Understanding and Applying Conflict Management Styles

Understanding and Applying Conflict Management Styles

Main Content

Thomas and Kilmann's styles
Interpreting Thomas Killman Conflict Mode Inventory Scores
The "Interest-Based Relational Approach

Conflict as we have been discussing in previous posts is a constant in life. It’s not a question of if, but when. What matters most is how we respond. In the 1970s, Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed a model known as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) to help individuals understand their typical conflict-handling style. They identified five core approaches: Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, and Accommodating. Each approach lies on a scale of assertiveness (concern for self) and cooperativeness (concern for others), and each has its appropriate use case depending on the situation.

MAKE SURE TO READ THE INTRODUCTION TOO

In this post, we break each one down with clear, practical examples:

1. Competing (High Assertiveness, Low Cooperativeness)

This style is about standing your ground. It’s useful in emergencies, or when quick, unpopular decisions must be made. It’s a "my way or the highway" approach.

A manager insists on implementing a new budgeting software to cut costs, even when some team members resist. The urgency of financial survival makes competition necessary.

When a governor imposes a curfew during a riot, despite public disagreement. Here, assertive action is needed to maintain law and order.

Diagnostic Caution: Overuse can make you a tyrant. Are people afraid to challenge you? Do they avoid offering feedback?

2. Collaborating (High Assertiveness, High Cooperativeness)

Here, both sides aim to win. It’s ideal for complex issues where multiple perspectives can lead to an optimal solution.

For instance, a project team comprised of IT, marketing, and HR collaboratively design a remote work policy that balances technical feasibility, employee morale, and company policy.

Similarly, when mediating peace between two ethnic communities, a negotiator ensures both groups’ cultural identities and resource needs are addressed to forge a durable agreement.

Warning Sign: Collaboration takes time. Don’t overuse it on minor issues.

3. Compromising (Moderate Assertiveness and Cooperativeness)

A give-and-take style where each party sacrifices something to reach a middle ground.

Example where Two departments disagree on a shared budget. Instead of fighting endlessly, they agree to split funds equally and reevaluate next quarter.

Or during national elections, opposition parties agree to share local government positions to avoid post-election violence.

Risk of Overuse: Can feel transactional and temporary. If everything’s always a trade-off, deeper problems may be ignored.

4. Avoiding (Low Assertiveness and Cooperativeness)

You withdraw from the situation entirely. It’s useful when the issue is trivial or when timing isn’t right.

When an intern ignores a colleague’s sarcastic remark to avoid office drama.

When a country declines to comment on provocative international remarks to avoid inflaming tensions.

Caution: Avoidance may delay the inevitable. Are you letting issues fester because you fear confrontation?

5. Accommodating (Low Assertiveness, High Cooperativeness)

Here, you let others have their way and this is often to preserve harmony or relationships.

When a senior team member defers to a junior’s design idea to encourage confidence, knowing the risk is low.

A community youth leader steps down from a leadership role to let an outspoken member feel heard, maintaining unity in the group.

Red Flag: Constantly accommodating may lead to burnout or resentment. Are your ideas being ignored too often?

Interpreting the TKI in Real Life

Most people lean toward one or two styles. However, the real strength lies in becoming versatile and using each style as needed, like a carpenter choosing the right tool.

Some Self-Check Questions:

Do I avoid conflict even when something is clearly wrong?
Do I always try to win, even if it hurts relationships?
Do I make concessions too quickly just to keep the peace?

Recognising your default style is the first step. From there, grow your capacity to adapt.

Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach

Developed to build understanding and preserve relationships, the IBR approach is ideal for workplaces, families, and even political negotiations.

Step One: Set the Scene

The first step is not about the issue but it’s about the environment. You must create a space where mutual respect and calm communication are non-negotiable. If you’re part of the conflict, acknowledge your own biases and ensure your tone is constructive.

Key Goals:

Establish a respectful atmosphere.
Present the conflict as a shared concern — not a personal attack.
Use active listening to signal respect (eye contact, verbal nods, clarification).

Examples:

When a supervisor notices two senior developers in silent conflict over project direction. Instead of choosing sides, she invites both into a one-on-one conversation, stating: “This is about our shared goals. Let’s work through it together.”

When in the heat of a territorial disagreement between two neighbouring countries, a UN peace envoy opens dialogue with: “We’re here not to point fingers but to find common ground for the benefit of your people.”

Tool Tip: Use language like “I perceive,” rather than “You did.” This focuses on perspective, not blame.

Step Two: Gather Information

Now the focus turns to the heart of the matter: uncovering the actual motivations, unmet needs, and fears driving each party’s behaviour. You must listen deeply, suspend judgement, and ask open-ended questions.

Key Questions:

“What matters most to you in this situation?”
“What’s the impact of this issue on your work/life?”
“What’s your ideal outcome?”

