The Art of Conflict: A Closer Look at the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

Have you ever found yourself locked in a heated debate, unsure of how to navigate the tension and find a resolution? We’ve all been there, grappling with the complexities of conflict. But what if there were a roadmap to help us navigate these stormy waters? Enter the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), a powerful tool for understanding our individual conflict management styles and fostering more productive interactions.

The TKI, like a skilled cartographer, maps out the various approaches we take when faced with disagreements. From the assertive competitor to the accommodating peacemaker, the TKI offers valuable insights into how we handle conflict and how we can improve our communication skills.

Introduction to The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument (TKI)

Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable part of human interaction, whether in the workplace, at home, or within social circles. Effectively managing and resolving conflict is crucial for maintaining healthy relationships and fostering a productive environment. One of the most widely recognized tools for assessing and addressing conflict is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). Developed by Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann, the TKI provides insights into how individuals typically respond to conflict and offers a framework for understanding and improving conflict resolution strategies.

The TKI is a thirty-question conflict style inventory. Based upon subjects’ responses to these questions, they receive scores for each of five basic approaches to conflict: avoiding, accommodating, compromising, competing, and collaborating (Brown, 2012).

Thomas and Kilmann’s MODE instrument (Management-of-Differences Exercise) attempts to assess five conflict-handling modes. With an effective measurement tool, leaders can provide helpful conflict management training and guidance focused on identified weaknesses in themselves and the employees. One of the primary goals in managing differences is finding balance between self needs and other needs.

Self and Others

Finding balance between self and others is a dying skill. Our schools and television programs provide a constant diet of our specialness as individuals that we forget about our need to accommodate for others. Forming healthy bonds is not about finding a person that satisfies our every need, but about a blending of give and take. John Gottman, a prominent psychologist known for his extensive research on marriage and relationships, explains that conflict resolution is “not about one person changing, it’s about negotiating, finding common ground and ways that you can accommodate each other” (Gottman, 2011).

Jean M. Twenge and Keith W. Campbell wrote that Instead of allowing schools, parents, and TV shows to teach children that “they are all different and unique” we need support programs that foster “conflict resolution and friendship skills.” We need to teach children “how to get along with others with polite, civil conduct, and how to resolve conflicts with their friends” (Twenge & Campbell, 2010).

Richard G. Shell wrote:

“Each of us has a unique combination of personality traits that impact the way we bargain. These behavioral instincts and intuitions set boundaries on the range of situations within which we will be at our peak in terms of effectiveness. In addition, they help define the types of negotiations (and negotiation counterparts) we enjoy – and those we find stressful, frustrating, or confusing” (Shell, 2001).

The Thomas-Kilmann conflict instrument provides a five category tool for evaluating cooperation. The tool illuminates our negotiation style. It is an organizational tool but also works well to help individuals in their personal relationships.

The Origins and Purpose of TKI

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument was created in the early 1970s as a tool to help individuals and organizations understand different conflict resolution styles. They constructed this mode using the five-category scheme first introduced by organizational psychologists Robert Blake and Jane S. Mouton in their managerial grid (Mouton & Blake, 1964).

While the Blake and Mouton Grid measured management styles balancing production with people, the Thomas and Kilmann conflict mode identified behavioral patterns associated with conflict. they posit that these patterns can significantly impact the outcome of the conflict. The TKI measures an individual’s behavior along two dimensions: assertiveness (attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns) and cooperativeness (attempting to satisfy others’ concerns) (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977).

One of the main objectives of the construction of this assessment tool was to eliminate the social desirability bias found in most of the existing tools measuring interpersonal conflict available at the time. Data suggests that many people hold two beliefs when evaluating ethics. First, they exaggerate their own superior ethics and second, they discount the ethics of their peers (Chung & Monroe, 2004, p. 291-292). As Robert Trivers aptly puts it: “Real me is seen as ugly me by self-deceived me” (Trivers, 2011).

Basically, most measures were severely biased by self-reported attitudes. Individuals have a strong tendency to view their personal characteristics through a socially desirable lens. This bias skewed the measurements, making the current tools measuring interpersonal relations unreliable. Accordingly, Thomas and Kilmann focused on developing a tool that was resilient against this bias (Thomas & Kilmann, 1977).

Construction of the Inventory

The inventory consisted of items to operationalize the five conflict handling modes that subjects would choose without the influence of desirability bias.

Thomas and Kilmann explain, “Specifically, ‘competing‘ items were generated to reflect an individual trying to win his own position; ‘collaborating‘ items were related to an individual involving the other in working out a solution, getting concerns out in the open, and being concerned with satisfying both his own and the other’s wishes; ‘avoiding‘ was operationalized as an individual trying to avoid creating unpleasantness for himself, and trying to postpone or not worry about issues; ‘accommodating‘ items were phrased in terms of an individual’s preoccupation with the other’s welfare rather than his own; and ‘compromising‘ was related to either an individual trying to find a middle ground position, or to an exchange of concessions” (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977).

