Introduction

No organization exists just for the sake of working; in order to thrive, it must generate revenue. Employees must give their all at work in order to achieve optimal productivity. If staff are continuously bickering and criticizing one another, nothing useful will ever come out. Conflict management is critical in the workplace for preventing confrontations and allowing people to focus on their task. The team leaders must make certain that everyone’s duties and responsibilities are clear.

To avoid a large battle, the factors that lead to a dispute must be managed at the appropriate moment. Conflict resolution is crucial everywhere, including at work and in our personal life. Fighting never makes anyone happy and just makes their lives more difficult.

Do you know, most of the conflict arises because people have not yet learned to manage conflicts at first place? 

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann created a paradigm for conflict resolution in the 1970s. After them, it was termed the Thomas-Kilmann model. According to this concept, the term “conflict” refers to a situation in which people’s interests cannot be compared to those of others. Conflict occurs when two or more persons or organizations care about things that are conflicting  to one another.

This model explains the two key elements to consider when deciding on a course of action in a conflict situation: 

Element 1: ‘assertiveness’ 

Element 2: ‘cooperativeness.’ 

The degree to which you strive to solve and resolve problems in order to achieve your desired outcomes is referred to as assertiveness. In this style of assertiveness, a party is more likely to be concerned about their own benefits than that of the other party’s.

Also Read: Essential Organizational Skills 

Cooperativeness, on the other hand, is the degree to which you attempt to address the difficulties of the other party. In other words, a party in this style of cooperativeness, is  more likely to be concerned about the benefits of the other party as well. 

This results in five resolving conflicts modes:

• Competing – attempting to satisfy your own needs at the expense of others.
• Accommodating – attempting to address the worries of another person at the expense of your own.
• Avoiding – avoiding the dispute
• Collaborating –  attempting to develop a win-win solution that fully addresses both parties’ concerns.
• Compromise –  attempting to reach an acceptable compromise that only partially addresses both parties’ concerns.

Competing:  

The first to compete The conflict mode of Thomas-Kilmann is aggressive and non-cooperative. It refers to focusing only on one’s own interests at the expense of the worries of others.

Competing is a method of conflict resolution that occurs when a person believes his or her own right to be more important than the rights of others. When a contradictory issue arises.

This is necessary in order to prioritize one’s own perspective or notion. The method is favored. This style might deteriorate to the point where after being dominated by the loser, the loser may wish to retaliate.

It is a power-oriented mode in which one employs whatever power dynamic is suitable in order to obtain a good outcome for oneself. The capacity of an individual to debate, their position in the hierarchy, or their financial dominance might be the most important factors. Competing is purely defensive—it is sticking up for your own ideas and attempting to win.

Irfan is a Manager of Rahul and there are some conflicts between them regarding the working hours. 

Irfan believes that Rahul is not putting enough hours to work but Rahul thinks that all he does is work.

Let’s take a look at the competing approach. If Irfan continues with his thoughts about Rahul and thinks that Rahul’s need doesn’t matter then the issue will remain the same and same goes when Rahul will not put extra effort in working extra hours to complete the deadline. 

Also Read: People Skills for First-Time Manager

Accommodating: 

The Accommodating mode, according to the Thomas-Kilmann paradigm, is both accepting and cooperative. When someone exhibits accommodating behaviour, it is because he or she is more concerned with the interests of another party than with his or her own. When the reason for the disagreement is more important to the other person or parties involved than to oneself, this method is used. The goal of employing this strategy is to allow the opposing party to win while you lose. Individuals that exhibit passive behavior are more likely to employ this technique of conflict resolution and management.

It is the inverse of competition. While accommodating, the individual neglects their own concerns or views in order to handle the difficulties of the other party. This approach emphasizes the notion of self-sacrifice. Typically, accommodating entails unselfish understanding, compassion, or charity. At times, accommodating might entail you following the other person’s directions when you do not want to, or submitting to the other’s point of view or judgments.

Now let’s look at the accommodating approach, which is totally opposite of competing. 

In this you are totally focusing on the other person’s needs and ignoring what you want. 

If Irfan releases some pressure off to Rahul’s work by giving some extra breaktime or Rahul will be put in extra hours at work without any of the benefits. In this manner conflict is still unresolved but it will somehow simmer. 

Avoiding: 

Avoiding is both unassertive and uncooperative in the Thomas-Kilmann paradigm. 

Avoiding can be viewed as a passive conflict resolution strategy. This style is characterized by a high level of unassertiveness and cooperation. It is the polar opposite of the cooperative conflict resolution technique. In this situation, a person tends to flee or ignores the disagreement. This personality type is characterized by a lack of regard for the rights of others as well as his own.

The individual does not want to confront either their own or other people’s concerns. This finally implies that they do not wish to participate in the battle at all. Avoiding can be seen as a diplomatic maneuver that involves avoiding or disregarding the subject at times. It might also mean deferring the matter until a better moment comes around, or just withdrawing from an unpleasant or dangerous circumstance.

Next is avoiding in this there is an unassertive as well as uncooperative stand. If Irfan and Rahul continue with their respective thought process the conflict will remain the same and there is a chance that conflicts will occur more often. 

Collaborating: 

The most advantageous consequence in the Thomas-Kilmann conflict paradigm is collaboration, which is both aggressive and cooperative. The collaboration style of conflict resolution is characterized by a high level of assertiveness and cooperation. It is the collaboration of ideas in order to find the best answers in a conflict scenario. The optimum answer is found through a creative process that incorporates the input of all parties concerned. This strategy may be regarded as the finest since resolution is reached by the participation of all parties concerned.

Avoiding is the polar opposite of this style. Collaborating entails making a voluntary effort to collaborate with the opposing party to discover a flawless solution that completely addresses the common problem. Collaborating entails delving deeply into a problem to identify the key demands of the person or parties involved. Collaboration between two or more persons might take the shape of an investigation into the “why” of the conflict. It entails attempting to find innovative solutions to interpersonal problems and benefiting from the perspectives of others.

The last approach is collaborating. This is considered as the best response, as it possesses high assertiveness and high cooperation. Let’s say that Irfan and Rahul have one to one meeting regarding the issue that they are facing and they talked about it and the solution that they achieve is if there is an urgent work then Rahul will take responsibility by putting extra time and if Rahul has an any urgency then Irfan will grant the leave or give some extra time off to Rahul. In this manner both of them are satisfying both of their needs to the fullest. In this manner Irfan and Rahul listen to each other and try to find a win-win situation. 

Compromising: 

In the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model, the final conclusion falls on the average point on both the assertiveness and cooperativeness scales. It leads to I-win a little and lose a little portion in order to reach a compromise. Individuals who utilize this technique alter their minds in order to avoid constant conflict or because they have found sufficient and compelling reasons to do so.

The objective here is to establish a mutually acceptable and strong solution that, in some ways, satisfies both parties. It falls in between competitive and accommodating. It confronts an issue more directly than avoiding but falls short of researching it as thoroughly and rigorously as cooperating. In other cases, compromising may entail seeking a middle ground, making compromises, or looking for a rapid solution that gives a route out of the deadlock.

Let’s take a look at the compromise approach. If Irfan agrees for 2 week offs per month beside all the Sundays and holidays and Rahul agrees for putting one hour extra everyday then the conflict between them is somehow resolved. As both of them are satisfying their respective needs so that one and the other will be put in extra effort. 

Conclusion

Thomas-Kilmann Model for conflict resolution is considered to be the best approach for resolving workplace conflicts. You can either be assertive at the moment of conflict or tend to be cooperative. This model caters to 5 styles or strategies of conflict which will provide the best result.