QUESTION ONE

WHAT ARE THE FIVE APPROACHES

TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION
ACCORDING TO THOMAS KILMANN
MODEL AND WHAT ARE THE MAIN
FEATURES OF EACH APPROACH ?
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.
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:
1.High assertiveness and high cooperativeness: Collaboration
2.High assertiveness and low cooperativeness: Competition
3.Low assertiveness and high cooperation: Accommodation
4.Low assertiveness and low cooperation: Avoidance
Let’s go over the two Thomas Kilmann Conflict Modes now
Assertiveness Cooperation
Is the degree to which people are willing to take initiative and Is the degree to which people are willing to
force their will upon others. This strategy is useful in the work together to accomplish a goal. It’s all
following situations: about teamwork and weighing different
Results are needed fast points of view, much like a democracy.
Here are situations where cooperation may
Ethics or morality is in question be superior to assertiveness:
You know you are correct and need to push forward Other
attempts to resolve conflict are fruitless Your power and There is no clear-cut best way to handle
influence are significant. the situation Your way may not be the right
Naturally, assertiveness often leads to faster resolution and way. Your opponent/rival is not very
reinforces power within the dominance hierarchy, but it can disagreeable or is cooperative. Helps lower
cause friction, backlash, and reinforce hierarchies that are too threat levels in the workplace and
vertical or power-driven. It can also lower morale and
autonomy among strong and equally disagreeable/assertive minimize your number of enemies. Works
workers beneath you. It’s best to be prudent, as always. in every situation since you are giving up
ground to a conflicting stance – however, it
may not always be the RIGHT way.
Cooperation has some advantages: it
minimizes fallout and may enhance the
worker or manager’s reputation of being a
diplomat and a people person.
However, it takes time to weigh all sides
and come to agreements – time you may
not have. Also, the more stubborn the
other person or group is, the harder it will
be to be cooperative – to the point where
you may just waste your time. Know when
to be assertive and when to be
cooperative!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.