Conflict Approaches

How do you tend to react to conflict?? Many of us have an ‘default’ or instinctive response.? We also tend to have a different appetite for conflict depending on our operating style (more of that in a few weeks).? When we understand our appetite for conflict, our preferred response, and the range of alternative options available, this gives us greater flexibility in these situations.

?

The model that helps us unpick conflict responses is the TKI Model (The Thomas-Kilmann Model or Thomas-Kilmann Mode Instrument).? ?This model allows us to break a conflict situation down and analyse the potential responses.? This is particularly useful if we want to take the emotion out of a situation and impose rational analysis (see last week’s article on the amygdala highjack).

?

The model has two axes, assertiveness and cooperation, and potential conflict responses are plotted along each axis accordingly.? Let’s look at each response in turn.

?

Avoiding

This is low on cooperation and low on assertiveness.? This essentially side-steps the conflict and does nothing to work towards a resolution.? If achieving the outcome we want to achieve is near impossible, or the cost of losing would be catastrophic, then we might choose to avoid the conflict.? Conversely, if the issue is so trivial that it’s just not worth bothering with, then it might be better just to let it slide.?

?

Accommodating

Staying low on our assertiveness axis, but higher in cooperation, let’s look at Accommodating.? Here we are sacrificing our needs and our position and meeting the demands or requirements of the other party.? This can be useful when the issue doesn’t mean that much to us, but is very important to the other party.? It can also be a tactical approach when giving ground on this issue means we can take a stronger approach on a different issue.

?

Competing

Now let’s look at competing.? This is high on assertiveness so prioritising our agenda or position, but low on cooperation, so not placing importance on the needs of others.? This can be useful in an emergency situation when a decision must be taken quickly, and it can also be an effective approach if we are having to make unpopular decisions.? It might also be the only approach when our position is based on moral values and we’re facing an unjust situation.

?

Compromising

The mid-point of both axes is Compromise.? This is when we seek the middle ground, when we give a little to gain a little.? This approach partially meets the needs of all concerned, and can be useful when the cost of the conflict is higher than the cost of losing.? It’s also a good approach when both sides in a conflict are equally strong and valid.? Time can also be a factor, and we often see compromise come into conflict and negotiations when talks go down to the wire and a decision has to be made.? Compromise can be satisfactory, but compromise itself is often not satisfying.

?

Collaborating

Our final approach is Collaboration, which is both high on cooperation, and high on assertiveness.? Sometimes referred to as our Win-Win outcome.? This approach is needed when compromise is simply not enough, and a trade-off just won’t cut it.? Collaborating also allows us to take into account a variety of views and opinions, and it can be valuable in addressing the lingering issues from previous conflicts.? It allows us to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of all involved.? Often collaborating leads to new solutions, new ways of working, new services and new products. However, it can be time consuming and resource intensive.

?

Information and insights are useful, but it’s what we do with them that counts. You could use this model to reflect on your experience and identify if you have a default conflict approach (and whether or not this is serving you well). Or you could hang onto the model and bring it out next time you’re facing a conflict situation. It will provide you with a template to review the situation and define the best course of action.