Conflict Resolution

Part of being a leader is dealing with conflicts. The “intuitive” response to conflict is “fight of flight” – either there is going to be a “win-lose” battle or one of the parties pre-concedes the battle by taking “flight”. Thomas and Kilmann researched ways of dealing with conflict and concluded in their 1976 research that there were five approaches to conflict. This was further elaborated on by Thomas in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol 13 (1992) “Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update”. The conflict management model now forms part of an “instrument” (“TKI®” by CPP) where the individual can assess conflict-handling behaviour according to this model.

The five conflict-handling modes are as follows, followed by further implications (“et alors”).

Conflict resolution

In “conflict situations” (where “the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible”) the person’s behavior can be defined along two basic dimensions: assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns; and cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. These two basic dimensions of behavior thus define five specific conflict-handling modes.

Competing

Competing is assertive and uncooperative – an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is the “power-oriented” mode, being out to “win”.

Accommodating

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative – the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person.

Avoiding

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative – the individual does not immediately pursue his own concerns or those of the other person. The conflict is not addressed.

Collaborating

Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative – the opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves working with the other person to find a solution which fully satisfies the concerns of both persons.

Compromising

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties.

Et alors?

Many a junior manager may have been advised by a more “seasoned” colleague to not waste time “fighting the wrong battles”! Sometimes you just have to accommodate or avoid! As a solution, collaboration might sound ideal; however it’s not always going to be applicable in every situation and might not always be worth the effort: sometimes compromises or accommodation might be the preferred modes of action. At the other end of the scale, one might be tempted to dismiss “competing” as too assertive without regard for other’s perspective, but then when the “conflict” is corporate competition, there might not be enough space for more than one player in a particular market and the “win-lose battle” has to be fought. In all cases, it’s a consideration of the context and environment that can influence the appropriate choice of conflict-handling behaviour.

Thomas and Kilmann built their model with reference to the earlier management model of Blake and Mouton wherein instead of assertiveness and cooperation there is concern for “production” and “people” as the two axes. Rather than conflict, Blake and Mouton referred to different management styles such as “production” (cf. competition), “impoverished” (cf. avoiding), “country club” (cf. accommodating), “middle of the road” (cf. compromising) and “team” (cf. collaborating). The latter might be particularly interesting for leaders – within an organization, leaders can be neither too assertive (“process orientated”) nor too cooperative (“people orientated”): as usual, the ideal is getting the balance right, but not necessarily a compromise – the team comes together when concern for process and people are both high and there is collaboration!