Examples:

When in a hospital management meeting, nurses complain about constantly changing rosters. HR assumes it's laziness. But deeper inquiry reveals it's due to burnout and poor communication of changes.

During community conflict: In a neighbourhood dispute about land use, traditional rulers accuse youth of disrespect. But listening reveals the youth feel excluded from decisions that affect their future. The real issue is lack of inclusion, not tradition.

Action Tip: Document facts, emotions, patterns, and triggers — not gossip. Clarify how the conflict is affecting outcomes, not just feelings.

Step Three: Agree That the Problem Exists

This is a deceptively crucial step. Without consensus on what the problem is, solutions will be like shooting arrows in the dark. Agreement doesn’t mean you see things the same way but it means you recognise that something needs resolving.

Challenge: Conflicts often stem from different perceptions of the same event.

Dialogue Example:

Party A: “You keep undermining my contributions.”
Party B: “I thought I was offering suggestions.”
Facilitator: “So we agree the problem involves unclear boundaries in feedback.”

Examples:

Workplace: A marketing lead thinks the sales team is ignoring their strategy. Sales argues the strategy is impractical. They finally agree: the problem is a disconnect between planning and field realities.

Sociopolitical: In resolving the herder-farmer conflicts in Nigeria, progress began only when both sides agreed that access to land and historical grievances were mutual challenges, not one-sided wrongdoings.

Step Four: Brainstorm Possible Solutions

Once a shared understanding is reached, the focus shifts to generating solutions — not the solution yet, just possible ones. All parties must feel empowered to contribute, and even unconventional ideas should be welcomed without judgement.

Principles:

Quantity over quality at first.
Encourage creativity and lateral thinking.
Avoid premature criticism.

For example, during conflict resolution between IT and procurement teams, a shared whiteboard is filled with 15 ideas — from software integrations to joint training sessions. Later, these are sorted into feasible and priority-based actions.

Diplomatic Conflict: When Ethiopia and Eritrea began peace talks in 2018, instead of insisting on land borders first, negotiators brainstormed trade corridors, family reunification schemes, and transitional commissions. These ideas helped build momentum toward formal agreements.

Best Practice Tip: Let everyone speak before any evaluation begins. This reduces the risk of domination and increases buy-in.

Step Five: Negotiate a Solution

By this point, trust has likely increased, and clarity around the issues has deepened. Negotiation now becomes a search for synergy rather than supremacy. The goal is a win-win outcome, or at the very least, a solution where no one walks away feeling unheard or cheated.

Guidelines:

Prioritise shared interests over fixed positions.
Use “Yes, and…” instead of “No, but…”
Be realistic. Some compromise is often necessary.

Examples:

In the workplace two regional offices argue over a limited marketing budget. Instead of splitting the budget equally (a compromise), they agree to allocate it based on campaign readiness and impact projection where a negotiated, interest-based win-win.

In terms of NGO Partnerships, two local NGOs in Bauch State Nigeria argue over credit for a joint education campaign. A mediator helps them agree on joint branding, separate impact reports, and collaborative press releases. This preserves both ego and mission.

Golden Rule: Be Calm, Be Patient, Have Respect.

Conflict Styles in Teams and Institutions

In real-world situations, five deeper issues shape conflict styles:

Source Issues: Different values, goals, or priorities.
- Example: A graphics designer values creativity; the country manager values deadlines.
Strategy Issues: Poor skill in choosing the right style.
- Example: A team member uses competition in a project where collaboration would’ve been better.
Context Issues: Culture or timing affects reaction.
- Example: In some cultures, directness is respected. In others, it’s seen as rude.
Reaction Issues: Emotions cloud judgment.
- Example: A team member thinks feedback is a personal attack, escalating the issue.
Power Issues: Who holds authority or resources?
- Example: A junior staff member hesitates to challenge a superior, even when they’re right.

Final Thoughts

Conflict doesn’t have to be feared. It can reveal blind spots, ignite innovation, and deepen trust when managed correctly. Thomas-Kilmann styles offer tools. The IBR approach offers the roadmap. Your job as a communications and conflict management expert is to discern, adapt, and grow.

Summary

TKI Styles: Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, Accommodating.
Use cases vary: Choose wisely based on the situation.
IBR Approach: Build bridges while solving problems.
Real-life success depends on situational awareness and emotional intelligence.

Now that you have learned this, here is a fun assessment to help you recall your mastery:

Explain the five conflict styles in the TKI model with examples.
Describe the five steps of the IBR process with practical examples.
As a communications and conflict management expert how do source and reaction issues influence workplace conflict?
When is it better to avoid conflict entirely?
Reflect: What’s your dominant conflict style, and how has it helped or hurt you?

NEXT: READ THE SIX GOLDEN RULES OF THE INTEREST-BASED RELATIONAL APPROACH IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

REMEMBER TO SHARE THIS POST IF YOU FOUND IT HELPFUL

Search This Blog

thesisprojectsng