Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
2.2 The Lesson: The Thomas – Kilmann Approach to Conflict
Dealing with Conflict—Different Approaches
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) (Thomas & Kilmann, 2017).
Thomas and Kilmann suggest that in a conflict situation, a person’s behaviour can be assessed on two factors:
Commitment to goals or assertiveness—the extent to which an individual (or a group) attempts to satisfy his or her concerns or goals.
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.
Thomas and Kilmann use these factors to explain the five different approaches to dealing with conflict: avoiding, competing, accommodating, compromising and collaborating.
Figure 2.2.1 Approaches to Conflict Resolution. Adapted from Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management, In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational behaviour (p. 900). Wiley. Reproduced from Rice University & OpenStax, Organizational Behavior, CC BY 4.0. Colour altered from original. [Click to enlarge].
There is an appropriate time to use each approach in dealing with conflict. While most people will use different methods in various circumstances, we all tend to have a more dominant approach that feels most comfortable. One approach is not necessarily better than another, and all approaches can be learned and utilized. To most effectively deal with conflict, it is important to analyze the situation and determine which approach is most appropriate. Let’s take a closer look at each approach and when to use it.
Avoiding
An avoidance approach 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 2.2.1 Avoiding
Types of Avoidance
Results
Appropriate When
Physical flight.
Mental withdrawal.
Changing the subject.
Blaming or minimizing.
Denial that the problem exists.
Postponement to a more appropriate time (which may never occur).
Use of emotions (tears, anger, etc.).
The dispute is not resolved.
Disputes often build up and eventually explode.
Low satisfaction results in complaining, discontentment, and talking back.
Stress spreads to other parties (e.g., co-workers, family).
The issue is trivial or unimportant, or another issue is more pressing.
Potential damage outweighs potential benefits.
Timing for dealing with the conflict is inappropriate (because of overwhelming emotions or lack of information).
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).
Accommodating demonstrates a low commitment to goals and a high commitment to relationships. 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 2.2.3 Accommodating
Types of
Accommodating
Results
Appropriate When
Playing down the conflict to maintain surface harmony.
Self-sacrifice.
Yielding to the other point of view.
Builds relationships that will allow you to be more effective in future problem-solving
Increases the chances that the other party may be more accommodating to your needs in the future.
Does not improve communication.
You are flexible on the outcome, or when the issue is more important to the other party.
Preserving harmony is more important than the outcome.
It’s necessary to build up good faith for future problem-solving.
You are wrong or in a situation where competition could damage your position.
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 2.2.4 Compromising
Types of
Compromising
Results
Appropriate When
Splitting the difference.
Exchanging concessions.
Finding middle ground.
Both parties may feel they lost the battle and feel the need to get even next time.
No relationship is established, although it should also not cause the relationship to deteriorate.
Danger of stalemate.
Does not explore the issue in any depth.
Time pressures require quick solutions.
Collaboration or competition fails.
Short-term solutions are needed until more information can be obtained.
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 the concerns of all parties. Trust and willingness for risk is required for this approach to be effective.
Table 2.2.5 Collaborating
Type of
Collaborating
Results
Appropriate When
Maximizing the use of fixed resources.
Working to increase resources.
Listening and communicating to promote understanding of interests and values.
Learning from each other’s insight.
Builds relationships and improves potential for future problem-solving
Promotes creative solutions.
Parties are committed to the process and adequate time is available.
The issue is too important to compromise.
New insights can be beneficial in achieving creative solutions.
There is a desire to work through hard feelings that have been a deterrent to problem-solving.
There are diverse interests and issues at play.
Participants can be future-focused.
What Does Each Approach Need?
There are times when others may take an 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?
All approaches to conflict can be appropriate at some times, and there are times when they can be overused. It is important to take the time to consider which approach would be most beneficial to the situation in question. Taking the wrong approach can escalate conflict, damage relationships, and reduce your ability to effectively meet goals. The right approach will build trust in relationships, accomplish goals, and de-escalate conflict.
Everyone has the capacity to use each approach to conflict and to shift from his or her natural style as needed. We react with our most dominant style when we are under stress, but other styles can be learned and applied with practice and self-awareness. When dealing with others who may not have developed their capacity to shift from their preferred style of conflict, it is important to listen for their underlying needs. By understanding the needs that exist beneath the surface of the conflict, you can work with the other person toward a common goal.
