Conflict Resolution: How to Work a Disagreement Through

About this tool

The best known map of conflict styles is Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann's, which sets five modes on two axes, assertiveness and cooperativeness: competing, which is high assertiveness and low cooperation; accommodating, the reverse; avoiding, low on both; collaborating, high on both; and compromising, in the middle. None is correct in all situations. Avoiding is sensible when the issue is trivial or everyone is exhausted, competing when safety is at stake, collaborating when the relationship and the outcome both matter and there is time.

Conflict resolution strategies, as distinct from the styles above, are the moves you actually make in the conversation, and the useful ones are unglamorous. Separating the person from the problem, so the question is what do we do about this rather than whose fault is this. Speaking in the first person about your own experience rather than about the other person's character. Reflecting back what you heard before replying, which slows the exchange and catches misunderstandings early. And asking about the need underneath the position, since two incompatible demands often sit on top of compatible needs.

Timing matters more than most people expect. Physiological arousal during a heated argument makes new information hard to take in, which is why John Gottman recommends a break of at least twenty minutes once either person is flooded, with an explicit agreement to return. A conversation resumed when both people can think is a different conversation from the one that was happening.

Conflict resolution tools assume both people can speak freely and safely. They do not apply where there is intimidation, coercion, or fear of the other person's reaction, and attempting them there can make things worse by putting the person at risk in the name of fairness. If that describes the situation, the right next step is a domestic abuse service or a therapist experienced in it, not a worksheet.

A conflict resolution worksheet organizes a disagreement into a shared description of the issue, each person's perspective, underlying needs, possible solutions, and a practical agreement. It can help with everyday arguments when everyone is willing and feels safe to participate. Disagreements about dishes, messages, or tone may also involve needs such as respect, support, or reliability. Naming those needs can clarify what a workable solution would need to address.

The approach here draws on interest-based negotiation and emotionally focused ideas. Rather than trading positions ("I want X," "Well I want Y"), you each describe how you see the situation, then dig for the need beneath your position. Two people who seem to want opposite things often discover their actual needs are compatible once they are spoken plainly. From there, brainstorming solutions becomes a shared problem to solve instead of a battle to win.

A few ground rules make this work. Pick a calm moment, not the heat of the fight. Take turns and let each person finish. Aim to understand the other view before defending yours, even if you disagree. And separate the problem from the person: you are on the same side against the issue, not on opposite sides against each other.

Not every conflict resolves in one sitting, and some need outside help, especially recurring or high-conflict patterns. But for many everyday disagreements, structure is exactly what is missing, and a worksheet supplies it.

Psychologist John Gottman's research identified four communication patterns, criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling, that predict relationship breakdown when they go unaddressed. A structured worksheet like this one is designed to interrupt those patterns by slowing the conversation down before criticism turns into contempt (Gottman & Silver, 2015).

A common mistake is jumping to solutions before naming the needs underneath each position. Two people can agree on a fix and still feel unresolved if the actual need, like feeling respected or feeling heard, was never spoken aloud. Working through the steps in order, rather than skipping to step four, is what makes the agreement stick. Treat the agreement as something to review in practice, because completing the steps cannot guarantee that a solution will last.

This worksheet can support conversations between friends, siblings, roommates, coworkers, and romantic partners when each person can participate voluntarily. If the same conflict keeps recurring, a licensed couples or family therapist may help assess the pattern. You can search the Psychology.com therapist directory to find one. If someone feels afraid, controlled, or threatened, seek confidential individual support before attempting joint problem-solving.

The interest-based approach comes from the work of Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton described in Getting to Yes. Harvard's Program on Negotiation explains how separating people from the issue, identifying interests, generating options, and using fair criteria can structure negotiation. This is a conceptual foundation for the worksheet, not evidence that this exact form has been tested as a treatment.

Make the completed agreement observable. For example, an agreement about dishes could name who handles cleanup after dinner and how to communicate a change in plans. Ask how each person will know the agreement is working and what will happen if it is impractical. At review, describe what happened before deciding whether to keep or revise the plan.

The World Health Organization includes psychological abuse and controlling behavior within intimate partner violence. A shared worksheet is inappropriate when speaking honestly could bring retaliation. You do not need to disclose private notes to someone who frightens you. Contact a trusted health professional or a domestic violence service privately for support suited to your circumstances.

Communication Skills offers a broader starting point for everyday conversations. The I-Statements Worksheet can help you prepare your own words, while Fair Fighting Rules can help you agree on how to pause a discussion. These resources support practice; none can make another person listen, take responsibility, or respect a boundary.

Reviewed by Michael Callans, MSW
Reviewed the steps for fidelity to interest-based and emotionally focused conflict resolution.

References

1. Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 3rd ed. Penguin Books; 2011.
2. Gottman JM, Silver N. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Harmony; 2015.
3. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Principled Negotiation: Focus on Interests to Create Value. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/principled-negotiation-focus-interests-create-value/
4. World Health Organization. Violence against women. https://www.who.int/health-topics/violence-against-women/
5. Thomas KW, Kilmann RH. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom; 1974.

Conflict Resolution FAQ