What are some common pitfalls or challenges of using an avoiding style in conflict management?

The problem with the avoiding style is that it can create more conflict simply by not addressing the person or the concerns/situation. In addition, it can falsely promote or enhance the other parties involved who may feel emboldened by the lack of confrontation.

I agree Joshua, avoidance solves nothing and often creates more tension with other people. You can feel the tension in false harmony and it only causes more problems as everyone has to avoid the emotional quagmire with no idea where solid ground is!

In my experience this behavior has the potential to crumble an organization’s credibility, trust with employee’s, and overall culture. Avoidance behavior, in an operations environment, can translate into allowing outlier performers to remain in position, leaders not vocalize concerns negatively impacting the workforce, and slow proactive action during the change management process. Coaching leaders on tactics to overcome avoidance behavior is critical for long term, sustainable success. Rasheeda Clark President - Flynn Restaurant Group

The Avoiding Style be driven by anxiety in the thought of a hard conversation, scared to make a decision, having a hard time multitasking, forgot about the situation or doesn't understand its importance. For leaders dealing with team members who conscientiously practice the Avoiding Style and vise versa, its important to ask "how can I help you in order to move forward" and or keep an open mind.

I often see people who adopt this style are conflict-averse and would rather choose to see the silver lining and good in all people and situations.

Sometimes conflict can be avoided. I tend to choose my battles and sometimes things do resolve themselves, especially when they're minor. We all make mistakes and if the offense is minor, it may very well be resolved with no interference.

Some may use an avoiding style because they place little value on the softer dynamics of team performance. They are focused solely on results and can't be bothered with the soft stuff. Yet, they fail to realize that the amount of time that a team stays embroiled in drama reduces the amount of capacity the team has to deliver the very results they want. As such, they over look toxic behaviors that erode team performance. Until the intra-team dynamics are addressed, the task at hand will continue to be difficult to accomplish. Spending time on the "soft stuff" matters.

The avoiding style in conflict has merits. It curbs trivial disputes from escalating and conserves resources. Cooling emotions allows for rational dialogue later, preserving relationships. Respect for boundaries is shown, safeguarding feelings and dignity.

The pitfall of the avoiding style is that, in avoiding conflict, they avoid the opportunity to address the way work gets done in their organization. Avoiding conflict merely pushes the friction to some other location in the organization. Leadership teams that avoid conflict end up pushing the tension down to the cross-functional teams that have to work together. This saps the capacity of the working team to focus on generating results. Take the time to appropriately address conflict. Play the role of facilitator to work out tensions in the organization. The time that is spent doing so pales in comparison to the amount of time the team will spend swirling due to infighting.

In a quick reflection the Avoiding Style can be seen externally as pompous, uninterested, being selected as a lesser than priority, not as dedicated to the goal or not a reflection of the organizations culture. In reality this can be driven by anxiety in the thought of a hard conversation, scared to make a decision, having a hard time multitasking, forgot about the situation or doesn't understand its importance. For leaders dealing with team members who conscientiously practice the Avoiding Style and vise versa, its important to ask "how can I help you in order to move forward" and or keep an open mind.

Conflict is everywhere and is a natural bodily function in any organization dealing with the need to prioritize finite resources - e.g., a budget. You have to let smaller conflicts work themselves out so they don’t build up and emerge as damaging earthquakes later.

There are many pitfalls with this particular style. The avoiding style in conflict can hinder resolution and growth. It might also overlook important issues, prolonging tension. As I've said before, avoidance can breed misunderstandings and erode trust, impacting relationships. In the end, it's important to remember that unaddressed conflicts can fester and harm team dynamics, limiting progress.

It is appropriate to avoid conflict when tensions arise in the wrong forum. For example, it may not be productive to address the tension between two functional leaders in a group setting. Note the issue and then work with the parties off line to see if you can aid them in working through their challenges. You can encourage them to try to work it out, but they may be odds to a degree that this isn't possible. Figure out how to engage them separately and then together if needed.

Avoiding makes sense when someone is purposely trying to bait you into a conflict. Their purpose can be to distract you, to harm you, or to benefit themselves someway by getting into your orbit. If you sense those are the underlying reasons for a conflict, avoiding may be the best tactic. You may want to monitor the situation discretely, ideally through others, to keep the conflict on your radar in case your assessment is wrong or the situation changes and you need to engage directly.

Delaying can sometimes work as avoidance. You agree to have the conflict in the future but not now. (Legislators do this often and use the phrase “let’s table that” until a future session.) This can be good to defuse a conflict and to prioritize and time it more appropriately. Some conflicts might die down while waiting. The downsides are that you are acknowledging the conflict exists and that the conflict might grow.