Introduction
Conflict is inevitable for anyone managing people in the workplace.
Whether it arises between coworkers, within a team, or among departments, conflict can be a significant barrier in organisations, preventing professionals from progressing and completing work effectively.
As an HR manager, learning how to navigate conflict whilst overseeing a team isn’t always straightforward.
Most HR managers realise how to respond to conflict, but don’t always understand why it arose in the first place.
Introducing the Thomas-Kilmann and Pondy conflict models to your management practise can help you identify why tension has arisen in your organisation and choose the most effective way to resolve it, before the problem escalates.
Read on to learn what each model is, how to apply it to your HR practice with real-world examples, and why tackling potential workplace conflict early strengthens effective management skills.
What is Pondy’s Five Stages of Conflict Model?
Pondy’s Five Stages of Conflict Model (also known as Pondy’s five-stage organisational conflict model) is a framework that explains the five stages through which workplace conflicts develop.
Addressing conflict at this level of detail supports evidence-based HR practice by helping you identify the root cause of the issue rather than just its symptoms.
The five stages of Pondy’s model, with real-world examples of how they could, or already might be, affecting your HR management practice, are outlined below:
Stage 1: Latent Conflict
Latent Conflict Explained: At this stage, conflict hasn’t surfaced yet. It’s a developing potential, brought on by fundamental tensions within or between organisations. This tension is commonly rooted in structural problems like ambiguous roles or pressure for resources.
Workplace Example of Latent Conflict (from an HR Manager’s Perspective):
An HR manager identifies two HR Advisors with overlapping job responsibilities following a recent business restructure, but this hasn’t been flagged as a problem yet.
Stage 2: Perceived Conflict
Perceived Conflict Explained: During this stage, multiple employees become aware of the conflict, which threatens the organisation’s culture. The tension is not a verified reality; it is only perceived.
Workplace Example of Perceived Conflict (from an HR Manager’s Perspective):
There’s still no complaint from either HR Advisor; however, the HR Manager begins to hear one of the Advisors make passing comments about the other, saying that they “always seem to get the more difficult cases.”
Stage 3: Felt Conflict
Felt Conflict Explained: Stress and anxieties around developing tensions start to materialise, even if a complaint hasn’t formally been addressed.
Workplace Examples of Felt Conflict:
The HR Manager starts to notice their team becoming quieter and less motivated, whilst the HR Advisor begins to feel undervalued within their team, leading them to volunteer less for projects and tasks with greater responsibility.
Stage 4: Manifest Conflict
Manifest Conflict Explained: The conflict is now visible, meaning either a formal complaint has been made or an act of confrontation or withdrawal has taken place within the organisation.
Workplace Examples of Manifest Conflict:
The Advisor raises a formal complaint about unequal case distribution and responsibilities, or a heated exchange unfolds between the two Advisors in public.
Stage 5: Conflict Aftermath
Conflict Aftermath Explained: This stage explains what happens after the conflict, whether it’s been resolved or not. Even if conflict has been resolved, it will have a lasting effect, often moulding the future of colleague relations and organisational trust.
Workplace Examples of Conflict Aftermath:
The HR Manager has two choices in this scenario, and each one will have a noticeable influence on their team. They can mediate and fairly redistribute cases among Advisors, reestablishing trust, or they can ignore the matter altogether, risking a disengaged, unmotivated team and eventually losing strong employees.
Why Catching and Understanding the Root of The Conflict Early Matters in HR Management
As an HR Manager leading a team of professionals, recognising potential sources of conflict early on can help ensure that workplace culture remains as healthy as possible and that high levels of employee satisfaction are maintained.
Conflict affects an organisation and its employees in many ways:
- Morale: If friction between coworkers is unresolved, teams feel neglected and therefore less eager to contribute.
- Retention: More often than not, employees leave jobs because of poor managers. Persistent interpersonal tension is one of the most damaging motivators for resignations.
- Productivity: Employee energy is redirected into navigating tension, rather than the work itself, which has a domino effect on collaboration between teams. People stop communicating, and work isn’t completed to acceptable standards.
- Trust: If a manager can’t handle or chooses to completely avoid the conflict in front of them, employee trust will suffer greatly, and trying to reinstate it after it has been broken is very difficult.
What Is the Thomas-Kilmann Model?
Whilst Pondy’s Five Stages Conflict Model is a diagnostic tool for understanding when and why conflict develops in the workplace, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (also known as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument) explains how to handle the conflict in-play.
The Thomas-Kilmann model suggests that there are 5 distinct styles for managing conflict, and they are based on 2 factors:
- Assertiveness: Someone’s concern for their own needs during a conflict.
- Cooperativeness: Someone’s concern for the needs of others during a conflict.
According to this framework, the 5 styles for handling conflict are:
- Competing: Situating one’s own needs ahead of others. This is hghly assertive, however, very uncooperative. The likely outcome is win-lose.
- Avoiding: Avoiding the conflict altogether. This style isn’t very assertive, but it’s also not very cooperative. The likely outcome is lose-lose.
