Conflict Management Styles in Teams: The Thomas-Kilmann Modes and How to Choose

What is the Thomas-Kilmann model?

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) as a research tool in the early 1970s, building on Thomas’s refinement of the management-styles model proposed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in the 1960s. ^[2]

The model describes a person’s behaviour in conflict on two dimensions: assertiveness, how far they try to satisfy their own concerns, and cooperativeness, how far they try to satisfy the other person’s. The two dimensions combine to give five modes. ^[1]

The assessment takes about 15 minutes and uses pairs of statements designed to be evenly matched in social desirability, so that respondents cannot simply pick the one that “sounds better”. ^{[1, 2]}

What are the five modes?

• Competing (assertive, uncooperative): you pursue your position using whatever leverage you have, such as argument or rank. Standing up for a right, or for a position you believe is correct, is one form. ^[1]
• Collaborating (assertive, cooperative): you work with the other person towards a solution that fully satisfies both sides, by uncovering the needs beneath the disagreement. ^[1]
• Compromising (moderate on both): you look for a quick, acceptable solution that partly satisfies both sides, such as splitting the difference or trading concessions. ^[1]
• Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative): you pursue neither your concerns nor theirs for now, postponing or tactfully sidestepping the issue. ^[1]
• Accommodating (unassertive, cooperative): you set aside your own concerns to meet the other person’s, for instance by adopting their view or doing what they want when you would prefer otherwise. ^[1]

Why is there no best style?

Kilmann stresses that everyone can use all five modes and that nobody has a single fixed style. Some people, however, use certain modes more skilfully and rely on them more, through temperament or practice, so their behaviour in conflict blends personal tendency with what the situation demands. ^[1]

The practical problem is habit: many people discover after the assessment that they fall back on their comfortable mode even when another would have worked better, and neglect a mode that would have helped them. ^[4] Kilmann warns that compromising leaves each side only partly satisfied, because everyone gives something up, and that repeated avoiding or accommodating gradually leads people to disengage, do the minimum or leave. ^[3]

So the right question for a leader is not “what is my style?” but “which style does this situation need?”

Eight questions that point to the right style

Kilmann proposes eight attributes of a conflict situation to guide the choice: ^[3]

Kilmann cautions against choosing a mode out of habit or personal preference rather than reading these attributes. ^[3]

How do you use a style constructively?

Choosing the mode is only half the task; each mode has a constructive and a destructive form: ^[4]

• Constructive competing explains why the issue matters and asks for support respectfully; the destructive form relies on intimidation and threats and withholds reasons, which provokes resistance.
• Constructive avoiding explains the reason for postponing and says when the conversation will resume; the destructive form is dismissive and leaves the other person feeling rejected.
• Constructive collaborating is open and invites dialogue, whereas “collaboration” imposed through pressure and ultimatums makes others defensive.

How can you use the TKI in your team?

The result measures a person’s preferences for using the five modes; it does not mean they cannot use the others. ^{[1, 2]} The current norms are based on a sample of 8,000 employed people tested between 2002 and 2005, and differences in scores by gender, ethnic group, organisational level and educational level were judged negligible in practical terms. ^[2] So do not use the result to label staff or in promotion decisions; use it to open a conversation.

A leader can use it in a short team workshop:

1. Each member completes the assessment and reads their result privately.
2. Each member shares, if they wish, the mode they overuse and the one they neglect.
3. The team discusses a real situation from recent months: which mode was used, and which mode did the situation’s attributes point to?
4. The team agrees a working rule, for example: whoever postpones a discussion sets the date to return to it.

The manager’s role: early intervention before formal action

In a 2024 UK survey published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), only 36% of employees who had experienced conflict at work in the previous 12 months said it had been fully resolved, and employers reported disciplinary and grievance procedures as the most common ways of resolving conflict. ^[6] The CIPD recommends informal, early routes to resolution where appropriate, because formal procedures tend to be drawn out and add stress and cost. ^[6]

In the employer survey published alongside these findings, 49% of employers acknowledged that managers can cause conflict in their teams, and 30% of organisations said they do not provide people management skills training. ^[6] Both surveys were conducted in the UK, so their figures should not be generalised to the Gulf, but the principle holds for any team: an untrained manager can be part of the problem.

The CIPD’s guidance for managers sets out practical steps: ^[5]

• Meet each person separately in a private setting, listen without assumptions, and share what was said with the other party only with permission.
• Stay impartial, and look for the root cause and any underlying tensions.
• Ask each person what they need to move forward and what changes they are willing to make, then bring them together so that each acknowledges the other’s view and proposes solutions.
• Follow up after resolution in one-to-ones to check the issue has not resurfaced.

Formal procedures are for when informal action has failed or when investigation or disciplinary action is needed, and serious complaints such as harassment, discrimination or persistent bullying must be taken seriously and dealt with promptly. ^[5] In the Gulf, these procedures follow the organisation’s approved grievance policy and the labour law or HR regulations that apply to it, which differ between countries and between the government and private sectors.

Hypothetical example: a dispute over two teams’ priorities

A project manager in a government entity notices that the leads of the development and testing teams keep blaming each other for a delayed release, and team meetings have become tense.

She starts by meeting each lead alone and finds the dispute is not personal: each team is working to a different priority list. The issue is complex and matters to both, the relationship will continue, and the release is three weeks away, so there is time for a serious conversation. These attributes point to collaborating, so she brings them together to build a shared priority plan.

One decision, however, to defer a single feature, cannot wait for a long discussion, so she makes it herself as the person with authority (constructive competing) and explains her reasons. Two weeks later she follows up with each of them individually. The case is hypothetical and for illustration only.

Conclusion

The Thomas-Kilmann model does not label people; it widens their options. Read the situation before choosing a mode, apply it constructively, and step in early with one-to-one conversations before a disagreement becomes a formal grievance.