MGT 2

Interpreting Your Scores on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

The Five Conflict Handling Modes

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is designed to assess an individual’s behavior in conflict situations. “Conflict Situations” are situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In such situations, we can describe a person’s behavior along two basic dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. These two basic dimensions of behavior can be used to define five specific methods of dealing with conflicts. These five “conflict-handling modes” are shown below:

*This two dimensional model of conflict handling behavior is adapted from “Conflict and Conflict Management” by Kenneth Thomas in Volume II of The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by Marvin Dunnette (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975). Another valuable contribution in this field is the work of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964)

Dominating is assertive and uncooperative – an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is a power-oriented mode, in which one uses whatever power seems appropriate to win one’s own position – one’s ability to argue, one’s rank, economic sanctions. Dominating might mean “standing up for your rights,” defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

Obliging is unassertive and cooperative – the opposite of dominating. When obliging, an individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Obliging might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative – the individual does not immediately pursue his own concerns or those of the other person. He does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.

Integrating is both assertive and cooperative – the opposite of avoiding. Integrating involves an attempt to work with the other person to find some solution which fully satisfies the concerns of both persons. It means digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative which meets both sets of concerns. Integrating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, concluding to resolve some condition which would otherwise have them dominating for resources, or confronting and trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties. It falls on a middle ground between dominating and obliging. Compromising gives up more than dominating but less than obliging. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as Integrating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position.

Interpreting Your Scores

Usually, after getting back the results of any test, people first want to know” “What are the right answers?” In the case of conflict-handling behavior, there are no universal right answers. All five modes are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful social skills. Our conventional wisdom recognizes, for example, that often “two heads are better than one” (Integrating). But it also says, “Kill your enemies with kindness” (Obliging), “Split the difference” (Compromising), “Leave well enough alone” (Avoiding), “Might makes right” (Dominating). The effectiveness of a given conflict-handling mode depends upon the requirements of the specific conflict situation and the skill with which the mode is used.

Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes: none of us can be characterized as having a single, rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, any given individual uses some modes better than others and therefore, tends to rely upon those modes more heavily than others, whether because of temperament or practice.

The conflict behaviors which an individual uses are therefore a result of both his/her personal predispositions and the requirements of the situations in which he finds himself. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is designed to assess this mix of conflict-handling modes.

To help you judge how appropriate your utilization of the five modes is for your situation, we have listed a number of uses for each mode – based upon lists generated by company presidents. Your score, high or low, indicates its usefulness in your situation. However, there is the possibility that your social skills lead you to rely upon some conflict behaviors more or less than necessary. To help you determine this, we have also listed some diagnostic questions concerning warning signals for the overuse or underuse of each mode.

1. Dominating

Uses: 1. When quick, decisive action is vital – e.g. emergencies.

2. On important issues where unpopular courses of action need implementing – e.g. cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline.

3. On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right.

4. To protect yourself against people who take advantage of non-competitive behavior.

If you scored High:

1. Are you surrounded by “yes” men?

(If so, perhaps it’s because they have learned that it’s unwise to disagree with you, or have given up trying to influence you. This closes you off from information.)

1. Are subordinates afraid to admit ignorance and uncertainties to you?

(In competitive climates, one must fight for influence and respect – which means acting more certain and confident than one feels. The upshot is that people are less able to ask for information and opinion – they are less able to learn.)

If you scored Low:

1. Do you often feel powerless in situations?

(It may be because you are unaware of the power you do have, unskilled in its use, or uncomfortable with the idea of using it. This may hinder your effectiveness by restricting your influence.)

1. Do you have trouble taking a firm stand, even when you see the need?

(Sometimes concerns for others’ feelings or anxieties about the use of power cause us to vacillate, which may mean postponing the decision and adding to the suffering and/or resentment of others.)

1. Integrating

Uses: 1. To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be

compromised

2. When your objective is to learn – e.g., testing your own assumptions, understanding the views of others.

1. To merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem.

1. To gain commitment by incorporating other’s concerns into a consensual decision.

1. To work through hard feelings which have been interfering with an interpersonal relationship.

If you scored High:

1. Do you spend time discussing issues in depth that do not seem to deserve it?

(Collaboration takes time and energy – perhaps the scarcest organizational resources. Trivial problems don’t require optimal solutions, and not all personal differences need to be hashed out. The overuse of collaboration and consensual decision making sometimes represents a desire to minimize risk – by diffusing responsibility for a decision or by postponing action.)

