60 TD | April 2015
HUMAN CAPITAL
Resolve workplace
conflict by using one
of five approaches
that is appropriate
to the situation.
trouble
IS
brewing
PHOTO: GETTY
April 2015 | TD 61
W hen trouble arises, it’s natural to wonder whether certain employees are prone to conflict. After all, some people just seem
to be more combative by nature. However, the reality
is that all human beings engage in conflict; we just do
it in different ways. A better question may be, “How is
each employee prone to handle conflict?”
According to the conflict mode model developed
by Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (the basis for
the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, or
TKI), people approach conflict through one of five
modes, each of which represents different degrees
of assertiveness and cooperativeness:
• competing: assertive and uncooperative
• collaborating: assertive and cooperative
• compromising: straddles the line between
assertiveness and cooperativeness
• accommodating: unassertive and cooperative
• avoiding: unassertive and uncooperative.
BY PAMELA VALENCIA
podcast
62 TD | April 2015
Nearly every form of human conflict can be
understood through one of these modes, each
of which has its benefits and challenges. While
the competing mode is most visible, conflicts
are constantly brewing around us, often in less
obvious ways, through the other four modes.
Unless everyone you work with thinks
in lock-step—and human beings rarely do—
chances are there is some form of conflict
taking place in your organization right now. If,
for example, one or more parties is operating
in avoiding or accommodating mode, a conflict
may not even be apparent. Yet, in the long term,
it may be more destructive than one that’s out
in the open because it is less likely to be addressed. So for companies, the route to conflict
resolution is less about identifying the “troublemakers” than it is about discovering how team
members individually approach conflict.
Qualifying what we intuitively
observe about conflict
We all observe these modes in action in our
everyday lives. Some people come across as
crushingly aggressive, some as pushovers, and
others as disinterested and disengaged in how
they handle conflict. The Thomas-Kilmann
model provides a way to categorize and qualify
this common experience.
Within a given environment, such as the
workplace, each of us tends to gravitate toward one or two modes of conflict handling.
Each person develops her preferred or default
conflict style based on culture, family, organizations we belong to, and our own aptitudes,
skills, and comfort zones.
Although our preferred style may serve us
well in some situations, to be truly effective as
human beings we need to learn how to operate
in multiple modes. Anyone can develop skills in
all these dimensions after they understand the
purpose of each mode, and recognize that it’s
OK to use the mode in that particular situation.
In helping people understand how they
tend to handle conflict and open their minds
to the wider range of options available, it is
helpful to begin by discussing the roots of how
we develop our preferred conflict management style. Culture and family, for example,
play a substantial role. Think about how, as a
child growing up, you were allowed to handle
conflict with siblings, parents, and peers. Were
you respected when you stood up for yourself
or was this discouraged? All these experiences
shape our perspectives regarding what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Sondra Vansant, author of Wired for Conflict,
asserts that our innate personality preferences
also play a role in how we manage conflict. For
example, if you tend to make decisions based
on how you think they’ll affect people (“feeling,” as identified by the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator instrument), you may be more prone
April 2015 | TD 63
to handling conflict by accommodating. Alternately, if you tend to make decisions based
on facts and logic (“thinking,” as identified by
the MBTI instrument), you are more likely to
choose competing to address conflict.
Furthermore, personality type influences
what motivates us to operate in a certain mode.
If your decisions are largely values-based, as is
often the case with intuitive, feeling types, you
may become quite assertive if you feel those
values are challenged. For example, if someone
with a core value of standing up for others perceives a colleague is being treated unfairly, he
may address the conflict in a passionately competitive manner—even if he is typically more
cooperative and unassertive in his dealings.
Mix up the styles
All modes have positive aspects, but the challenge is being able to use that style only when
it’s appropriate, and not overusing any single
style. For example, while a team with members
mostly operating in avoiding mode may yield a
more immediately placid work setting, this ongoing behavior can lead to decisions not being
made, which in turn may lead to work not being done (or the wrong work being done).
All of this may ultimately have a tremendously negative impact on the environment
and organization, albeit in a more subtle way
than you might experience with assertive conflict modes.
On the other hand, if a team functions too
much in competing mode, chances are its
members aren’t listening to one another, and
consequently not imparting and receiving accurate information. This can lead to gridlock
and a host of interpersonal “fires” that you
must then address.
