 So, now that you've taken the conflict styles assessment, I'd like to talk a little bit about what these different styles mean. And so, for those of you who haven't thought about math in a couple of decades, I'm going to invite you to take a look at this graph in which we've plotted the five styles. On the horizontal axis, we have relationships. On the vertical axis, we have outcome, okay? So, when we're thinking about what these five styles mean and when to use each style, we want to be thinking about the importance of the relationship we have with the person with whom we're in conflict. And we want to be thinking about how important is the issue and the results of this conflict. The styles are plotted in different areas. In the upper left corner, we have competing. So, basically, this means that somebody who takes a competing approach in a given situation is very interested in the result, the outcome of the conflict, and is less interested in the relationship. And maintaining the relationship. If we go down and look at where relationship and outcome come together in the axes, we have avoiding. And so, if we look at what that means on this graph, somebody who chooses to avoid a conflict in a particular moment is less concerned about the relationship and also less concerned about the outcome. Okay, so both the relationship and the outcome or the result of the conflict are not important enough to engage in a conversation about it, about the conflict. On the bottom right of the graph, we have accommodating. An accommodator based on this graph is somebody who is more interested in the nature of the relationship and maintaining a good relationship with the person with whom they're in conflict than they are in the outcome of the conflict. So, an accommodator is somebody who is willing to give something to someone else in order to maintain the relationship. The relationship has more importance than the issue. A compromiser is somebody who wants to maintain the relationship, but also is interested in the outcome, okay? So they're in the middle because they're trying to find that balance between getting an outcome that is meaningful to them and maintaining the relationship. The last style is problem solving. We see that in the upper right corner of the graph. Problem solvers tend to look for the best of everything. So a problem solver or somebody who takes a problem solving approach to a conflict is somebody who is very strongly invested in that relationship and very strongly invested in that issue and the outcome of that conflict. So the problem solver is going to put maximum effort into maintaining the relationship and getting the outcome that they want. The idea here is that all conflict styles have value. There isn't one conflict style or negotiation style that's better than the other. They all have their place. They all have their advantages and they all have their limitations. Sometimes you find that it's better to avoid a conflict when you don't have any leverage, when you don't have any power or influence in a situation. Maybe the best thing to do is to wait a little bit until you can gain some allies or some leverage and then come back to the situation with a different approach. Sometimes problem solving might be the best approach but you don't have time for problem solving because problem solving takes a long time. Sometimes you have to make an immediate decision when you're faced with a conflict and so the competing approach is the most practical and makes the most sense. So each style has its benefits. Each style has its limitations. What's important here is to think through what your tendency is. What is your natural inclination with conflict? You see that your inclination is toward one particular style. What you want to be thinking about is how do I look at a situation and reflect on what is the best approach for that particular situation? What style is going to get me what I want in that situation?