What is the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model?

In 1974, a pair of researchers – the eponymous Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann –
studied workers and their routine conflicts in the workplace. Over time, they were able to observe
a pattern of ways in which people resolved conflict; most methods could be distilled down to five
core methods. These five options formed the basis of the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model
Instrument and the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Resolution Model.
The model has two approaches, also known as “dimensions”: assertiveness and cooperation. Most
of you are probably intimately familiar with each of these dimensions on their own, as well as the
associated personality traits, but not necessarily how they interact. That is where this model shines.
There are five forms of conflict resolution that use these two approaches to different degrees. But
more on this later.

The grid that forms the backbone of the model is a simple 2×2 design with an overlapping square
in the center, much like a more involved Venn diagram. At the centre is the Compromising mode
of conflict resolution. On the x-axis is cooperativeness, and on the y is assertiveness. The four
other cells (besides the aforementioned Compromise) are as follows:

 High assertiveness and high cooperativeness: Collaboration

 High assertiveness and low cooperativeness: Competition
 Low assertiveness and high cooperation: Accommodation
 Low assertiveness and low cooperation: Avoidance

Five Modes of The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Management Model

As we described above, the Thomas Kilmann Conflict mode instrument has 5 modes: competing,
avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, and – the sweet spot – compromising.

Mode One: Avoiding

At the low assertiveness and low compromising corner is the “avoiding” mode. As it sounds like,
this involves avoiding conflict entirely. The person will watch the situation play itself out
organically and try to avoid getting directly involved. It’s the typical passive approach that we see
in our day-to-day lives more than ever before. Many people just want to avoid conflict, which
certainly has its place, but it can also be a very toxic way to handle things. A business would fail if
everyone avoided conflict – that’s just common sense!
Sometimes it’s good to avoid situations. Perhaps there was a huge blowup at work and the parties
involved needed to relax for a while and focus on their tasks. Perhaps the issue is super minor or
low priority, and the workers need to focus on more pressing concerns. Therefore, people weigh
their options constantly.
People subconsciously perform a cost-benefit analysis and determine if the potential downsides of
engaging in debate or conflict aren’t worth the potential gains. Most bystanders would naturally
take this approach, but if a worker or employer needs to be engaged in conflict directly for the
benefit of the business or their livelihood, then they’d be well advised to use this option as a last
resort.
Examples:

 If someone was talking about an issue at work with someone and they started to argue
together, the first person would switch topics or leave.
 A person who always avoids the topic of disciplining their employees might change the
subject or try to avoid talking about it altogether. They might not want to even be around
people when this topic is discussed.

Mode Two: Accommodating

Also at the low assertiveness end, but with a higher degree of compromising baked within, is the
accommodating option. This, as it sounds, involves acquiescing to the rival/other individuals and
giving in to their stance. Sometimes we must “take the loss” and accept that we should change our
ways or yield to the other parties. Unlike avoiding, this mode acknowledges the conflict and puts
an end to any tension. This is very useful if you are directly involved in the conflict but don’t want
to deal with the situation – or if your way is proven wrong.
Keep in mind that a person choosing this strategy may lose a lot of reputation or favor if they were
the aggressor. Be very careful about taking this if your position is strong and you have a lot to lose
– both within the conflict and the greater context of the organization.
Examples:

 If a co-worker has to skip work due to unavoidable circumstance, the person would agree
to cover their shift even if they are not friends with their co-worker.
 If a project needs completing they may do “whatever it takes” to make this happen.

Mode Three: Competing

High assertiveness and low compromising is the classic mode of competition. The workplace is
full of competitive people, sure, but in the context of conflict resolution, competing means people
openly dissent against the other party and directly try to prove that their way is right. This is the
classic debate or argumentative stance: “my way or the highway,” so to speak. It’s for pressing
matters or situations where you need to assert your authority – or if you know you’re right and the
stakes are high. If you have the authority and it’s an emergency, don’t hesitate to make others
bend to your will.
Just be careful about employing this strategy excessively because it can lead to massive blowback.
The more competitive you are, the less likely people will be to work with you in the future, and
the more likely they will shut you out of the loop as much as possible. If you elevate your threat
level too needlessly, people may target your reputation or even your livelihood. Be sure that your
reasoning is strong.
Examples:
  Someone would rather by right than do the right thing! They might want to just win the
argument!
 A person gets too defensive about their ideas or opinions and becomes combative when
facing objections or disagreements.