- Accommodating: Sacrificing one’s own wants for those of the opposing group. Accommodating is low on the assertiveness scale, although highly cooperative. The likely outcome is a lose-win.
- Compromising: Meeting in the middle of a dispute. This is a moderately assertive style, with moderate cooperativeness. The likely outcome is a middle ground.
- Collaborating: Working together to find a resolution that works for everyone. This style is very high on the assertive scale and also very cooperative. The likely outcome is win-win.
It’s important to note that no single style mentioned in the Thomas-Kilmann model is the correct way to handle conflict; the right approach depends on the unfolding situation and the people involved.
One outcome or style may not necessarily benefit all scenarios, but may instead help resolve others.
Using the Thomas-Kilmann and Pondy conflict models in tandem is good practice for an HR Manager because together they can help you understand why the conflict developed and decide how to respond in its earliest stages.
For developing HR Managers, studying a CIPD Level 5 Associate Diploma in People Management helps build the diagnostic and response skills required for more formal conflict management, drawing on techniques suggested by Thomas-Kilmann and Pondy’s theories.
Using Both Models Together
One of the most effective ways HR Managers can handle workplace conflict is to combine the Thomas-Kilmann and Pondy conflict models and apply both to the situation at hand.
To help illustrate how both models can be used together, here are three scenario-based examples of how Pondy’s model can be used by HR Managers to diagnose the stage of conflict, along with the Thomas-Kilmann model to decide on an appropriate response.
Scenario 1:
Conflict Stage: Latent
Conflict Management Style: Compromising / Collaborating
Referring back to the HR Advisor example used in section 2, if an HR Manager identifies latent conflict early on, they’re opening up the easiest point to intervene, since nobody involved in the situation is emotionally invested yet.
Acting at the earliest possible opportunity and instigating a quick, collaborative conversation between the two Advisors to clarify their roles will prevent the issue ever reaching the Perceived stage.
Intervening at this point is also low-cost and low-risk, so the advised approach is to opt for Collaboration.
Scenario 2:
Conflict Stage: Felt
Conflict Management Style: Collaborating (not Avoiding)
In this scenario, the Advisor is visibly disengaged. They’re blatantly avoiding volunteering and going quiet in meetings, and as their HR Manager, it feels like there’s not much you can do to rectify the situation.
However, avoiding the conflict altogether could escalate the situation, despite being the most tempting response.
Instead, collaborating, sitting down, and acknowledging the tension whilst working out a fair resolution with the Advisor directly addresses the emotional layer and mitigates the tension dead-on.
Scenario 3:
Conflict Stage: Manifest
Conflict Management Style: Dependent on what’s manifesting
Sometimes Pondy’s stage doesn’t correspond to just one Thomas-Kilmann style; instead, it is sequential.
For example, when a conflict reaches the Manifest stage and materialises as a more formal grievance within the organisation, adopting a more structured and fair conflict style, such as compromising or collaborating (depending on the stakes at hand), might be the best course of action for an HR Manager.
In this case, the stakes are slightly higher, as both the relationship and the outcome matter equally.
If the conflict manifests as a heated public exchange, then opting for a brief, competing move and separating the professionals involved before it escalates would be an appropriate response.
Once emotions have subsided, the next step is to shift to a Collaborative style.
How HR Managers (and Aspiring CIPD Candidates) Can Apply The Thomas-Kilmann and Pondy Conflict Models
Pairing Pondy’s model with Thomas-Kilmann gives HR Managers or CIPD candidates, whether already leading teams or levelling up their management practice, a structured method for handling conflict rather than relying on instinct.
Using the Pondy and Thomas-Kilmann models together is particularly useful for CIPD Level 5 or Level 7 candidates because it demonstrates evidence-based practice. This style of thinking demonstrates that the candidate not only knows what occurred during a workplace dispute but also understands why a certain response was the appropriate course of action for the unique situation.
This same approach is a repeatable process which practising HR Managers can apply. First, you diagnose the stage, and then choose a response, meaning that conflict is handled consistently rather than differently each time.
In the CIPD Level 5 Associate Diploma, this kind of foolproof conflict analysis is covered in the Employment Relationship Management module, providing aspiring HR Managers with the necessary frameworks and confidence to implement this into their day-to-day HR practise.
Managing Conflict Effectively as an HR Manager: Key Takeaways
If you’re an HR Manager or a CIPD Level 5 or CIPD Level 7 candidate developing your management skills, learning how to handle conflict will be an inevitable part of your responsibilities.
Understanding how to navigate tensions in the most effective way possible is key to strengthening leadership capability and uplifting effective teams.
By introducing the Pondy and Thomas-Kilmann conflict models into your practice, you will be able not only to diagnose the root of the conflict but also to determine the best way to respond to it. When used together, these two models turn conflict management from a reactive to a structured process.
As a CIPD candidate, whether you’re applying these models to a live team situation or developing your evidence-based understanding, they will be fundamental to your development.
Enrolling in HR qualifications like the CIPD Level 5 Associate Diploma in People Management can help strengthen confidence when handling situations of conflict and support aspiring HR Managers in developing this kind of structured practice.
