Scribd
Upload
17 views3 pages

[Conflict Model] - Chap 4

Uploaded by

Long Nguyen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views3 pages

[Conflict Model] - Chap 4

Uploaded by

Long Nguyen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

THOMAS KILMANN CONFLICT MODEL

● Cooperativeness is about how you are ready to meet other people’s needs.
● Assertiveness is about how much you want to meet your own needs.

Competing (Protecting, Forcing) → High assertiveness, low


cooperativeness (I win, you lose)
● Pros: You get your point across quickly, and you tell people what you want. Also,
you can actually protect and stand up for the right things and that you think need
protecting. This strategy works well when there is an urgent time and limited
resources to resolve the conflict because no more time has to be delayed. Thus,
competing helps us to achieve our goals.
● Cons: If you ever compete, people may not want to talk to you because they will
see you as a cold jerk that doesn't deserve talking to. Thus, competing usually
leads to negative emotions, and it doesn't help you build good relationships
because you don't listen to what others say.

Accommodating (Soothing) → High cooperativeness, low


assertiveness (I lose, you win)
● Pros: You’re the person that helps get things done. It’s a very smooth style over
rough times and an effective strategy to manage conflict when you lack power.
This method is only appropriate if you want to please others in order to keep the
peace and want to minimize losses to preserve relationships.
● Cons: If you only do this, you leave your concerns aside, and you’re never heard
by anybody. Therefore, you may start to lose control over your own agenda and
obey another person’s order when you would prefer not to. In some cases, it may
result in a false solution for a problem.

Collaborating → High cooperativeness, high assertiveness (I win, you


win)
● Pros: You’re actually taking the time to hear from everybody, and people are
heard. You attempt to balance power between yourself and another person. You
also try to find common ground and work together towards achieving a shared
goal. Thus, it's an ideal strategy if both parties are committed to reaching a
mutual agreement. As a result, they can identify the underlying concerns and
understand the views of others; so it fosters respect, trust and builds the
relationship.
● Cons: It takes time because this strategy will require sharing personal opinions
and feelings, and also need two people who trust each other and value working
together. Therefore, if you don't have time, you need to use a more competing
style to get the point across. Also, if the relationship is not important, this
resolution may not be worth the time and energy to create a win-win solution.

Avoiding (Selecting) → Low cooperativeness, low assertiveness (I


lose, you lose)
● Pros: This strategy will be effective if people know that they don't have any
authority over the other person. It can be appropriate when you need more time
to think and process.
● Cons: Avoiding is often considered a passive and weak strategy. Thus, people
will avoid confrontation by ignoring or avoiding the conflict entirely. They also
choose to ignore and postpone the issue altogether. People who avoid the
situation hope the problem will go away, and they resolve it without any
involvement.

Compromising → Sharing, 50/50 (I win some, you win some)


● Pros: You get something and you give up something at the same time. Thus, you
can adapt to everything else. Since you're trying to resolve a disagreement, it's
important that you show flexibility. This strategy will give the feeling of a win-win
scenario, where both parties feel that they gained something out of the conflict.
People are also willing to sacrifice some of their goals and persuade others to
give up theirs, to-give a little to get a little. This method maintains the relationship
and can take less time than others.
● Cons: If you only compromise, you're going to look like let’s make a deal. Thus,
compromising strategy might mean splitting the difference between the two
positions or exchanging concessions. Also, compromising is not necessarily
intended to make all parties happy, but rather ensures the decision is equitable.

You might also like