Session 2 of the MindShifting Practice Lab

The purpose of the MindShifting Practice Labs is to give participants the space—not just to learn strategies for managing conflict—but to practice noticing their reactions before conflict escalates?

The Conflict and Collaboration MindShifting Practice Lab is a series of five one-hour sessions, each focused on different aspects of conflict and potential conflict in school, work, and home environments. In this second session, we explored the default ways people generally handle conflicts, pacing and leading, mirror neurons, and the five styles of conflict resolution and how pausing to choose a style intentionally can change outcomes in moments that might otherwise spiral.

At the center of the discussion was the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Resolution model: compete, avoid, accommodate, compromise, and collaborate.

• Compete: when clarity, safety, or non-negotiables matter more than the relationship at that moment For example, when a student is about to hurt another student the behavior has to stop.
• Avoid: when emotions are high, the issue is minor, or a postponement is called for. For example, receiving an assertive statement by a student but deciding this is not the right time to escalate and the issue is better handled privately or maybe even passed over.
• Accommodate: when the other side’s needs matter more at the moment, when there is a low stakes learning moment, or possibly when the other side has a good point. For example, letting a child continue doing what they are doing and learn from the consequences. Note that someone using Compete will generally expect the other side to use Accommodate.
• Compromise: when there is limited time and it’s more important to move on. For example, adjusting a schedule so both sides get some of what they want.
• Collaborate: when the issue is important to both sides and both sides are in Sage. For example, educational issues such as student behavior, attendance, achievement gaps, staff morale, and curriculum changes cannot be solved by one person acting alone. These situations require people to work together across different roles and perspectives, relying on a collaborative style where each side builds on the ideas of the other to construct comprehensive solutions

Rather than positioning one as “best,” the session focused on developing awareness and flexibility. As patricipants reflected on real situations, what emerged was that they could be more flexible and resourceful when they caught themselves before reacting and asked, “Which approach do I want to use here?”.

Why “Collaborate” Isn’t Always the Answer

When most of us consider conflict, collaboration is often treated as the ideal. But participants shared examples where that wasn’t the case. When you are interacting with someone who is in fight mode or who is only concerned about their own outcomes, trying to collaborate will not be successful. As one participant recounted her experience,: “Every time I tried to collaborate, everything got worse.” The other party interpreted collaboration as weakness and continued to push.

The group discussed why collaboration only works when both individuals are regulated and willing. Without that, it can actually intensify conflict. This highlights that the difference between escalation and resolution often comes down to an educator’s (actually anyone’s) ability to pause and choose a style for the situation—not rely on a single default approach. This points to a deeper need: building capacity to shift flexibly between approaches, to be able to match the response to the demands of the moment rather than react on autopilot.

Reframing Avoidance as a Strategic Pause

Avoidance is often viewed negatively, and it can be a form of procrastination or an unwillingness to deal with an issue. The group considered productive uses of the Avoid strategy.

One participant offered a practical script educators can use: “This is big and we need to talk about this… but it’s not going to be a good conversation now. Let’s come back to it.”

An educator described using it intentionally with students: “If you or the student are not in the right state, pause and set a time later to address the issue rather than pushing through in the moment.” Many participants commented that this also applies to family disputes.

In fast-paced school environments, this kind of pause can be the difference between escalation and resolution. It models emotional regulation while maintaining accountability.

Using Accommodation to Build Student Voice

Participants also explored the value of accommodating—prioritizing the other person’s needs—in specific contexts.

One educator noted that accommodating can help students feel “seen and heard enough to drop out of that [reactive] state.” As one participant noted, sometimes accommodating opens the door to other options. The other party is so surprised that they unblock and are then willing to consider other possibilities.

Another emphasized its role in helping students “identify their feelings and validate them,” building long-term communication skills.

And sometimes, the situation is low stakes and offers a good learning opportunity; let the other person make the decision and learn from it. This is surprisingly useful in schools and in parenting.

When Compete Is Necessary

A role-play scenario illustrated how quickly conflict can escalate when both parties default to competing. As one educator observed, “It just escalates… they’re getting more and more entrenched.”

There are times when the participants indicated they must take charge, but how they do it—tone, presence, and regulation—determines whether it escalates or stabilizes the situation. The term warm demander resonated with everyone.

At the same time, the group recognized the importance of balance. As one participant reflected, “Sometimes kids need that safety of the trusted adult just making the decision.” In those moments, clear structure—not collaboration or accommodation—is what supports students best.

The takeaway was not to avoid the compete style altogether. In situations involving safety, clear expectations, or non-negotiables, it is essential. The difference lies in whether it is used reactively or intentionally.

Expanding Repertoires

A key outcome of the session was increased self-awareness. One participant reflected, “I can see the value in all those [styles]… and sometimes any one may not be so valuable for you.” Another noted that their approach would have been very different earlier in their career.

We all came to the conclusion that the value of any style will shift depending on both the situation and the person you’re dealing with. In other words, flexibility is required because context changes.

This is where MindShifting work becomes especially valuable for organizations. Conflict is not just about policies or protocols—it is about how adults interpret and respond in the moment. By helping educators recognize their default patterns and pause to choose a response, schools can reduce escalation and improve relationships across the system.

The most important shift is simple, but not easy: from reacting to choosing.

When we pause—even briefly—to consider which conflict style fits the situation, we create space for better outcomes. We move from automatic responses driven by stress to intentional actions aligned with our goals.

For business leaders and superintendents, this points to a critical opportunity. Professional learning that builds this kind of internal capacity—through reflection, discussion, and practice—can have a profound impact on school culture.

MindShifting discussions offer that space. They help educators not only understand conflict, but navigate it with greater clarity, flexibility, and effectiveness—before it escalates into something larger.

If you want to run your own Conflict and Collaboration practice lab, here is a free download with instructions and questions.