9.8: Conflict Styles

Figure 9.8.1: Shohei Ohtani shaking hands with a fan.

During the 2025 Major League Baseball season, Japanese-born superstar Shohei Ohtani, of the Los Angeles Dodgers, demonstrated that he was a quiet master of conflict navigation. In two separate incidents involving the San Diego Padres, Ohtani demonstrated a calm, culturally resonant approach to confrontation that defused tension and earned admiration across fan bases.

In the first incident, Ohtani was hit in the back by a 100 MPH fastball—widely interpreted as retaliation in a heated rivalry. Rather than escalate the situation, he waved off his own dugout, signaling that he didn’t want the situation to spiral. His response reflected a conflict style often associated with East Asian cultural values: indirectness, emotional control, and a preference for harmony over confrontation.

In the second, he was heckled relentlessly by a Padres fan. Instead of reacting in anger, Ohtani hit a home run in the ninth inning—his 45th of the season—and then walked over to shake the heckler’s hand. This gesture, both humorous and humbling, turned a moment of antagonism into one of connection. It showcased a style of conflict resolution that blends assertiveness with grace: responding through action, not argument, and choosing dignity over dominance.

These moments offer a powerful lens for exploring intercultural conflict styles. Whether in sports, classrooms, or workplaces, the way we handle tension reflects deeper cultural scripts. Some cultures value directness and verbal clarity; others prioritize saving face, preserving relationships, or using silence as a form of strength. Ohtani’s approach reminds us that conflict doesn’t always require confrontation—and that sometimes, the most powerful response is the one that leaves room for respect. Let's turn our attention to exploring different ways of handling conflict.

Intercultural conflict management is the process of identifying and applying strategies to minimize and resolve tensions that arise from culturally influenced goals and communication differences. When we examine how people from different cultural backgrounds negotiate conflict, we often observe consistent patterns of interaction. These patterns are known as intercultural conflict communication styles, the verbal and nonverbal approaches individuals use to respond to and work through conflict across cultures (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

Your personal conflict style is shaped by a range of factors, including your cultural upbringing, gender norms, age, personality traits, family communication practices, and conflict goals. As discussed earlier in the chapter, culture adds a dynamic layer to the conflict process, influencing what is considered respectful, appropriate, and effective in resolving disagreements.

Your intercultural conflict style reflects a blend of nonverbal cues (such as eye contact, gestures, and tone of voice), the verbal messages you choose, and the degree to which you prioritize your own needs versus those of the other person. For example, someone from a collectivist, high-context culture may prefer indirect language and harmony-preserving strategies, while someone from an individualistic, low-context culture may favor direct speech and assertive negotiation.

Intercultural communication and conflict experts have developed conflict style models to help individuals better understand their own approaches to managing conflict, as well as the tendencies of others across cultural contexts. Gaining insight into these styles can enhance your ability to navigate disagreements with empathy, adapt your communication strategies, and foster more constructive outcomes in diverse settings.

Before diving into different styles of conflict, it is important to pause, note, and reflect that when we learn information about other cultures, it is easy to generalize and make assumptions. Bradford “J” Hall (2002) eloquently asks us to remember to be mindful and use this knowledge to open our minds and hearts, rather than to limit and generalize:

Sometimes these differences are due to such things are regional and ethnic cultural differences within a larger community, and sometimes they are due to more individual personalities or specific family characteristics. Just as people in your own culture choose various approaches to conflict based on situation and personality, so do people within every culture. This does not mean that certain tendencies do not exist that can help us deal with conflict and provide a base for understanding differences. However, it is important to remind ourselves to be open to variations within every culture and to use our general knowledge in helpful, not limiting, ways. (p. 240).

