Introduction
Wanting to improve your conflict resolution skills? The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model is a great place to start.
For HR professionals, handling workplace disputes is a critical skill, but every conflict differs based on the situation at hand. That’s where the Thomas Kilmann conflict management model comes in.
By better understanding the ways people approach conflict, and the motivations that drive each particular conflict style, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model can help you better navigate workplace disputes by analysing the situation at hand and applying the best strategy.
Read on to learn what the model is, the 5 different conflict strategies it involves, and real-world examples of how and when to apply them successfully in the workplace.
What is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model?
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (also known as the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument) is a framework that identifies 5 distinct styles for handling conflict.
These 5 conflict styles are based on 2 factors:
1. Assertiveness
2. Cooperativeness
In the context of this model, these words have very distinct definitions.
Assertiveness
Someone’s concern for their own needs during a conflict.
Cooperativeness
Someone’s concern for the needs of others during a conflict.
The 5 different conflict modes explained:
The 5 different conflict styles all fall at different areas of the model based on their levels of assertiveness vs cooperativeness.
These 5 styles are:
- Competing
- Avoiding
- Compromising
- Collaborating
- Accommodating
Let’s take a closer look at what these conflict styles actually mean, and how they manifest in a workplace dispute.
Conflict Style 1: Competing
Assertiveness = High
Cooperativeness = Low
Result = “Win:Lose”
This conflict mode involves putting one’s own needs ahead of others, and pursuing those needs at another party’s expense.
This means the conflict ends in a win-lose situation: where one party gets the outcome they want, and the other loses out.
This conflict mode can be effective when a hardline stance is needed, or if quick and decisive action is vital (e.g. in a crisis).
This mode can be helpful when:
- Handling an emergency/crisis
- Enforcing an unpopular decision
- Protecting colleagues from exploitation/discrimination
- The outcome matters more than preserving relationships
- Other, more cooperative approaches have not been successful
Conflict Style 2: Avoiding
Assertiveness = Low
Cooperativeness = Low
Result = “Lose:Lose”
This mode involves delaying the point of conflict or avoiding it altogether – colleagues will typically adopt this approach if they feel the conflict is pointless, or that the costs of it outweigh the benefits.
This means the end result is a lose-lose scenario: the conflict goes unresolved, and both parties are left with feelings of resentment rather than either getting what they want.
While avoiding conflict out of fear or discomfort can have negative consequences, using a “no win” approach has its uses in the workplace.
This mode can be helpful when:
- The issue is trivial
- Emotions are running high
- You don’t have enough information to make a fair decision
- A short, strategic break can help you return to the issue with a clear head
Conflict Style 3: Accommodating
Assertiveness = Low
Cooperativeness = High
Result = “Lose:Win”
This conflict mode is the opposite of the Competing mode. It resolves conflict by saying “you are right, I am wrong,” and by sacrificing one’s own wants and needs for those of the other party.
The end result is therefore a lose-win situation, where one party loses out, but the other party gets exactly what they want.
This conflict mode can be effective when there is a need to preserve a relationship and the consequences of doing so are low-stakes.
This mode can be helpful when:
- Handling a complaint
- There is a need to admit fault
- You need to quickly de-escalate a minor issue
- Preserving relationships matters more than the outcome
- When the issues matter more to one party than the other
Conflict Style 4: Compromising
Assertiveness = Moderate
Cooperativeness = Moderate
Result = Middle ground
This conflict mode is a way of partially meeting the needs of both parties and resolving conflict by finding an amicable middle ground.
While this conflict mode arguably aims for a win-win scenario, it carries the risk that neither party fully gets what they want.
However, it can be especially helpful when time is of the essence, and where prolonged conflict might lead to more issues.
This mode can be helpful when:
- Both parties can “agree to disagree”
- The conflict needs a quick resolution
- A perfect outcome wouldn’t be worth the effort
- Preserving relationships matters more than the issue
- It’s unlikely everyone will be pleased with the outcome
Conflict Style 5: Collaborating
Assertiveness = High
Cooperativeness = High
Result = “Win:Win”
This mode is where both parties work together to find a resolution that fully satisfies everyone’s needs.
