Which scenario best describes the accommodating strategy?

• A. In a conflict where both sides have equal power and strong opposition.
• B. In a horizontal conflict with shared goals.
• C. In a vertical conflict with power differential, where one party has a vested interest in a solution that is less important to the other.
• D. In a deadlock where neither party is willing to move.

Answer: (C)

Accommodating is about yielding to the other party’s preferences to preserve the relationship or move things forward when the issue isn’t worth a fight for the yielding person. In a vertical conflict where power is not equal, the party with more power has greater ability to push a solution, while the less powerful party may concede because the issue matters less to them or because maintaining the relationship is important. That dynamic—one side with a strong stake in the solution and the other side with less stake and less power—best fits the accommodating approach, since the yielding party is prioritizing harmony and progress over getting their own way.

If power were equal and both were strongly opposed, you’d see a more assertive or competitive posture. If the conflict were between peers with shared goals, cooperation or collaboration would be more likely. If no one will move and you’re stuck in a deadlock, that’s stalemate or avoidance, not accommodation.