In this section, we will examine two foundational approaches to conflict styles:

• The Five-Style Model, which is based on the dual concern framework, balances concern for self with concern for others. This model includes five distinct styles: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. It was originally developed by Thomas and Kilmann (1974) and later expanded by Rahim (1983) to include organizational and interpersonal dimensions.
• The Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Model, developed by Hammer (2005), focuses on two key dimensions of intercultural conflict: directness of communication and emotional expressiveness. This model identifies four styles: discussion, engagement, accommodation, and dynamic, each reflecting different cultural preferences for how

The Five-Style Model

Conflict styles vary across individuals and cultures, and understanding these differences can help us navigate disagreements more effectively. The five-style model of conflict management was originally developed by Thomas and Kilmann (1977) and later expanded by Rahim (1983a, 2001, 2010) to include interpersonal and organizational contexts. This framework is especially useful in intercultural communication, as it provides a clean explanation of different approaches to conflict situations.

The Five-Style Model is based on the underlying premise that your approach to conflict is based on your concern for yourself versus your concern for the other person, which shapes how you approach a conflict, the strategies you use to negotiate, and the outcome you desire (win-win, etc.). Concern for self refers to the degree to which you try to meet your own needs and goals in a conflict situation. Concern for others refers to the degree to which you try to meet the needs of the other person in the conflict. For example, consider scheduling during a major cultural or religious observance. A U.S.-born manager, Sana, shows high concern for others by adjusting shift times and break schedules so that her Muslim team members can observe Ramadan practices comfortably and safely. Her counterpart, Jordan, prioritizes his own preferences and the existing workflow, insisting on standard schedules without accommodation, which reflects a higher concern for self. Various combinations of concern for self versus concern for others result in five conflict management styles, including integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising (Rahim, 2000). In this section, we examine five approaches to conflict management. Take some time to reflect on your approach to conflict and see if you can identify your style.

Integrating

If you display high concern for your own needs while also honoring the needs of others, you may prefer the integrating style of conflict management (Rahim, 1983a). For example, when Rina, who grew up in India, and her roommate Anne, who is from Canada, disagree about household responsibilities, they view the conflict as a chance to understand each other’s expectations. They sit down together, share their perspectives, and work toward a solution that reflects both cultural norms. Integrating—also known as collaborating (Thomas & Kilmann, 1977)—involves problem-solving, open communication, assertiveness, and cooperation (Rahim, 2010). It is especially effective in long-term relationships, intercultural teams, and situations requiring mutual buy-in. However, it may not be practical for minor issues, time-sensitive decisions, or when parties lack the skills or energy for deep problem-solving.

Obliging

Do you ever find yourself sacrificing your needs to maintain harmony in a relationship? Take, for example, Kenji, a Japanese student studying in the U.S., who often goes along with his classmates’ decisions during group projects—even when he disagrees. He believes that preserving group unity is more important than asserting his own preferences. This is known as the obliging or accommodating style of conflict management, which reflects high concern for others and low concern for self (Rahim, 1983a). Obliging may be appropriate when the issue matters more to the other person, when preserving harmony is a priority, or when one party has less power. A study of medical professionals found that obliging was associated with lower workplace stress and fewer perceived conflicts (Friedman et al., 2000).

Dominating

Have you ever met someone who insists on being right, even at the expense of others? They may be using the dominating style of conflict management (also known as competing), which emphasizes self-interest over collaboration, competition, and a “right answer” (Rahim, 1983a). For instance, Stephen, a manager from a highly individualistic culture, often overrides his team’s input during meetings, believing that strong leadership means making unilateral decisions. This competitive, win-lose approach may be necessary in high-stakes situations—such as legal disputes or emergency decisions—but overuse can damage relationships and leave others feeling unheard (Rahim et al., 2000).

Avoiding

Have you ever chosen not to address a conflict at all? This is known as the avoiding style of conflict management, which involves physical or emotional withdrawal from conflict situations. For example, Lien, a Vietnamese student, feels hurt by her friend’s comment but chooses not to bring it up, believing that silence will preserve the friendship. In U.S. culture, avoidance is often viewed negatively, but in many collectivist cultures, it is seen as a respectful way to maintain harmony (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Avoiding may be appropriate when the issue is minor, when emotions are running high, or when confrontation could cause more harm than good. However, it is not ideal when decisions are urgent or when unresolved issues accumulate (Rahim, 2010).

