The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument developed by Thomas and Kilmann in the 1970s categorises the main responses individuals show in times of conflict.
Assertiveness measures the degree to which an individual seeks to satisfy their own concerns, goals, or interests. At one end of the spectrum, high assertiveness reflects a focus on advocating for one’s own needs and preferences without considering those of others. Conversely, low assertiveness signifies a willingness to prioritise the concerns of others over one’s own.
Cooperativeness assesses the extent to which an individual seeks to satisfy the concerns, goals, or interests of others. High cooperativeness indicates a willingness to accommodate or collaborate with others, valuing their perspectives and striving for mutually beneficial solutions. On the other hand, low cooperativeness reflects a tendency to prioritise one’s own concerns at the expense of others.
The intersection of these two axes forms a grid that divides conflict-handling styles into five distinct modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.
High assertiveness and low cooperativeness characterise the competing mode, where individuals assert their own concerns aggressively, often at the expense of others’ needs. Picture a scenario where two team members have differing opinions on how to approach a critical project task. A project manager employing the competing mode might assert their authority and impose their preferred approach without considering alternative viewpoints. While this approach may lead to quick decision-making, it can also breed resentment and hinder collaboration within the team.
On the opposite end of the spectrum lies collaborating, a mode marked by both high assertiveness and high cooperativeness. Individuals actively seek to address the concerns of all parties involved, striving for win-win solutions through open dialogue and joint problem-solving. Project managers who adopt this mode actively engage team members in open dialogue, encouraging brainstorming and consensus-building. By leveraging the diverse expertise and perspectives within the team, collaborative conflict resolution fosters innovation and strengthens relationships.
Moderate levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness signify the compromising mode, where individuals seek to find middle ground by making concessions while also asserting their own needs to some extent. Compromising can be likened to a negotiation where both parties agree to meet halfway, thereby reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. For project managers, compromising can be an effective strategy in situations where time is of the essence or when maintaining relationships is paramount. For instance, if conflicting deadlines threaten project progress, a project manager might negotiate with stakeholders to adjust timelines or reallocate resources in a manner that satisfies all parties involved.
Low assertiveness and low cooperativeness represent the avoiding mode, where individuals sidestep or delay addressing conflicts altogether, often out of a desire to maintain harmony or avoid confrontation. In project management, avoiding conflicts can lead to unresolved tensions simmering beneath the surface, potentially erupting into more significant problems down the line. Therefore, while occasional avoidance may be necessary to prioritise urgent tasks, project managers must recognise the importance of addressing conflicts proactively to prevent escalation.
Low assertiveness and high cooperativeness characterise the accommodating mode, where individuals prioritise the concerns of others over their own, seeking to maintain relationships and defuse tensions. Accommodation can be a valuable strategy for maintaining relationships and defusing tensions, particularly when the issue at hand is of low importance or when preserving harmony within the team is paramount. However, overreliance on accommodation can lead to individuals feeling exploited or marginalised, potentially eroding trust and morale within the team.
By recognising the five conflict-handling modes, project managers can tailor their approach to conflict resolution based on the specific circumstances of each situation. For instance, when faced with a high-stakes decision that requires swift action, a project manager may opt for a competing or compromising approach to ensure timely resolution. Conversely, in situations where fostering collaboration and consensus is essential for long-term project success, a collaborative approach may be more appropriate.
Moreover, the TKI serves as a tool for promoting self-awareness and fostering effective communication within project teams. By encouraging individuals to reflect on their own conflict resolution tendencies and understand those of their colleagues, the TKI facilitates open dialogue and mutual understanding. This, in turn, enhances team cohesion and performance, ultimately driving project success.
Action Point
Having read the Hot Topic, think about a time when you have seen any of the approaches used to manage conflict within your team or project.
