ByOnlinecourses55
The 5 management styles according to the thomas-kilmann model - conflicts work
In our previous post, we explored the root causes of conflict in the workplace. Now that we know how to identify where it comes from, the next step is to understand how we react to it. Do you rush into battle to defend your position at all costs? Do you prefer to avoid confrontation in the hope that it will go away? Or perhaps, do you tirelessly search for a solution that satisfies everyone? Everyone has an instinctive approach to handling disagreement. The problem is that our instinct isn't always the best strategy. This is where the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) comes in, a powerful model that provides us with a map to navigate these complex situations. The TKI doesn't label people as "good" or "bad" at conflict management; instead, it describes five distinct styles, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Understanding these five modes is like learning a new language: it allows you not only to understand your own behavior, but also to decipher the actions of others and, most importantly, to consciously choose the most effective approach for each specific situation. Join us on this journey to discover your dominant style and learn how to flex your approach to become a master of conflict resolution.
Developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the 1970s, the TKI model is based on two fundamental dimensions of behavior in a conflict: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness refers to the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy their own concerns and interests. It is the "I" axis. On the other hand, cooperativeness refers to the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy the concerns and interests of the other party. It is the "we" axis. The interaction of these two dimensions gives rise to five conflict management styles or modes: Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperation), Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperation), Evading (low assertiveness, low cooperation), Collaborating (high assertiveness, high cooperation), and Conciliating (moderate assertiveness and cooperation). It is crucial to understand that none of these styles is intrinsically superior to the others. Their effectiveness depends entirely on the context. For example, competing may be vital in a crisis situation where a quick and firm decision is needed, but it would be disastrous in a long-term negotiation with a key partner. Similarly, evading a trivial conflict over the type of coffee in the office may be a wise decision to conserve energy, but evading a problem of workplace bullying would be grossly negligent. Self-awareness is the first step. By conducting an honest self-assessment or even a formal TKI test, you can identify your "default mode"—the one you resort to under pressure. Once you know your starting point, you can begin consciously working on developing the flexibility to adopt the other four styles when the situation calls for it.
The competitive style is characterized by high assertiveness and low cooperation. People who adopt this mode view conflict as a contest that must be won. Their primary goal is to get their way, and to do so, they will use every resource at their disposal: their authority, their argumentative skills, and even their powers of persuasion. The competitor's motto is "My way or the highway." This style can be extremely useful in certain situations. For example, in an emergency where there is no time for debate, a leader must make a quick, directive decision. It is also appropriate when unpopular but necessary policies must be implemented for the well-being of the organization, or when defending a position they know is correct in the face of unethical opposition. However, overuse of the competitive style is highly toxic to team morale. When used in everyday conflicts, it creates an environment of fear and resentment. Team members stop contributing ideas for fear of being "defeated" in the discussion. It fosters a culture of "winners" and "losers," destroying collaboration and trust. In the long term, leaders who abuse this style surround themselves with submissive people and lose the talent of those who value a more collaborative environment. For those who identify with this style, the main challenge is learning to listen and value the perspectives of others, recognizing that giving in on a point is not a sign of weakness, but rather an investment in the relationship and the common goal.
At the opposite extreme of the competitor is the pleaser. This style is defined by low assertiveness and high cooperation. The pleaser's primary concern is preserving the relationship and maintaining harmony, even at the cost of their own needs and interests. Your motto might be: "Whatever you want is fine by me." This approach is valuable when the issue in dispute is much more important to the other person than it is to you, or when you realize you're wrong and wish to show reasonableness. Conceding on a minor point to gain social credit or to allow the team to move forward can be a smart strategy. It's also useful for de-escalating a volatile situation and allowing time for tempers to cool. However, like the competitive style, its indiscriminate use is detrimental. People who constantly resort to accommodating may be perceived as weak or indecisive. They build up internal resentment from feeling their own needs are never met, which can lead to a long-term explosion of frustration. In a team, an overly accommodating leader may be unable to set a clear direction or defend their team against unreasonable external demands. The challenge for people with an accommodating tendency is to develop their assertiveness. They must learn to express their own needs constructively and understand that healthy disagreement doesn't have to destroy a relationship; in fact, it can often strengthen it.
Often considered the "holy grail" of conflict resolution, the Collaborator style is characterized by high assertiveness and high cooperation. The Collaborator views conflict neither as a battle to be won nor as a threat to be avoided, but as a problem to be solved together. The goal is not to find a halfway compromise, but to invest time and energy into finding a creative solution that fully meets the needs of both parties. The Collaborator's motto is: "Two heads are better than one." This approach is ideal for complex situations where both parties' perspectives are important and an integrated solution is needed. It's perfect for fostering innovation, improving long-term relationships, and ensuring a high level of commitment to the final solution, as everyone has participated in its creation. However, collaboration comes at a significant cost: time. It requires a high degree of trust between the parties and considerable effort to thoroughly analyze each other's underlying interests. Attempting to collaborate on a trivial matter can be a monumental waste of time and energy. It's also not viable in situations where a quick decision is required or where there is no foundation of trust and mutual respect. For those who aspire to be more collaborative, the key skill to develop is the ability to separate people from the problem and transform positions ("what I want") into interests ("why I want it"), seeking creative solutions that address those core interests.