Compromising

In many cultures, compromise is seen as a practical way to resolve conflict. For example, Fatima from Morocco and her friend Elena from Spain often disagree about where to meet for lunch. Rather than arguing, they take turns choosing the location. This reflects the compromising style of conflict management, which balances moderate concern for self and others. Compromise can be effective when both parties have equal power, when time is limited, or when goals are not mutually exclusive. However, it may leave both parties partially dissatisfied and may not work well in situations involving deep values or power imbalances (Rahim, 2001).

Understanding your conflict management style—and recognizing how cultural values shape others’ approaches—can help you navigate conflict with greater empathy and effectiveness (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). No one style is universally best; rather, we should adapt our approach based on the situation, the relationship, and the cultural context. It’s also important to remember that conflict styles are perceived differently across cultures, and factors such as gender, age, race, and power dynamics can influence how your style is received (Gross & Guerrero, 2000; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

Having insight into your own conflict style—and the styles of those around you—can transform frustrating encounters into opportunities for growth. Read on for a review of the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory, which incorporates an intentional focus on communication approaches and emotional expression.

Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory

Another way to understand conflict styles is through the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory, developed by Mitchell Hammer (2005). This framework suggests that when people experience conflict, their responses tend to reflect two key dimensions: the affective, or emotional side, and the cognitive, or analytical side. In moments of disagreement, individuals may react emotionally based on how they interpret the cause of the conflict and the level of threat they perceive. Their approach to managing the situation is shaped by how emotionally expressive they are and how directly they prefer to communicate.

The ICS Inventory identifies two cultural continuums that influence conflict behavior: direct versus indirect communication and expressive versus restrained emotional style. These dimensions help explain why people from different cultural backgrounds may approach the same conflict in very different ways—some favoring open dialogue and visible emotion, others preferring subtle cues and emotional control.

Direct Approaches

Direct approaches are favored by cultures that view conflict as a natural and even beneficial part of relationships. In these contexts, addressing disagreements openly is seen as a way to strengthen trust and clarify expectations. Communication tends to be explicit, with an emphasis on precise language and clearly defined criteria for resolution. For example, in a multicultural marriage between a German partner and a Brazilian partner, the German spouse may prefer to discuss issues head-on, believing that direct communication builds stronger trust.

Indirect Approaches

Indirect approaches are preferred in cultures that see conflict as potentially harmful to relationships and group harmony. In these settings, people may avoid confrontation and instead rely on subtle cues, silence, or third-party mediation. Preserving face and maintaining consensus are prioritized over direct resolution. In a close-knit Filipino family, a daughter may avoid confronting her parents about a disagreement, choosing instead to ask an aunt to gently raise the issue on her behalf.

Emotionally Expressive Styles

Emotionally expressive cultures value open displays of emotion during conflict. Expressing feelings—through tone, gestures, or passionate language—is seen as a sign of sincerity and commitment to resolving the issue. Sharing emotions builds trust and credibility. To illustrate, during a disagreement between two longtime friends from Italian and American backgrounds, the Italian friend may raise their voice and gesture passionately—not out of anger, but to show they care deeply about the relationship.

Emotionally Restrained Styles

Emotionally restrained cultures believe that conflict should be handled with composure and emotional control. People may internalize their feelings and avoid overt displays of emotion to protect the dignity of all parties involved. Trust is earned through calm, respectful dialogue. In a Japanese workplace, a manager may respond to conflict with quiet reflection and minimal emotional expression, believing that restraint demonstrates professionalism and respect.

Hammer proposes that combinations of the four styles can be used to understand different intercultural conflicts.

