Use Avoiding strategically, not reflexively
Avoiding has a real place — but only when the issue is trivial, the timing is wrong, or cooling down is necessary.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Avoiding has a real place — but only when the issue is trivial, the timing is wrong, or cooling down is necessary.
- Why it works: Conflict Avoiding delays or sidesteps the conflict without addressing it. Used reflexively, it allows resentment to accumulate until it explodes in a larger conflict — research on "demand–withdraw" patterns in relationships shows that chronic avoiding by one party tends to amplify conflict over time. Used strategically — to let emotions cool, to gather information, or because the issue is genuinely trivial — it preserves energy for more important conflicts.
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Avoiding a conflict and calling it "letting it go" — without explicitly deciding the issue is trivial. Unresolved important conflicts don’t go away; they resurface with more charge.
Why it works
Conflict Avoiding delays or sidesteps the conflict without addressing it. Used reflexively, it allows resentment to accumulate until it explodes in a larger conflict — research on "demand–withdraw" patterns in relationships shows that chronic avoiding by one party tends to amplify conflict over time. Used strategically — to let emotions cool, to gather information, or because the issue is genuinely trivial — it preserves energy for more important conflicts.
How to do it
- 1Before avoiding, ask: am I avoiding because the timing is wrong, or because I’m uncomfortable? Only the first is strategic.
- 2If avoiding for timing, name a specific "when" — "I need to step away now; let’s return to this at 4pm." A commitment to return converts avoidance into a deliberate pause.
- 3If the issue keeps coming up even when you avoid it, that’s a signal it’s not trivial — Collaborating or Compromising is probably required.
What the evidence says
ObservationalDemand–withdraw research shows chronic conflict avoidance by one partner correlates with lower relationship satisfaction and unresolved conflict escalation over time.
Honest caveat: The demand–withdraw research is primarily from intimate relationships; generalization to workplace conflict is plausible but involves different power dynamics.
- — Christensen, A. & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81.
Common mistake
Avoiding a conflict and calling it "letting it go" — without explicitly deciding the issue is trivial. Unresolved important conflicts don’t go away; they resurface with more charge.
IX Coach asks you to distinguish between strategic avoidance (timing, trivial issue) and reactive avoidance (discomfort), and prompts a "when will we return to this?" if the issue matters.
Practice this with IX Coach →