Assertiveness and Cooperativeness

The concept of assertiveness in the TKI refers to the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy their own concerns in a conflict situation. On the other hand, cooperativeness refers to the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy the concerns of the other party involved in the conflict. By examining these two dimensions, the TKI identifies five distinct conflict-handling modes: Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, and Accommodating.

They explain:

“Competing is assertive and uncooperative, collaborating is assertive and cooperative, avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative, accommodating is unassertive and cooperative, and compromising is intermediate in both cooperativeness and assertiveness” (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977).

See the Primary Dilemma for more on these competing goals of self and others

The Five Conflict-Handling Modes

Each of the five modes identified by the TKI represents a different approach to dealing with conflict, based on varying degrees of assertiveness and cooperativeness. While the Thomas and Kilmann refer to their model as a way to handle conflict, it more appropriately can be defined as a model of negotiation.

Blair Trippe and Douglas Baumoel explain:

“The model does not actually imply that the parties involved are necessarily in conflict – instead, they may simply need to make joint decisions or negotiate a course of action when they have apparently contradictory or mutually exclusive goals” (Trippe & Baumoel, 2015).

1. Competing

Competing is a high-assertiveness, low-cooperativeness mode. This style is when “we want to achieve our goals and objectives, but we do not want to cooperate with the other party.” This is a display of “assertive and non-cooperative behaviors” (Riasi & Asadzadeh, 2015). This mode is often characterized by a power-oriented approach where one seeks to win the conflict. While competing can be effective in situations requiring quick, decisive action, it may lead to strained relationships if overused.

A prominent politician in the current political arena prides himself with his negotiation skills. However, a closer examination of his negotiation history exposes a one sided approach, relying completely on high-assertiveness with no mediating cooperation. Negotiations for him is not based on any principles except for joining relationships and removing barriers that prevent him from getting exactly what he wants. This is not negotiation. It only works for those with sufficient power (and inherited money) to force others to accommodate.

The competitive approach often works well for short immediate gains. Sometimes, these gains are necessary. However, over time, others become weary of negotiated agreements because of the imbalance of power. Accordingly, the competitive style used in excess dries up social capital as the principle party rarily, if ever, considers the needs of others outside of themselves.

See Zero-Sum Games for more on this style of negotiation

2. Collaborating

Collaborating is both high in assertiveness and cooperativeness. Arash Riasi and Nasrin Asadzadeh explain:

“Collaborating style is when we and the other party are involved in the conflict collaborate with each other in order to satisfy the goals of both parties” (Riasi & Asadzadeh, 2015).

This mode focuses on cooperative problem-solving and aims for a win-win outcome. Although collaborating can be time-consuming, it is particularly valuable in complex situations where the needs of all parties must be addressed.

Because collaboration is a socially desirable technique, many color their competing attitude in a collaborating narrative. They may sit at a negotiation table, pretend to be interested in a universally beneficial solution but ultimately they only care about winning. The only agreeable solution for them is for them to win and the other to lose. For successful collaboration, parties must recognize hidden agendas and bring them to light.

3. Compromising

Compromising represents a moderate level of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Those who compromise strive to find a mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies everyone’s concerns. This mode often involves give-and-take and can be useful in situations where a quick, temporary solution is needed. However, it may not always result in the most effective resolution for all parties.

Compromise is different than collaboration. Sometimes the parties goals are irreconcilable. Basically, if one party gets what they want it directly takes from what the other party desires. The compromising style is a practice of both parties making some sacrifice. It represents a partial win.

Alan E. Fruzzetti wrote:

“Change requires a lot of effort and often a lot of compromise, and therefore, it involves a certain amount of pain (adjustment pain, sadness over loss and change, and so on). Of course, change also can be quite invigorating and fulfilling. But with every new excitement, by definition, something previously cherished is lost, at least in a way” (Fruzzetti, 2006).

While compromise is difficult because it requires short term sacrifice, it has long term benefits with continued relationships. Compromise is essential for successful relationships.

See Compromise in Relationships for more on this topic

4. Avoiding

Avoiding is low in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Individuals who utilize this mode tend to sidestep or withdraw from conflict, often hoping it will resolve itself without direct intervention. While avoiding can be appropriate in situations where the conflict is trivial or emotions are running high, it may lead to unresolved issues if used excessively.

Dr. Daniel Amen, a physician, psychiatrist, and founder of Amen Clinics, wrote:

“Whenever you give in to another person to avoid a fight, you give away a little bit of your power and begin to resent the relationship. Avoiding conflict in the short run often has devastating effects in the long-term” (Amen, 2015).

Gabor Maté, a Canadian physician with a special interest in childhood development and trauma, explains that for people not use to expressing their feelings and unaccustomed to recognizing emotional needs, “it is extremely challenging to find the confidence and the words to approach their loved ones both compassionately and assertively” (Maté, 2008).

Avoidance is a defense mechanism often used to avoid difficult emotions. It has unfortunate side effects of resentment and abandonment of personal desires.