Figure 9.8.2: Hammer's (2005) Intercultural Conflict Inventory

The discussion style combines direct and emotionally restrained dimensions. As it is a verbally direct approach, people who use this style are comfortable expressing disagreements. Perceived strengths of this approach are that it confronts problems, explores arguments, and maintains a calm and logical atmosphere during the conflict. The weaknesses perceived by others are that it is difficult to read “read between the lines,” it appears logical but unfeeling, and it can be uncomfortable with emotional arguments. The discussion style can often be found in Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and various co-cultures in the United States.

The engagement style emphasizes a verbally direct and emotionally expressive approach to dealing with conflict. This style views intense verbal and nonverbal expressions of emotion as demonstrating a willingness to resolve the conflict. Perceived strengths of this approach are that it provides detailed explanations, instructions, and information. This style expresses opinions and shows feelings. The weaknesses perceived by others are the lack of concern with the views and feelings of others, along with the potential for dominating and rude behavior. Individual viewpoints are not separated from emotion. The engagement style is often used in Mediterranean Europe, Russia, Israel, Latin America, and various co-cultures in the United States.

The accommodating style combines the indirect and emotionally restrained approaches. People who use this approach may send an ambiguous message because they believe that by doing so, the conflict will not get out of control. Silence and avoidance are also considered worthy tools. Perceived strengths of this approach are sensitivity to feelings of the other party, control of emotional outbursts, and consideration of alternative meanings of ambiguous messages. Weaknesses as perceived by others are difficulty in voicing your own opinion, appearing to be uncommitted or dishonest, and difficulty in providing explanations. Accommodators tend to avoid direct expression of feelings by using intermediaries, friends, or relatives who informally act on their behalf when dealing with the conflict. Mediation tends to be used in more formal situations when one person believes that conflict will encourage growth in the relationship. The accommodating style is often used in East Asia, North America, and South America.

The dynamic style uses indirect communication along with more emotional expressiveness. These people are comfortable with emotions, but tend to speak in metaphors and often use mediators. Their credibility is grounded in their degree of emotional expressiveness. Perceived strengths of this approach are using third parties to gather information and resolve conflicts, being skilled at observing nonverbal behaviors, and being comfortable with emotional displays. Weaknesses as perceived by others are appearing too emotional, unreasonable, and possibly devious, while rarely getting to the point. The dynamic style is often used in the Middle East, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and various co-cultures in the United States.

Both the Five-Style Model and the Intercultural Styles Inventory offer useful frameworks for understanding conflict. They help individuals recognize not only their own preferred styles but also the approaches of those they interact with. A key insight from these models is that there is no single “right” way to manage conflict. Instead, effective communicators learn to adapt to others, adjust their strategies to fit the needs of the situation, and reflect on how their choices may influence the outcome. Check out the Cultural Close-Up below to identify your intercultural conflict style. In the next section, we will turn to strategies for fostering peaceful intercultural conflict resolution.

Cultural Close-Up

Activity: What Is Your Intercultural Conflict Style?

Now that you have reviewed the Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) Model, it is time to reflect on your own approach to conflict. Below are five intercultural conflict scenarios. For each, read the four possible responses and choose the one that is closest to how you would likely respond. Your answer should reflect what you think you would do, not what you think you should do. Keep track of your choices for each item.

---

Scenario 1: Group Project Tension

You are working on a group project with classmates from different cultural backgrounds. One member has not contributed much, and the deadline is approaching. How do you respond?

1. Calmly and directly explain what tasks still need to be done and ask them to take responsibility.
2. Express your frustration openly, telling them it’s unfair and that the group needs them to step up.
3. Avoid direct confrontation, but quietly take on more of the work yourself to keep harmony.
4. Drop hints about the workload imbalance, using humor or side comments to signal your frustration.

---

Scenario 2: Workplace Feedback

Your supervisor from another culture gives you vague feedback that your “communication style could improve.” How do you respond?

