As a mediation and negotiation specialist, I found the Harvard Program on Negotiation commentary titled “Conflict-Management Styles: Pitfalls and Best Practices” an invaluable and credible resource. I believe that the insights from this article, along with additional sources, can greatly benefit you. This article introduces you to the historical Thomas-Kilmann conflict categories and provides practical, real-world suggestions on how to work with others who may be like or different from you.
Thomas-Kilman conflict categories
Their instrument identifies five different modes of responding to conflict resolution. These are described on their web page as:
- Competing is assertive and uncooperative—an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is a power-oriented mode in which you use whatever power seems appropriate to win your own position—your ability to argue, your rank, or economic sanctions. Competing means “standing up for your rights,” defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.
- Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of competing. When accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.
- Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative—the person neither pursues his own concerns nor those of the other individual. Thus he does not deal with 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.
- Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves working with others to find some solution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means digging into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights or trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.
- Compromising is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It falls intermediate between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but does not explore it in as much depth as collaborating. In some situations, compromising might mean splitting the difference between the two positions, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground solution.
Depending on the situation, you or the other party may adopt any of these modes. Some people are more oriented towards certain modes than others. When involved in a conflict, you may have your preferred mode for that situation but may need to adjust depending on the mode chosen by the other party.
What happens when differing styles conflict with each other?
Another study found that parties with differing styles achieved better results because they played different roles during the negotiation process.
For example, the competing person who is dominant is likely a poorer listener, knows his or her position well, and wants to win. This person wants to win, may make threats, insists on victory, is distrustful, wants to prevail at all costs, will apply pressure as necessary, is hard on the people and the problem, demands concessions, demands one-sided gains, and may mislead to the bottom line. This can be a hard person to negotiate with.
By comparison, one of the other four types would likely have a different perspective. On the extreme, let's look at the avoiding mode. This person may be oriented to try and develop a friendly relationship and is focused on satisfaction. May make offers and agree and want to avoid a contest of wills. Being soft on the people and the problem may make this person willing to make concessions to work towards a solution. They may even accept a one-sided loss to reach an agreement. They may also be more likely to disclose their bottom line.
On the surface, this matchup may look like a disaster waiting to happen. But wait. The avoider may be oriented to ask questions and find ways to meet the competing person in a way that results in a better solution for both. An improved information exchange may be able to provide better outcomes for both. This study confirms this result under a similar competing-avoiding pair.
Why does a competing and avoiding pair have a better negotiation result?
Under this scenario, as long as the non-competing party remains focused on the problem and listens actively, looking for clues for inroads, there remains the possibility of improving the situation. For example, keeping an open mind and exploring shared interests while brainstorming other alternatives could provide a better solution. It is essential to paraphrase what the other party has stated and summarize key points to ensure you understand. Ask open-ended questions to explore underlying interests. Look for shared values. Common values may help to de-escalate the situation and allow both parties to see each other in a better light.
In this study, where one party was instructed to behave dominantly and the other to act submissively, this group achieved better results than the two dominant parties. Why? The complementary styles allowed the submissive party to ask questions and allowed the dominant party to feel respected and competent. This study found that working towards an open and collaborative approach works regardless of conflict-management styles. It is important to ensure active listening and respectful behavior that encourages problem-solving.
Whether negotiating in a corporate board room with a team of lawyers on either side and a difference on the order of $1 billion is at stake or a neighborhood dispute with neighbors associated with a local issue, everyone wants to be listened to and respected. Keep this in mind in your next negotiation. Work to identify the different conflict management styles. Understand the differences. Adjust to working with those differences, but in the end, focus on listening actively and being respectful.
What do you think? Do you have examples you want to share? I would love to hear from you.
Check out these links if you would like to learn more about collaboration, conflict resolution, or enhancing your Servant Manager skills.