Mode Four: Collaborating

Let’s say you want an assertive option that is still highly accommodating. That’s where
collaborating comes into play. In a nutshell, the collaborating mode allows you to acknowledge
your rival’s points and take the time to agree. This is indeed very time-consuming and resource-
intensive, but it can be a great way to handle an issue if both sides have good points and there’s no
clear-cut winner in the conflict. A lot of great things come out of collaborating, but it can be a
strain on resources and slow everything down. It’s usually the right way, but not always.
A lot of creativity can come out of collaborations. The power of many people bouncing ideas off
each other is huge. Of course, all parties must have some degree of assertiveness – otherwise, the
other person is simply acquiescing and not providing constructive inputs. Be assertive but don’t
dominate the collaboration or else there’s no point. It’s also important to question whether you
should collaborate with someone you don’t trust – they may stall the process at your expense or
steal your ideas, for instance.
Examples:

 If a person is offended by an idea but can see that there are implications for other people,
then the person will work with them to come up with alternative solutions that are
mutually agreed upon.
 If someone is saddled with too much work, they will discuss the issue with their
employers and try to find a middle ground instead of resigning.

Mode Five: Compromising

Here’s the center of everything on the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model. Compromising is all
about being somewhat assertive and cooperative – giving up a lot of ground and gaining a little bit.
The saying “A Good Compromise Leaves Nobody Fully Satisfied” is true, but it’s often better
than the alternative.
Collaborating is a solid choice in most situations (unless there’s a sense of urgency) because
you’ll spend more time coming up with the “right” answer, not one that leaves everyone in limbo.
Compromising in the short run can lead to additional conflict in the long run, but it will put a
Band-Aid on the situation in the interim. This is the even-keeled approach.
Overall, compromising is often used to resolve heated conflict but not to the point where people
are grandstanding. It’s an everyday solution – common in democracies – that is often revised
many times over the subsequent years. Don’t fall into the habit of compromising all of the time
when collaborating would be far more gainful.
Examples:

 Two companies might cooperate on marketing efforts when they both want more
customers.
 If your boss is offering you a raise, but you don’t want to give up too much of your salary,
you can say that you would be willing to compromise.

Which Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Works Best?

There is no catch-all situation. Each mode has its strengths and weaknesses and will be a solid
choice in certain situations. There are so many variables in play here, including but not limited to:
Personality traits of everyone involved : some people respond well to disagreeability, but others
don’t. Some people can’t be disagreeable at ALL and would struggle with the assertiveness
dimension. Others may only avoid situations, forcing you to take a more assertive approach to
resolve the conflict. There are so many situations, and no manager can be perfect at predicting the
personalities of everyone in a business.
Your hierarchical position: more power means more influence and more responsiveness toward
assertive tendencies, and vice versa.
The problem itself: if there’s a sense of urgency, you’ll need to be more assertive to ensure that
the problem gets resolved faster. If it’s not a big issue, the “juice may not be worth the squeeze”
and you may even want to consider avoiding it entirely.
Interpersonal relationships: if you have a strong relationship with the other side of the conflict,
you may want to pick a more cooperative solution. If they are a highly disagreeable rival, you may
want to be less cooperative. Even still, perhaps you can treat the conflict as an opportunity to
mend fences or win a rival’s trust, so you may want to be cooperative after all. Even AI can’t
properly determine the right mode to use in all situations.

Comparing Assertiveness, Aggression and Passivity

Aggression is an impositional behavior that involves a display of dominance toward others. When
communication is aggressive, it generally involves dominant tones, hostile words, criticism or
elevated volume. Example of aggression in conversations can include:

Disrespecting personal space

Ignoring communicated boundaries
Lacking empathy for the other person
Dominating an interaction through volume or threatening behavior
Passivity, at the other end of the spectrum, promotes the avoidance of conflict through conceding
personal needs. These actions can include:

Not expressing or advocating for opinions and needs

Physically withdrawing from an interaction
Allowing others to dominate a conversation or negotiation
Encouraging the dismissal of one’s opinions
Both aggression and passivity can lead to strained relationships and discontent with others. On the
contrary, assertiveness offers a healthy balance between aggression and passivity. Assertive
communication helps strenghten relationships, reduce power struggles, and resolve conflict by
creating respectful, clear and firm dialogue.

Appropriate Assertiveness in Various Life Contexts

Assertion skills are helpful for anyone who wants to enhance relationships both personally and in
the workplace. Additionally, it can be useful in navigating interactions with family members or
advocating for yourself in an educational setting.