1. Ask for specific examples and clarify exactly what changes are expected.
2. Show your concern by asking directly and with strong emotion, making it clear you want to improve.
3. Accept the feedback without pressing for details, assuming you’ll figure it out over time.
4. Respond with visible emotion (tone, gestures) but without asking directly, hoping they’ll elaborate.

---

Scenario 3: Family Gathering

At a holiday dinner, a guest makes a comment about your cultural traditions that feels dismissive. How do you respond?

1. Calmly explain why the tradition matters to you and provide context.
2. Challenge the comment directly, showing your passion and frustration.
3. Say nothing in the moment, but later avoid sharing those traditions with that guest.
4. Use humor, sarcasm, or storytelling to indirectly show your disapproval.

---

Scenario 4: Roommate Conflict

Your roommate plays loud music late at night, disrupting your sleep. How do you respond?

1. Directly but calmly ask them to lower the volume after a certain hour.
2. Knock on their door and tell them firmly (and emotionally) that it’s keeping you from sleeping.
3. Say nothing, but try to adjust your own schedule or use earplugs.
4. Drop hints—like sighing loudly or making jokes about “night owls”—to signal your frustration.

Scenario 5: Classroom Debate

During a heated class discussion, a peer strongly disagrees with your perspective. How do you respond?

1. Present your points clearly and logically, keeping your tone calm.
2. Defend your position passionately, raising your voice and showing conviction.
3. Avoid further debate, letting the other person have the last word.
4. Use expressive gestures, stories, or indirect comments to make your point without direct confrontation.

Results

Tally up the number of A, B, C, and D answers you selected. Your answers indicate your intercultural conflict style:

• Mostly A (Discussion Style – Direct + Restrained): You value clarity and logic, preferring calm, direct communication.
• Mostly B (Engagement Style – Direct + Expressive): You are passionate and direct, showing emotion to emphasize sincerity.
• Mostly C (Accommodation Style – Indirect + Restrained): You prioritize harmony, using subtle communication and minimizing emotion.
• Mostly D (Dynamic Style – Indirect + Expressive): You rely on stories, humor, or indirect cues, often expressing emotion while avoiding direct confrontation.
• Mixed answers: You may be flexible, adapting your style depending on the situation and cultural context.

Discussion and Reflection

As we can see from these scenarios, people approach conflict in different ways depending on cultural values and personal preferences. Understanding your own intercultural conflict style—and recognizing the styles of others—can help you adapt and respond more effectively.

Reflect on the following:

• What are the potential strengths of your preferred style?
• What are the potential challenges or misunderstandings that might arise from your style in intercultural contexts?
• Which style would you like to develop further to improve your intercultural communication skills?

Self‑Assessment Chart

1. Count how many A, B, C, and D responses you selected.
2. Record your totals in the chart below:

Conflict Styles

Style	Your Total	Interpretation
Discussion (A)	___	You prefer calm, direct, and logical approaches.
Engagement (B)	___	You value directness and emotional expressiveness.
Accommodation (C)	___	You prioritize harmony and minimize open conflict.
Dynamic (D)	___	You rely on indirect, expressive strategies to manage tension.

Interpreting Your Results

• Majority in one style → This is your dominant intercultural conflict style.
• Mixed results → You may be flexible, adapting your approach depending on the situation and cultural context.
• Balanced across all four → You likely shift styles fluidly, which can be a strength in diverse intercultural settings.

Takeaway: This chart is not about labeling yourself permanently but about raising awareness. Recognizing your default style helps you understand how others might perceive you and how you can adapt when working across cultures.

Contributors and Attributions

Intercultural Communication for the Community College, by Karen Krumrey-Fulks. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC-SA

Language and Culture in Context: A Primer on Intercultural Communication, by Robert Godwin-Jones. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC

Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies, by No Attribution- Anonymous by request. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC-SA