1. Does your collaborative behavior fail to elicit collaborative responses from others?

(The exploratory and tentative nature of some collaborative behavior may make it easy for others to disregard collaborative overtures or the trust and openness may be taken advantage of. You may be missing some cues which would indicate the presence of defensiveness, strong feelings, impatience, competitiveness, or conflicting interests.)

If you scored Low:

1. Is it hard for you to see differences as opportunities for join gain – as opportunities to learn or solve problems?

(Although there are often threatening or unproductive aspects of conflict, indiscriminate pessimism can prevent you from seeing collaborative possibilities and thus deprive you of the mutual gains and satisfactions which accompany successful collaboration.)

1. Are subordinates uncommitted to your decisions or policies?

(Perhaps their own concerns are not being incorporated into those decisions or policies.)

1. Compromising

Uses: 1. When goals are moderately important, but not worth the effort or potential disruption of

more assertive modes.

2. When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals – are in labor-management bargaining.

1. To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues.

1. To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure.

1. As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails to be successful.

If you scored High:

1. Do you concentrate so heavily upon the practicalities and tactics of compromise that you sometimes lose sight of larger issues – principles, values, long-term objectives, company welfare?

1. Does an emphasis on bargaining and trading create a cynical climate of gamesmanship?

(Such a climate might undermine interpersonal trust and deflect attention away from the merits of the issues discussed.)

If you scored Low:

1. Do you find yourself too sensitive or embarrassed to be effective in bargaining situations?

1. Do you find it hard to make concessions?

(Without this safety valve, you may have trouble getting gracefully out of mutually destructive arguments, power struggles, etc.)

1. Avoiding

Uses: 1. When an issues is trivial, of only passing importance, or when other more important issues

are pressing.

2. When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns – e.g., when you have low power or you are frustrated by something which would be very difficult to change (national policies, someone’s personality structure, etc.)

1. When the potential damage of confronting a conflict outweighs the benefits of its resolution.

1. To let people cool down – to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain perspective and composure.

1. When gathering more information outweighs the advantage of an immediate decision.

1. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively.

1. When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another more basic issue.

If you scored High:

1. Does your coordination suffer because people have trouble getting your inputs on issues?

1. Does it often appear that people are “walking on eggshells?”

(Sometimes a dysfunctional amount of energy can be devoted to caution and the avoiding of issues, indicating that issues need to be faced and resolved.)

1. Are decisions on important issues made by default?

If you scored Low:

1. Do you find yourself hurting peoples’ feelings or stirring up hostilities?

(You may need to exercise more discretion in confronting issues or more tact in framing issues in nonthreatening ways. Tact is partially the art of avoiding potentially disruptive aspects of an issue.)

1. Do you often feel harried or overwhelmed by a number of issues?

(You may need to devote more time to setting priorities – deciding which issues are relatively unimportant and perhaps delegating them to others.)

1. Obliging

Uses: 1. When you realize that you are wrong – to allow a better position to be heard, to learn from

others, and to show that you are reasonable.

2. When the issue is much more important to the other person than to yourself – to satisfy the needs of others, and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship.

1. To build up social credits for later issues which are important to you.

1. When continued competition would only damage your cause – when you are outmatched and losing.

1. When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important.

1. To aid in the managerial development of subordinates by allowing them to experiment and learn from their own mistakes.

If you scored High:

1. Do you feel that your own ideas and concerns are not getting the attention they deserve?

(Deferring too much to the concerns of others can deprive you of influence, respect, and recognition. It also deprives the organization of your potential contributions.)

1. Is discipline lax?

(Although discipline for its own sake may be of little value, there are often rules, procedures, and assignments whose implementation is crucial for you or the organization.

If you scored Low:

1. Do you have trouble building goodwill with others?

(Accommodation on minor issues which are important to others are gestures of goodwill.)

1. Do others often seem to regard you as unreasonable?

1. Do you have trouble admitting it when you are wrong?

1. Do you recognize legitimate exceptions to rules?

1. Do you know when to give up?