Try Using Avoiding More 

You scored lower in this style in Calm settings than in other styles.  This suggests that, in early stages of conflict when things are not yet emotional, you use Avoiding less than other styles. This spares you some of the weaknesses of Avoiding.  For example, if people habitually avoid difficult discussion in a long-term partnership, bad feelings fester and grow. Energy and enthusiasm fades and the relationship may be endangered.  

But Avoiding has important uses you may be missing out on.  You'll be most effective in conflict if you are good at all five styles.  So increased use of the arts of stepping back and avoiding conflict might benefit you, especially if there is a gap of 3 points or more between your lowish Avoiding score and your highest score in Calm.

When to Avoid.  In Avoiding, you respond to differences by withdrawing from interaction. Neither person gets what they want; you just avoid the topic or the person.  Although it has limits, Avoiding is wise, and indeed necessary, at times.  

Conflict takes time and energy, and it's stressful.  If we take on every battle, we run out of time and energy for the things most important to us.  Avoiding is useful when:

• The topic is too trivial to merit an argument.
• You have no time or energy to talk things through.
• The conflict is with someone you have no long-term relationship with on an issue of minor importance.  Why waste the energy?
• Key people are stressed or anxious.   High stress reduces ability to think well and self-regulate emotions.  Sometimes it's wise to delay till people are able to use their best inner resources.
• When you're not powerful or strong enough to actively resist the demands of a more powerful party, yet need a passive form of resistance.
• When it might be dangerous physically or emotionally to get in an argument.
• When timing or sequence is wrong for discussion.  Eg:  Maybe you need to review the budget before debating a controversial purchase.
• When you need time to think things through, gather more information, consult with others, etc., in preparation for discussion.

Ways to Strengthen Avoiding.  Since Avoiding seems not to come naturally for you, you might try experimenting with avoidance responses.   For example:    

• Look before you leap into intense exchanges with people.  Consider: 1) Whether you have the time and energy required to talk things through; 2) Whether the issue is worth the time and energy required.
• Dial back responsiveness.  It's not necessary to accept every invitation to an argument. Experiment with simply sitting in thoughtful silence as others express views you disagree with.  If silence is difficult for you, start by holding silence on something small, just for the practice of it.  
• Delay or schedule conflict.   For example, "Interesting idea, but could we talk about that some other time?" Or "Could I give you my views on that when we've got the time to really thresh it out?" Agree that certain topics are off-limit in certain times or places.  Agree to discuss certain conflict-fraught topics, such as finances in a domestic partnership, on a regular basis, such as every second Saturday morning, but not at any other time.
• Learn verbal responses for Avoiding. Memorize some diplomatic crutch phrases for Avoiding:  "You know, I see it a bit differently, but I respect where you are coming from...." Or "I agree we need to discuss this, but could we set this topic aside until tomorrow morning so we can focus on other things right now?" Or "You see things one way and I see them a different way.  Let's just leave it at that for now."

As you ratchet up your use of Avoiding, you'll have less drama in your life, and have more time and energy for things you care about.

 You Scored High in Compromising in Storm 

This suggests that when things get tense you look for solutions at a halfway point between yourself and others. Your hope is that if everyone accepts less than what they want the conflict will end and life can continue. Compromising has particular strengths and weaknesses that you should be aware of.

Benefits.  Strengths associated with wise use of this pragmatic style include:

• Fairness and moderation. Compromisers don't push things to an extreme.
• Speed. An acceptable compromise can often be worked out fairly quickly.
• Familiarity. The idea that "you give a little, I'll give a little" is readily understood and brings out the best in people.
• Practicality. A compromise enables the show to go on.

But Don't Over-use It.  Despite its many benefits, Compromising has downsides. If you respond to every conflict with "let's both go halfway and meet in the middle" you risk:

• Compromise of important principles or loss of important goals. There are situations where integrity or protection of people or resources requires you to take a firm stand and not to negotiate.
• Acceptance of half-solutions that don't address the real issues or that abandon too quickly the careful exploration required to come up with effective solutions.
• Wishy-washiness, inability to assert red lines, boundaries or principles.
• Difficulty in resolving future conflicts if there are no principles or goals to guide resolution of problems.
• Lost opportunities to engage others in-depth if you always make a quick compromise without looking deeply at things.
• Lack of commitment. Those involved may drag their feet at implementing solutions they don't fully support.
• Mediocre problem-solving skills that bring mediocre results. Quick compromises may hinder you from developing skills of in-depth problem analysis or prevent intense conversation necessary for building a deep relationship. Mediocre outcomes and lukewarm relationships may result.

Steps You Can Take to Maintain Balance.   To diversify your conflict resolution skills beyond Compromising you can:

• Expand your conflict style repertoire. Aim to be good at all styles.
• Pay special attention to Cooperating. The Cooperating style differs from Compromising in its greater willingness to remain in uncertainty during the time it takes to explore issues and options with others. Ask yourself: Is it important to get a quick solution? If not, Cooperating may be a better strategy since it is more likely to bring solutions that are creative and thorough.
• Consider sustainability of solutions. Does the compromise agreement address the real issues? Will key people support it? How will it feel a year from now?
• Consider values. Weigh whether compromise agreements are compatible with values you care about.

