2.2 Approaches to Conflict

Approaches to Conflict

Every individual or group manages conflict differently. In the 1970s, consultants Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann developed a tool for analyzing the approaches to conflict resolution. This tool is called the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) (Kilmann Diagnostics, n.d.).

Thomas and Kilmann suggest that in a conflict situation, a person’s behaviour can be assessed on two factors:

1. Commitment to goals or assertiveness—the extent to which an individual (or a group) attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns or goals. A person may behaviour in behaviour that is not assertive or is highly assertive.
2. Commitment to relationships or cooperation—the extent to which an individual (or a group) attempts to satisfy the concerns of the other party, and the importance of the relationship with the other party. A person may behave in a may that is uncooperative or highly cooperative.

Thomas and Kilmann use these factors to explain the five different approaches to dealing with conflict: avoiding, competing, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. These approaches are pictured in Figure 2.3 below.

Let’s take a closer look at each approach and when to use it.

Avoidance

An avoidance approach to conflict demonstrates a low commitment to both goals and relationships. This is the most common method of dealing with conflict, especially by people who view conflict negatively.

Table 2.2 Avoiding

Competing

A competing approach to conflict demonstrates a high commitment to goals and a low commitment to relationships. Individuals who use the competing approach pursue their own goals at the other party’s expense. People taking this approach will use whatever power is necessary to win. It may display as defending a position, interest, or value that you believe to be correct. Competing approaches are often supported by structures (courts, legislatures, sales quotas, etc.) and can be initiated by the actions of one party. Competition may be appropriate or inappropriate (as defined by the expectations of the relationship).

Table 2.3 Competing

Accommodating

Accommodating demonstrates a low commitment to goals and high commitment to relationship. This approach is the opposite of competing. It occurs when a person ignores or overrides their own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other party. An accommodating approach is used to establish reciprocal adaptations or adjustments. This could be a hopeful outcome for those who take an accommodating approach, but when the other party does not reciprocate, conflict can result. Others may view those who use the accommodating approach heavily as “that is the way they are” and don’t need anything in return. Accommodators typically will not ask for anything in return. Accommodators tend to get resentful when a reciprocal relationship isn’t established. Once resentment grows, people who rely on the accommodating approach often shift to a competing approach because they are tired of being “used.” This leads to confusion and conflict.

Table 2.4 Accommodating

Compromising

A compromising approach strikes a balance between a commitment to goals and a commitment to relationships. The objective of a compromising approach is a quick solution that will work for both parties. Usually it involves both parties giving up something and meeting in the middle. Compromising is often used in labour negotiations, as typically there are multiple issues to resolve in a short period of time.

Table 2.5  Compromising

Collaborating

Collaborating is an approach that demonstrates a high commitment to goals and also a high commitment to relationships. This approach is used in an attempt to meet concerns of all parties. Trust and willingness for risk is required for this approach to be effective.

Table 2.6 Collaborating

Consider This: Communicating in Conflict

Consider the Other Person’s Conflict Approach

There are times when others may take a conflict approach that is not helpful to the situation. However, the only person that you can control in a conflict is yourself. It is important to be flexible and shift your approach according to the situation and the other people with whom you are working. When someone else is taking an approach that is not beneficial to the situation, it is critical to understand what needs underlie the decision to take that approach. Here are a few examples:

• Avoiders may need to feel physically and emotionally safe. When dealing with avoiders, try taking the time to assure them that they are going to be heard and listened to.
• Competitors may need to feel that something will be accomplished in order to meet their goals. When dealing with competitors, say for example, “We will work out a solution; it may take some time for us to get there.”
• Compromisers may need to know that they will get something later. When dealing with compromisers, say for example, “We will go to this movie tonight, and next week you can pick.” (Be true to your word.)
• Accommodators may need to know that no matter what happens during the conversation, your relationship will remain intact. When dealing with accommodators, say for example, “This will not affect our relationship or how we work together.”
• Collaborators may need to know what you want before they are comfortable sharing their needs. When dealing with collaborators, say for example, “I need this, this, and this. . . . What do you need?”

Which Approach to Conflict is Best?

While the collaborating approach is often idealized, we can recognize that it isn’t always possible given the circumstance or other parties involved. In this way, one approach is not necessarily better than another and all approaches can be learned and utilized. While most people will use different methods in various circumstances, we all tend to have a more dominant approach that feels most comfortable. To most effectively deal with conflict, it is important to have the ability to analyze the situation and make a conscious decision about which approach is most appropriate.