Conflict Management Styles

The conflict MODE (TKI) instrument measures two different motives: the degree of concern for self and the degree of the concern for the other party (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). Assertiveness is the extent one attempts to satisfy their own needs, and cooperativeness is the extent one attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. These dual modes create a grid that provides five major personal conflict-management styles: Competing, Accommodating, Avoiding, Compromising, and Collaborating.

Competing

Competing occurs when there is high concern for the self and low concern for the other party. The TKI labels this style as assertive and uncooperative. When utilizing this conflict management style, the individual chooses to compete in an attempt to win; this is at the expense of the other party. A group member contending for the team leadership position against other members of the group is an example of the competing conflict management style.

Accommodating

Accommodating occurs when there is low concern for the self and high concern for the other party. The TKI labels this style as unassertive and cooperative. An individual who accommodates the needs of others sacrifices their own needs. A group member who agrees to take on more task responsibility because it would help the team is using this conflict management style.

Avoiding

Avoiding occurs when there is low concern for the self and low concern for the other party. The TKI labels this style as unassertive and uncooperative. This is a passive conflict management style in which the individual ignores or avoids the problem and essentially does not deal with the conflict. A group member who pretends not to notice the conflict between two other group members or withdraws from the situation is practicing the avoiding conflict management style.

Compromising

Compromising occurs when there is moderate concern for the self and moderate concern for the other party. The TKI labels this style as moderate in assertiveness and cooperativeness. This conflict management style is used when both parties are actively and expediently attempting to reach an agreement that is moderately satisfying for both. With compromise neither party fully gets what it wants, but both parties get some of it. An example of the compromising conflict management strategy would be agreeing to allow five minutes for questions when one group member wanted ten minutes, and another didn’t want any.

Collaborating

Collaborating occurs when there is both high concern for the self and for the other party. The TKI labels this style as assertive and cooperative. A desire for both parties to win lies at the heart of this conflict management style. For this strategy to be successful, both parties must actively work together to reach a solution that is mutually satisfactory. One group member wants to stream their team presentation via a live online platform; another prefers the dynamic engagement of a face-to-face presentation. If the two group members collaborate, they can do both a face-to-face presentation and a live online stream.

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), has become a popular assessment tool used by human resource professionals. These five core conflict management styles provide us with a framework for understanding how individuals manage conflict. Additionally, they aid in predicting how strategies used in conflict can impact conflict outcomes (Wall & Callister, 1995). For example, we know that when we compromise we give up something, and subsequently, we have a moderate amount of satisfaction. Likewise, when we compete, we go all in and the resulting outcome is either a satisfying victory or an unsatisfying loss.

Communication Climate and Emotions

As discussed in chapter three, the use of disconfirming or confirming behaviors yield defensive or supportive environments; and these in turn create a communication climate that either inhibits or promotes effective group performance. The communication climate impacts emotional responses which affect conflict management patterns. One’s perception of conflict determines the emotional reaction. If one perceives conflict as something that can be managed cooperatively, then the emotional reaction will be more positive than if one views conflict as competitive and contentious.

Conflict management patterns are linked to emotional reactions (Desivilya &Yagil, 2005). Cooperative modes of conflict management are associated with positive emotional experiences, whereas contentious patterns are linked to negative or adverse group emotional experiences. Negative emotions associated with conflict include frustration, jealousy, anger, and hatred (Pinkley, 1990). Negative emotionality has been linked with poor group performance and lower member satisfaction (Jehn, 1997).

The emotional element of conflict is what exacerbates the negative effects of conflict (Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Gayle & Preiss, 1998; Jehn et al., 2008). When there is high emotionality, group members lose sight of the task and instead focus on the negative dimensions, which results in defensiveness and blaming (Jehn, 1997). Negative emotions can be present with any of the conflict types, and the degree of emotion is what influences the effect of the conflict (Jehn, 1997). Negative emotions overrun reasoning and can cause group members to work less effectively because they are less likely to focus on the task. Additionally, strong negative emotions can wear down positive emotions. Highly emotional relational or interpersonal conflict gets in the way of group outcomes and has a negative effect on positive emergent states of trust, respect, and cohesion (Jehn et al., 2008).

One way to reduce negative emotions is by actively working to promote a positive and supportive communication climate in the group. By using confirming behaviors we can reduce defensiveness and negativity. For example, instead of speaking in evaluative and judgmental terms, we can promote a more positive environment by using descriptive language.