When I administered a self-assessment questionnaire in 2011 to identify the conflict management styles of working executives in management education, three female students exhibited similar behavior—avoiding conflict. The total number of students was 14, of whom three were women executives. It is a strange finding to note that three women demonstrated their behavior by avoiding conflicts that automatically fall in the category of the Turtles. And strangely, their second priority in responses was to collaborate in resolving the conflicts, which sounded contradictory to me. In fact, it is always ideal to collaborate in resolving conflicts rather than avoiding them, as avoiding conflicts may result in a crisis in the latter part. I worked on this trigger as it may open new vistas in conflict management styles, especially from a gender perspective.
But before we discuss about the findings from these three women, it is essential to unfold various conflict management styles such as The Turtle, The Teddybear, The Shark, The Fox, and The Owl.
The Turtle Style: Turtles avoid challenges. They are submissive by nature and care for relationships. They feel like doormats. This style is to avoid conflicts when they are minor in nature. However, it is improper to avoid conflicts when they are major in nature. Most of the time, it is not advisable to avoid conflicts, as it might lead to a crisis. It is a style of playing safe and staying away from conflicts all the time. It is known as the lose-lose approach. The disadvantage of this style is that the conflicts remain unresolved.
The Teddy Bear Style: Teddy Bears emphasize relationships more and goals less. They are not assertive, but cooperative and accommodative. However, they stand up for a few things that are close to their heart. They strive for peace and harmony. This style is accommodating when people want to maintain amicable relations with others. It is a submissive style and a lose-win approach. Conflicts are resolved in this style, but people can be exploited in the future as they are more concerned about relationships.
The Shark Style: Sharks are one of the most feared creatures on earth. They are competitive in nature with a clear eye on their goals. They are autocratic, authoritative, impatient, and uncooperative, and intend to win by any means. They emphasize goals more and relationships less, as they have the least emotion. This style works when time is short, and there is a need to maintain confidentiality. It suits best during a crisis. Usually, defense organizations adopt this style. It is competitive, and it wants to win at the cost of others. It is an aggressive style. It is known as the win-lose approach. The advantage of this style is that there is a temporary win and the conflicts are resolved. The disadvantage is that there is resentment and hostility from the other side. At times, sharks win the battles but lose the wars in the long run.
The Fox Style: Foxes are clever, quick, energetic, and independent animals by nature. They are manipulators and deal-makers. They want to eat the cake and have it too, as they care for both goals and relationships. They don't lose focus on their goals for the sake of their relationships and vice versa. Since they are clever animals, they want others to lose so that they can also lose something to resolve the conflicts. It is win some-lose approach and is also known as the compromising approach. It is against the competing and controlling style. You can adopt this style when both the contending parties are equally strong, and nobody is prepared to give up. However, it is still not the ideal outcome, as the contending parties lose something to resolve the conflicts.
The Owl Style: Owls are intelligent birds. They believe in dialogue and discussion. They care for both goals and relations and strive for consensus and collaboration. They sympathize and empathize with others and work for a win-win situation. It is the ideal outcome where all contending parties are happy, as their interests are protected and conflicts are resolved. This style collaborates by taking the strengths of all parties. It is an assertive style, quite the opposite of the avoiding style. We can adopt this style when we have enough time to think through and arrive at a consensus. However, it is often difficult to reach this situation. Besides, it consumes a lot of time, effort, and energy.
The questions to address here are why the three women working executives first avoided the conflicts and subsequently collaborated to resolve their conflicts. Is there any specific behavior pattern women demonstrate when they are faced with conflicts? Is age a factor in avoiding and facing conflicts? Is the conflict management style gender-based and biased? It is time to address these questions.
Research reveals that men and women react to the same situation differently due to gender aspects. While facing conflicts also the way women respond is different from men. Women often try to avoid conflicts in their first attempt and then collaborate in their subsequent attempt to resolve conflicts once and for all, unlike men, who compete in their initial attempt and collaborate in their subsequent attempt. According to the findings and my observation and analysis from the assessment of these 14 management students, it reveals clearly that women often avoid conflicts initially. If conflicts are thrust upon them, they would take it forward and see to it that they are resolved through collaboration and consensus rather than competition, compromise, and accommodation.
Often, women can sustain pain without reflecting it externally, whereas men demonstrate it externally. Women are often assertive and good at emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills. They are better at soft skills than men. However, men tend to exhibit aggressiveness due to biological reasons. Women are good at multitasking, while men are not. Some gender behavioral gaps between men and women cannot be avoided and must be accepted while managing conflicts and, thus, ensuring interpersonal effectiveness. Hence, extensive research from a psychological perspective on gender basis in managing conflicts can throw more light on whey women avoid conflicts in their initial attempt.
References
https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Build-Women-Leaders-Globally/dp/1949003108
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tie.21990
Share if you care!
“Things You Don’t Know about Professor M. S. Rao” http://professormsraovision2030.blogspot.com/2015/10/things-you-dont-know-about-professor-m.html
Read my ‘Vision 2030 One Million Global Leaders’ URL: http://professormsraovision2030.blogspot.com/2014/12/professor-m-s-raos-vision-2030-one_31.html
Note: I had a brain hemorrhage. I was in bed for five months. My right hand has been numb and paralyzed. I am recovering. Thanks for empathizing with me. With gratitude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFJrSRLHPUk&ab_channel=ProfessorM.S.Rao
Life is great!
Professor M.S. Rao, Ph.D.
Founder of MSR Leadership Consultants, India
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/M.-S.-Rao/e/B00MB63BKM
Vision 2030: https://professormsraovision2030.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/professormsrao
Substack: https://professormsrao.substack.com
X: http://twitter.com/professormsrao
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorMSRao
Meta: https://www.facebook.com/Professor-MS-Rao-451516514937414
See the Light in You: https://www.amazon.com/See-Light-You-Spiritual-Mindfulness/dp/1949003132
Thanks for reading!
Kindly share your thoughts and comments below. I’m sure someone out there will find your story useful.
Copyright©2026 MSR Leadership Consultants India. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
This nonprofit blog will share Professor M.S. Rao’s passion and vision to develop one million students as global leaders by 2030. Please do not cut articles from my blog; redistribute them via email or post them online. The use of this material is free, as long as the copyright is acknowledged and a reference or link is provided to the Blog http://professormsraovision2030.blogspot.com. Without permission, this material may not be sold, published, or used to offer business services to third parties.
