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

When Workplace Trust Breaks: How to Rebuild After Conflict

By Zoie Newman • July 6, 2026
Recently in an online course I was teaching around conflict resolution the question came up, “what happens when the other person refuses to let the conflict go?” We talk a lot about resolving conflict, but less about what happens afterward. Even when the conversation is over, the impact may remain. Trust does not automatically return because someone apologized, a meeting was held, or HR closed a case, and the other party might be unable to let go of their anger until real action is being taken. Rebuilding trust requires accountability, consistency, and a willingness to repair what was damaged. What breaks trust? Inconsistency, micromanaging, and gossip are all the obvious answers, but the mishandling of conflict with either avoidance, being overly direct and aggressive or the simple fact that resolution didn’t land very well with one party, can all have its impact. But if it’s the later reason, and you feel you have done everything you can to create a meaningful space to resolve conflict, be empathetic and listen to someone’s needs and trust has still not returned then it’s possible we are trying to move on to quickly. The best action one can take after conflict can sometimes allow for pause. We often talk about pause before responding or engaging in conflict, but it can also be a great tool to use after conflict as well to allow people to process and emotions to cool. One of the greatest gifts we can give others is to show respect and showing respect to someone’s emotions by not rushing past them but acknowledging them and letting them be without fixing it. When repair is possible, we can rebuild trust with this simple model I like from “The Trust Advisor” by Maister, Green & Galford Trust = Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy Self-Orientation We can have accuracy, dependability, empathy and discernment, while also thinking about their needs versus our own. All these steps over time can help you slowly rebuild trust and show goodwill in sticking with the resolution of conflict. When trust is not possible to rebuild, we have our values to guide us. This is where turning values affirmation exercise onto a particular circumstance or conflict can be beneficial to help guide you on your own behaviors. For instance, if kindness is a strong core value for you, then what behaviors can you create and reflect on that continue to show the other person kindness? What actions help you be kind through a difficult or awkward dynamic? Being self-guided in your own actions and forward movement after conflict will be the cornerstone for meaningful resolution when the other party has disengaged from resolution or the relationship. Ultimately, rebuilding trust after conflict is not about forcing closure or convincing someone to move on before they are ready. It is about showing, over time, that repair matters through consistent behavior, thoughtful accountability, and respect for the impact the conflict created. Sometimes trust can be rebuilt into something stronger, and sometimes the healthiest outcome is learning how to move forward with integrity, even when the relationship does not fully recover. Either way, conflict gives us an opportunity to practice who we want to be, steady, honest, empathetic, and guided by our values. When we stop treating resolution as the end of the process and begin seeing repair as part of the work, we create workplaces where trust has a real chance to return.

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.