Conflicts are a part of daily life, from minor disagreements to complex issues that seem to lack clear solutions. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is one of the most well-known models for understanding different conflict styles and finding effective ways to manage disputes. This model, created by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, categorizes conflict styles into five types based on assertiveness (pursuing one’s own needs) and cooperativeness (considering others’ needs). Understanding these styles can help individuals recognize and adapt their approach to conflict to achieve better outcomes. Let’s explore each of these conflict-handling styles and when they can be most effectively used.
1. Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperativeness)
In the competing style, individuals prioritize their own goals and needs over others, often seeking to "win" the conflict. This approach is assertive and can be very effective when quick, decisive action is needed, or when a person’s beliefs or values are strongly challenged. However, it may come across as aggressive, especially if others feel ignored or undervalued.
Best situations for Competing:
When quick, decisive action is required (e.g., emergencies)
When the outcome is critically important and you are confident in your position
In situations where compromise isn’t possible or acceptable
Pitfalls to watch for:
May strain relationships if used too frequently
Can create resentment if others feel their perspectives aren’t valued
2. Avoiding (low assertiveness, low cooperativeness)
Avoiding is the act of sidestepping a conflict altogether. This may mean ignoring the issue, deflecting it, or simply not engaging. While often seen as a passive approach, avoiding can sometimes be the best choice, especially when the conflict is trivial or when emotions are running too high for productive engagement.
Best situations for Avoiding:
When the issue is minor or will likely resolve itself
When emotions need time to cool down before addressing the issue
When more information is needed before a decision can be made
Pitfalls to watch for:
May lead to unresolved issues building up over time
Others may perceive avoidance as indifference or lack of commitment
3. Compromising (moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness)
Compromising is a middle-ground approach where each party gives up something to reach a mutually acceptable solution. This style allows conflicts to be resolved fairly quickly and with limited damage to relationships. While it may not lead to an ideal solution for either party, compromising can help maintain harmony and keep projects or relationships moving forward.
Best situations for Compromising:
When time constraints limit the depth of collaboration
When both parties’ goals are moderately important
In situations where temporary or quick solutions are needed
Pitfalls to watch for:
May lead to suboptimal solutions, as neither party’s needs are fully met
Could foster a “tit-for-tat” mentality, where each side is too focused on fairness
4. Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperativeness)
In accommodating, one party puts aside their own needs to meet the needs of others. This can be helpful in preserving relationships, showing goodwill, or in situations where the issue is more important to the other party. However, if used excessively, accommodating can lead to resentment or being taken advantage of, as one’s own needs consistently go unmet.
Best situations for Accommodating:
When maintaining harmony or goodwill is more important than winning
When the issue is more important to the other person than to you
When you realize you are in the wrong or have made a mistake
Pitfalls to watch for:
Can lead to feelings of resentment if overused
May prevent one from developing confidence in asserting their needs
5. Collaborating (high assertiveness, high cooperativeness)
The collaborating style seeks to find a win-win solution by addressing the needs and concerns of all involved parties. This style requires open communication, active listening, and a willingness to dig deep into the conflict to find a solution that satisfies everyone. Though it’s often seen as the most constructive approach, collaborating requires time, trust, and energy, so it may not always be practical.
Best situations for Collaborating:
When the relationship is as important as the outcome
When multiple perspectives are needed to create a robust solution
When issues are complex, and a compromise may not fully address everyone’s needs
Pitfalls to watch for:
Time-consuming and may delay decisions in fast-paced environments
Requires high trust, which may not always be present in high-stress situations
Choosing the right conflict style
Each of these five styles has its own strengths and limitations. The key to effective conflict management is recognizing which style fits the situation best and being adaptable enough to switch styles as needed. For example, while collaboration might yield the best results in a strategic planning meeting, competing could be necessary in a crisis requiring immediate action. The Thomas-Kilmann model helps us become more intentional and thoughtful in our approach to conflict, ultimately fostering healthier interactions and more sustainable solutions.
So next time you face a conflict, consider: What style will best serve both the situation and the relationship? If you get stuck, don't hesitate to reach on via coaching@debbiebaute.com