The goal of this conflict approach is a complete “win-win” scenario, where the concerns of two opposing parties are fairly and comprehensively met.
It’s often a more thorough approach that’s best applied when seeking a robust solution that lasts in the long term.
This mode can be helpful when:
- The issue is complex
- The outcome warrants significant time and effort
- Compromising on any objective would be harmful
- Both relationships and the issue are equally important
Putting the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model into practice: 5 workplace scenarios
Now you understand the 5 different conflict modes, let’s look at 5 real-world examples of the Thomas Kilmann model of conflict resolution in action.
Have a read and try identify the right strategy for each scenario:
Scenario 1
A forklift operator is ignoring the dedicated one-way route on the warehouse floor, placing other staff at risk of injury.
Best mode: Competing
Applying a zero-tolerance policy here is best for protecting all staff and upholding correct, compliant health and safety standards – even if it leads to some resentment from the forklift operator.
Scenario 2
Two team members in an office are arguing over whose turn it is to clean the kitchen on the day of an important client deadline, and the argument is getting heated.
Best mode: Avoiding
The issue is trivial; emotions are running high, and continuing the dispute increases the risk of missing the deadline. It is best to put a pin in it until the deadline passes, so those involved can think and act calmly and rationally.
Scenario 3
A new starter asks if rather than sit at their current desk, they can move to the desk near a large window, which is currently empty.
Best mode: Accommodating
The stakes are low, the request matters to the employee, and does not cost the business or negatively impact their peers. Accepting this request builds goodwill with no real downside.
Scenario 4
Creative and Accounts are arguing over project deadlines. Creative wants 3 weeks to deliver high-quality work, while Accounts wants 2 weeks to keep the client happy.
Best mode: Compromising
Both issues are important, and a fast resolution is needed. Both parties agree to send half of the deliverables to the client after 2 weeks, and the rest after 3 weeks. This allows them to preserve the client relationship without sacrificing the quality of work.
Scenario 5
A senior leadership team is at a stalemate over implementing a new hybrid working policy that affects the whole company.
Best mode: Collaborating
The issue is complex, the stakes are high, and the outcome will have a huge impact on employee morale and shape the business for years. Bringing everyone together to design the ideal policy is worth the time it takes.
Main takeaway:
When it comes to applying the right conflict management strategy, it’s all about analysing the stakes for each “side”; weighing up the potential positive outcomes vs the potential negative impacts, and always considering how it will affect both business objectives and relationships.
For more guidance on resolving workplace disputes, Acas offers practical advice here.
Conclusions
The Thomas-Kilmann model isn’t about finding one “right” way to handle workplace conflicts.
It’s about understanding different forms of conflict and how they can be resolved, so you can apply the most suitable and effective strategy based on the circumstances.
“What is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model?” The 5 different strategies for handling conflict: Key takeaways
- Handling conflict is a critical skill for any aspiring HR professional, manager or team leader.
- The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model helps you navigate workplace disputes better by offering a framework to both analyse and resolve conflict on a case-by-case basis.
- There are 5 different conflict styles, each of which differs in terms of Assertiveness and Cooperativeness, and leads to different “win” or “lose” outcomes for the parties involved.
- No single conflict strategy works in every situation; it’s down to HR professionals, managers and team leaders to make a judgment call and apply the right strategy based on the situation.
- When choosing your approach to conflict resolution, it helps to weigh up the stakes, outcomes and relationships before deciding which strategy is the most appropriate.
Your conflict management cheat sheet: when to use each strategy
Situation | Conflict Strategy |
Requires a fast and firm decision. | Competing |
The issue is minor, but emotions are running high. | Avoiding |
The relationship matters more than “winning”. | Accommodating |
Both issues matter, need to find a quick but fair resolution. | Compromising |
The issue is complex, and a lasting solution is needed | Collaborating |
If you’re an HR professional looking to progress in your career or a manager wanting to develop your leadership strategies, a CIPD level 5 course might be the best next step for you.
Want to see exactly what you’d learn on a CIPD Level 5 course first? Read this.