Support Strategies for Compromisers.  The most difficult conflicts often come with those close to us, our partners and colleagues. The support strategies below are for partners who want to help you function at your best.  Given your preference for Compromising as a conflict style, others should consider using these strategies with you when differences arise:

• Convey commitment to being fair, realistic, practical, moderate, reasonable. These matter to those who prefer the Compromising style. They respond well when others bring these values into a conversation.
• Offer to back off from your own position. This is a familiar and respected move to the Compromiser, who will often reciprocate.
• Use a two-step approach. With a Compromiser, this means: 1) Describe honestly to the Compromiser what your first-choice solution would be; 2) Then indicate your openness to considering something mid-way between your first choice and the Compromiser's first choice.
• Wrap it up and move on. Compromisers have a practical orientation. Don't drag the discussion on and on. Tell the Compromiser what you want, find a middle point both of you can live with, and then get on with things. This is especially important to remember if you prefer Cooperating and probably have more tolerance for long discussion than the Compromiser.
  

  ---

 You Scored High in Cooperating in Storm 

This suggests that when things get tense you try to create a discussion in which both sides openly present their views and then search together for solutions that fully address needs of both.  More than any other style, Cooperating is useful in bringing positive outcomes in conflict.   But it also has critical limitations you should be aware of.

Cooperating has Valuable Uses.  Strengths associated with wise use of this style include:

• Confidence and optimism. People who favor Cooperating have unusual confidence in working things out together. Their hopefulness can be a gift to others.
• Leads to strong teams. Cooperating is committed to both task and relationship. Partners and teams who use it well become strong unit.  The work gets done in a thorough way and the people involved enjoy good relationships.
• Innovation and creativity. Solutions that nobody had thought of before often emerge in the interactive, respectful probing typical of this style.
• Skill at talking things through. It's impossible to use Cooperating well without strong skills for talking things through. Though not always aware they have them, people good at Cooperating often possess these skills, learned from the modeling of parents or teachers, by trial and error, or training in conflict resolution or communication.
• Endurance. People who score high in Cooperating often have unusual stamina for talking things through. They know it takes time to find solutions that work well for everyone and they exercise patience in hearing out those they disagree with. They have confidence to present their own views and courage to keep talking even when others disagree. Their example can help others not to lose hope of finding peace in the midst of big differences.
• Personal growth. Since they engage deeply, people who use Cooperating a lot are constantly exposed to new ideas and perspectives. They learn and grow from these and develop confidence in themselves. 
• Trust between people. When teams or groups use Cooperating successfully, confidence in each other grows. The shared feeling is: We know how to work through our issues.

But Don't Over-Use It.  Though it has wonderful strengths, Cooperating has limits. Overuse of this valuable conflict style can bring:

• Failure to defend people or principles that require protection.   Sometimes it's important not to work together, but instead to confront wrong.
• Failure to get other important things done.   Cooperating takes time and energy.  Not all conflicts merit the investment it requires. Applied to many trivial issues, Cooperating backfires, as people weary of "too much processing".
• Discouragement, low morale, sense of failure, exhaustion, or burnout, if attempted without realistic awareness of the costs.  No matter how good the intention or skill, intense problem-solving with others requires time, attention, and energy. You may run low on the personal resources for the intense conversations required.  Sometimes it is necessary to protect your core mission by limiting your use of Cooperation.
• Increased conflict and misunderstanding, if used without consideration of status. This style involves being "up front" about what you want. A junior secretary should be cautious about using it with the company CEO. A CEO should not assume others will feel free to use it with him or her. Cooperating requires trust and a track record, especially when power and status are unequal.
• A bad name for conflict resolution, dialogue, or peace processes. If Cooperating is pursued too long with an opponent who takes an unyielding Directing or Avoiding stance or with people who don't have the time and skills required, it may create "evidence" that talk and problem-solving don't work. Yes, a patient Cooperating approach often brings forth a Cooperating response in others, but it does not always do so. If you persist anyway and hold out unrealistic expectations, you and others may lose confidence in Cooperating as a useful response to any conflict. Over-using Cooperating may thus damage the cause of peace.

Steps You Can Take to Maintain Balance with Cooperating.  You can take special measures so you experience the benefits of wise use of Cooperating and avoid the costs of overuse:

• Expand your skills in use of other styles so you are less likely to over-use Cooperating.
• Choose your battles. Think carefully about which issues, relationships, and situations deserve the time and effort required for Cooperating. If you use it too often you'll run out of time and energy for people and causes you truly care about and you could even be in danger of burnout.
• Consider dynamics of status and power. To the extent inequality is present, use a two-step approach. If you are a higher status person in a given conflict, begin with affirmation or appreciation of the other person. As a lower status person, thank or otherwise acknowledge your senior for being willing to meet to resolve things. Only after these preliminaries should you move to the open discussion typical of Cooperating.
• Pay careful attention to timing and readiness. Recognize when the skills and attitudes required for Cooperating are present, and when they are not. Then choose your response style appropriately. Sometimes it is better to use a different strategy for a while until you or others are ready for Cooperating.
• Do good process design. If the conflict involves numerous people, plan the process together. Usually it it not hard to agree on with whom, where, when, in what sequence things will be discussed. This "agreement on the process" will ease the discussion.
• Monitor the length and intensity of discussion. People who favor Cooperating tend to have more energy for intense discussion than others (with the exception of Directors, who may equal Cooperators in this). Monitor your volume and intensity; offers breaks during long exchanges; arrange discussion across several rounds.