See Conflict Avoidance for more on this topic

5. Accommodating

Accommodating is low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness. While avoiding is a passive acquiescing to the other’s wants, accommodating is an active accomodation of their wants. Those who accommodate put others’ concerns above their own, often yielding to the wishes or demands of the other party.

This mode can be beneficial when preserving relationships is more important than the specific outcome. However, consistently accommodating others may result in feelings of resentment or neglect of one’s own needs.

Applications of the TKI

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is widely used in various settings, including organizational development, team building, and personal growth. By understanding their default conflict-handling style, individuals can become more aware of their behavior and its impact on others. This awareness can lead to more effective communication, improved relationships, and better conflict resolution outcomes.

The TKI identifies personal tendencies. We do not need to change tendencies to be successful negotiators at work or at home. Successful negotiation and relationship building requires a flexible approach, applying whichever negotiation skill best fits the situation. So while my natural tendency may be to avoid conflict, I may realize that the best approach in a price negotiation for a project is to assertively express my needs. Or, in some cases, no matter what my personal tendencies are, if I am in a position of authority, I may use my power to enact a program for the good of the company that many stakeholders may despise.

In the Workplace

In organizational settings, the TKI is often used to enhance team dynamics and foster a collaborative work environment. Understanding individual conflict management styles is an essential element to successful negotiating in the workplace (Mills et al., 2016). Managers and leaders can use the TKI to identify the predominant conflict styles within their teams and develop strategies to leverage strengths and address weaknesses. For instance, a team with a high tendency towards competing may benefit from training in collaborative techniques to balance assertiveness with cooperativeness.

In the Classroom

Many careers involve bargaining. Helping students learn bargaining skills is essential to the students success.

Shell recommends the TKI in the classroom. He cites the following reasons for this recommendation:

• ease of administration (it takes only about ten minutes to take and score);
• relative freedom from social desirability biases in the way statements in the instrument are presented;
• conflict styles that match up with strategy concepts widely used in the negotiation literature;
• and significant congruence between the TKI styles students report and their perceptions of their own behavior across a set of simulations (Shell, 2001).

In Personal Relationships

The TKI can also be valuable in personal relationships, helping individuals understand and navigate conflicts with family members, friends, or partners.

Gottman explains:

“Couples simply have different styles of conflict. Some avoid fights at all costs, some fight a lot, and some are able to talk out difference and find a compromise without ever raising their voices. No one style is necessarily better than the other—as long as the style works for both people. Couples can run into trouble if one partner always wants to talk out a conflict while the other just wants to watch playoffs” (Gottman & Silver, 1999).

By recognizing their own and others’ conflict styles, individuals can tailor their approach to conflict resolution to achieve more harmonious interactions and build stronger connections.

Enhancing Conflict Resolution Skills

The ultimate goal of utilizing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is to enhance one’s conflict resolution skills. Here are some strategies for doing so:

• Self-Awareness: Take the TKI assessment to identify your primary conflict-handling modes. Reflect on how these styles manifest in your interactions and consider their effectiveness in different situations.
• Flexibility: Develop the ability to adapt your conflict style based on the context and the needs of the parties involved. This may involve practicing collaboration in situations where you typically compete or finding ways to assert your needs when you tend to accommodate.
• Communication: Improve your communication skills by actively listening to others, expressing your concerns clearly, and seeking to understand the perspectives of all parties. Effective communication is key to resolving conflicts constructively.
• Problem-Solving: Work on your problem-solving skills by focusing on finding mutually beneficial solutions. This may involve brainstorming, negotiating, and exploring creative options to address the underlying issues in a conflict.

Associated Concepts

• Conflict Resolution: This concept refers to the methods and processes used to facilitate the peaceful resolution of disagreements, disputes, or conflicts between individuals, groups, or organizations. It involves techniques such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration to address the issue at hand and reach a mutually acceptable solution.
• Design Thinking: This concept combines creativity and cognition to tackle complex problems. It emphasizes empathy, collaboration, and iteration, addressing wicked problems by reframing, generating, and prototyping solutions.
• Assertiveness: This is a communication style characterized by confident and self-assured behavior, expressing one’s needs, desires, and opinions. healthy assertiveness balances assertive efforts to obtain personal desires with the needs and wants of others.
• Role Theory: This theory explores the diverse, dynamic nature of human social roles. Rooted in psychology, it delves into how individuals comprehend and enact their roles within society, examining aspects like expectations, conflicts, and cognitive processes.
• Johari Window: This refers to a four quadrant graphic matrix, depicting various levels of self awareness as expressed in relationships with others. The model is widely used for training in self understanding, self awareness, personal development, and improving group and interpersonal communications.
• Group Development Stages: This model outlines the various stages that groups go through as they develop and mature. The stages include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is a powerful tool for understanding and improving conflict resolution. By identifying and analyzing different conflict-handling modes, individuals can develop greater self-awareness and adaptability, leading to more effective and harmonious interactions. Whether applied in the workplace or personal relationships, the TKI offers valuable insights that can transform the way we approach and resolve conflicts, fostering a more collaborative and respectful environment.

Last Update: September 16, 2025