise) available for
resolving the conflict.
While this approach may provide short-term
satisfaction to the conqueror (a ‘win’), longterm it does more harm than good.
 A ‘loser’ is necessary. This frequently
creates a desire for revenge. It also
leaves the ‘conquered’ party
disempowered and demoralized. The
subordinate party is prevented from
making future contributions to the
relationship; the dominant party is
deprived of those contributions.
 This approach perpetuates an imbalance
of power in the relationship. The more
this approach is used, the more likely it
is that the parties involved will seek
dominance rather than cooperation in
other aspects of the relationship. This
pattern is very difficult to break.
Profiles of Common, But Ineffective, Approaches to Conflict (cont’d)
Approach Type
Role-Players
Characteristics



Problems with this Approach
Profile/Description: While playing our
respective roles in life is sometimes necessary,
the role-player takes it a step further. He/she
seeks to hide behind the various ‘roles’ he/she
has played during his/her lifetime in dealing with
the conflict (e.g., parent, child, student, friend,
boss or a number of other roles). The key
distinction is that the role-player tends to depend
on that role to determine the outcome of the
conflict.
Common Behaviors: Rather than relating to the
other party as a person, the Role-Player relies on
a ‘persona’. This helps the role-player to avoid
dealing with the other party as a person who has
needs of his/her own. This approach is typically
used to help give him/her a position of power or
authority over the other party.
Things a Role-Player Might Say/Think:
“Because I said so.” “ I am your mother, and
you will do what I say!” “I am your boss, and
that is how it is going to be.” “Look, I’ve been
doing this a lot longer than you have.” “If you
don’t like it, too bad.”
3


The options for resolving the conflict are often
greatly restricted by the roles outlined. As
such, this approach cheats the conflict
resolution process out of the valuable
contributions the person in the less socially
powerful role can make.
This approach can perpetuate an unfair
relationship and block needed changes in that
relationship. When people act only from their
roles, those in roles of lesser status and power
will usually be further disadvantaged. This
inequality typically helps to foster the
emergence of more damaging conflict and
ultimately results in the disintegration of the
relationship (because the needs of the entire
person were not considered and specific
problems were not resolved).
Underlying Reasons for the Common, But Ineffective, Approaches to Conflict and How to Address Them
Introduction:
This table outlines reasons why people deal with conflict in this manner as well as suggestions for dealing with those employing these approaches to
conflict resolution. Note that while the approach to conflict ‘style’ may vary by person, the ultimate driving forces behind the approaches and how to
deal with them are very much the same.
Underlying Reasons Why People Approach Conflict in this Manner
Suggestions for Dealing with Those Employing These Approaches

Fear of conflict or confrontation

Confront the person(s)

Personal and/or professional insecurities

Acknowledge the conflict

Reassure all parties by showing a balance of power

Follow the Six Steps to Conflict Resolution (under separate cover)

Fear of how he/she will be perceived (e.g., confrontation is not ‘polite’, nice
people do not start arguments, competent people can work with others
without conflict, do not want others to know he/she dropped the ball on
something, do not want others to see weaknesses)

Fear of heightened emotions

Insecurities about ability to handle conflict
4

Reinforce the idea that conflict can and should be a productive part of any
relationship; if handled appropriately, conflict should help both the
relationship and the parties involved to grow