Since it demonstrates respect to all involved parties, taking an assertive stance will prove to be
suitable in most situations. However, there are extraneous situations in which assertive
communication will not be constructive. If the other party is uncooperative, manipulative, or
aggressive, assertion may not always result in a negotiation. However, it will assist you in
establishing healthier limits and boundaries with others.

MODELS OF ASSERTIVENESS

 The cognitive-behavioral model of assertiveness is a type of cognitive-behavioral therapy

(CBT) that helps people develop assertiveness skills. CBT is a process that helps people
identify and address problematic thoughts, behaviors, and emotions. Assertiveness training is
a component of CBT that helps people learn to communicate their needs, feelings, and
opinions effectively, and to respect others' rights and beliefs. The goal is to help people build
stronger relationships, improve communication skills, and overcome feelings of
insecurity.Assertiveness training can help people develop confidence, enhance their ability to
negotiate and resolve conflicts, and create honest and healthy relationships. It can also help
people treat social anxiety and improve their self-esteem. Assertiveness training can involve
teaching clients to distinguish between different types of assertiveness, including constructive,
aggressive, passive, and passive-aggressive. It can also involve role-playing to help clients
practice assertive communication.

 Social learning theory (SLT) is a theory that explains how people learn through observing
and imitating the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. Psychologist Albert
Bandura introduced the theory, which combines ideas from behaviorist and cognitive
learning approaches. SLT emphasizes the ongoing interaction between cognitive, behavioral,
and environmental influences, and how these factors can affect learning. SLT can be applied
to assertive communication, which is a communication style that can lead to positive
outcomes in many settings. According to SLT, people are more likely to learn how to be
assertive if they observe others expressing assertive behavior that triggers positive
responses. As people practice new behaviors, they can develop self-efficacy, or confidence in
their ability to achieve the desired results. Assertive behavior can demonstrate respect for
both oneself and others, and can promote self-disclosure, openness, and honesty.

Stages of social learning theory

The basis behind social learning theory is that people observe the behavior, attitudes and
consequences of others and then use that information to form their own actions.
The key concepts behind this process include four basic learning requirements. These four
concrete stages of social learning within social learning theory include attention, retention and
memory, initiation and motor behavior, and motivation.

 Attention. For a lesson or experience to have an impact on an observer, the observer must be
actively observing their surroundings. It helps if the observer identifies well with the model
or feels positive feelings about them. In addition, it helps if the observer is invested in the
process of observing or feels strong feelings about the experience that they are observing.
Factors that might affect attention include complexity, distinctiveness and functional value.
 Retention and memory. For any learned experience to make a lasting impact, the observer
needs to be able to remember it later. Once the observer can recall the experience, it also
helps if they go over the experience, either revisiting it cognitively in their mind or even
acting it out physically. For example, a toddler may learn from an adult not to throw things
and later they may be observed teaching one of their stuffed animals that it's not okay to
throw.
 Initiation and motor capability. In order to carry out the lesson learned, the observer needs
to be able to actually reenact it. Learning the necessary skills is an important part of the
process before a behavior can be modeled. When a person has effectively paid attention to
modeled behavior and repeats or demonstrates it, they have achieved the necessary skills.
 Motivation. Even if an observer has focused on a lesson, remembered all the details and
learned the necessary skills to do it, they still need to have the motivation to make it happen.
The source of motivation could include anything from external rewards and bribes,
 observations that similar behavior is rewarded, desire to be like the model who demonstrated
the behavior or internal motivation to improve or learn. Other factors that impact motivation
include personal characteristics, past experiences, promised incentives, positive
reinforcement and punishments.
 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY- This theory suggests that social behaviour is a result of
an exchange process. It says that people weigh the benefits and costs of the social
relationships that they maintain. Depending on the relationship dynamics that exist between
two people and these benefits, attitudes expressed also vary. Thus, this weighing of
relationship pros and cons can give rise to assertiveness.
 Cognitive restructuring is a process that can be used to help people challenge and change
the beliefs that lead to aggressive behavior and develop more assertive communication skills.
It involves replacing negative automatic thoughts with more rational and positive ones. Here
are some steps that can be used in cognitive restructuring:
 Record: Write down the situation, thoughts, and feelings.
 Identify: Choose an automatic thought that seems to be causing the most distress.
 Dispute: Consider the evidence for and against the thought.
 Develop: Think about the situation from different perspectives to come up with alternative
ways of thinking and feeling.
 Craft: Create a different response.
For example, someone who believes that everyone will dislike them if they show their true
personality might work towards the belief that some people will like them, while others might not,
and that's okay.
 Cognitive restructuring can also be combined with role-playing exercises to help people
practice redirecting communication towards assertiveness.