If a leader operates only in competing
mode, she is likely surrounded by people who
acquiesce to her demands, not because they
really agree but because they feel forced into
accommodating mode. In the Star Wars films,
Darth Vader has a tendency to kill any member
of his organization who disagrees with him.
This fantastical example is of course extreme,
but we all have observed situations where subordinates agree with their leader in public, and
then privately discuss how foolish they really
think the decision is—they’re afraid of repercussions if they speak up.
This ultra-assertive, uncooperative conflict management style doesn’t lead to a tightly
run ship, but rather to an organization running blindly. No one tells the leader anything
other than what she wants to hear, making it
practically impossible to make sound decisions
based on accurate information.
In today’s business world, collaboration has
become the queen bee of buzzwords. However,
when it comes to conflict management, it’s a
mistake to assume that collaboration, or compromise, for that matter, are always preferable.
After all, everyone on the team is not always
equally right, and a solution that is arrived at
by two parties meeting each other halfway is
not always the best.
If someone on your team feels passionately about a particular issue, and has put a
tremendous amount of effort into understanding it and developing an answer, it might be
a mistake to encourage that individual to always concede a portion of his vision simply to
appease another team member. This may be
particularly true if it is apparent that the dissenting team member is not as informed or
invested, or if you think that he is operating
in competing mode out of habit.
Expanding your team’s conflict
management pallet
The key to a successfully functioning organization is to train your team members to be
conscious of their own preferred conflict handling styles, and be aware that they can and
should learn to operate in all five modes, and
pick the mode that’s right for the situation.
Avoiding. Use this mode when you decide that
the conflict has no value, and that you’re better off saving your time and energy for other
THE ROUTE TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION IS LESS
ABOUT IDENTIFYING THE “TROUBLEMAKERS”
THAN IT IS ABOUT DISCOVERING HOW TEAM
MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY APPROACH CONFLICT.
64 TD | April 2015
matters. Additionally, this can be a good temporary solution if you need more time to
gather facts, refocus, take a break, or simply
change the setting of the conflict. However,
be sure not to avoid people in your attempt to
avoid conflict—don’t be evasive.
Collaborating. When you believe the conflict
is worth investing the time and energy to more
deeply explore the issue, this may be the best
path. Collaborate effectively by picturing the
other’s concerns, clarifying and sharing your
own underlying concern, and helping the other
parties clarify their concerns as well. Avoid assigning blame or using “I” language, and try to
use the word and rather than but.
Accommodating. This may be the best course
of action when you place more value on satisfying another’s concerns than your own (you’d
rather build goodwill than risk the relationship), and when you believe you are yielding to
a better position, or recognize that you simply
can’t win
Be careful not to fall into a pattern of appeasement, or accept abuse. Be sure to
concede gracefully and use active listening.
Compromising. This mode is optimal when
you feel that the point of conflict is worth only
a modest strain on the relationship; you’re
willing to have some of your needs satisfied,
but don’t feel the need to get everything you
want out of it.
Compromise effectively by suggesting concessions without looking weak, and ensuring
that your concessions are reciprocated. Also,
insist on a criterion of fairness up front.
Competing. This may be the way to go when
you believe that your concerns trump the other’s concerns, and it is worth more sizable risk
in terms of the resistance you’ll encounter and
the damage to your relationship.
Be effective by explaining your motives, being respectful and listening, and sticking to
the specific issue, as well as avoiding making
threats. Finally, remember to be supportive of
others as they seek to carry out your position.
The beauty of the process is that the more
we know about these five conflict modes, the
more readily we recognize them when we see
them in action—both in ourselves, and in others.
I’ll never forget the moment these principles
were solidified for me, during a meeting in
which one person was dictating what needed to
be done, and another was saying “sure”—a classic competing/accommodating interaction.
After you become aware, you’ll start to see
the modes playing out everywhere, and you’ll
be empowered to practice identifying the optimum style for a given conflict and operating in
it—and to help your team start to do the same.
Pamela Valencia is an organizational development
consultant for CPP, the publisher of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator instrument, and works with Fortune 500 companies on various training programs; [email protected].
Copyright of TD: Talent Development is the property of Association for Talent Development
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.