Conflict: A Bad Word, or Just an Important One?

Does the “C” word make you flinch? Recently, people in leadership positions have been exploring the idea of “conflict” with me. It’s uncomfortable – but can it also be the key to something powerfully good? And is it always best to work with whomever we’re disagreeing with to find common ground?

I revisited an old perspective on conflict: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes. What follows is my re-appreciation of its surface simplicity and its deeper nooks and eddies. Keep reading and you’ll meet “Sam,” who has an important position of public trust. You’ll read about three conflicts he’s involved in and how he might address each.

Conflict is Always and Everywhere for All of Us

Thomas and Kilmann’s model defines a conflict as any situation involving parties whose desired outcomes don’t match. A husband wants to celebrate an anniversary by going out for seafood. His wife wants to celebrate at a steak house. That is a conflict.

Conflicts also exist within and between organizations, and between organizations and people:

• A fire chief wants all hose and couplings at his station pressure tested once every six months. The firefighters (and their union) object because it’s labor-intensive and the city’s standard only requires annual inspections.

• ABC Company wants to acquire XYZ Corp, its largest competitor. XYZ Corp’s management doesn’t want to be acquired, but XYZ’s common stockholders want to vote for the sale because they’ll make a lot of money.

  
  

Meet Sam: A Man of Many Roles

Based on factors including personality, personal history and acquired habits, people generally have a default approach or “mode” for dealing with conflict. Their default style may serve them well for certain types of conflicts, but not others. For example, Sam gets great satisfaction from “winning” conflicts by overwhelming the opposing party with solid argumentation and evidence. With that, consider three conflicts he currently faces:

1. Sam and his wife have agreed to a nice anniversary dinner this Friday. He’s craving The Seafood Emporium. His wife is holding out for Rummy’s Steakhouse, which he considers overpriced and unenjoyable.

2. Sam is the fire chief at Station 36. He’s seen data that shows an increased risk of failure to achieve sufficient pressure in the type and age of hose his station uses, to douse fires on the top floors of tall buildings. Unless all hose and couplings are free of defect, he thinks lives will be put at risk if his station must respond to an incident in one of the new 12-story high rises in his precinct . The firefighters and their union oppose the extra inspections he wants, calling them unnecessary.

3. Six years ago, Sam’s cousin talked him into investing $30,000 in the stock of XYZ Corp. The stock is worth $45,000 now. Sam has been reading that if ABC Company buys XYC Corp, he might cash out with triple his initial investment. But if XYC Corp management has its way and the sale is blocked, his stock could lose half its value.

   
   

Should Sam rely on his ‘default’ conflict mode (getting his way with evidence and great arguments) in all three situations? Thomas-Kilmann gives us a way to define our default conflict response style, and to identify how we might want to respond differently to certain types of conflicts we face. Once identified, it’s possible to intentionally develop conflict response skills that expand a person’s ability to respond effectively to various types of conflict.

Reviewing the Five Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes

Thomas-Kilmann shows us five distinct approaches to conflict which result from a person’s level of response along two dimensions: Assertiveness and Cooperation. A highly assertive approach coupled with “zero” or low interest in cooperation, results in the COMPETITION mode. This approach emphasizes “winning;” getting one’s way regardless of other party’s desires.

The polar opposite of the Competition mode is ACCOMODATION. This mode emphasizes cooperation and involves little to no assertiveness. Sometimes Accommodation is adopted willingly or even intentionally as a conflict management strategy, but sometimes it happens when Accommodation is seen as the only possible choice due to a power imbalance.

Low levels of both Assertiveness and Cooperation equals AVOIDANCE – retreat from the situation. When all sides in a conflict are in Avoidance mode, the conflict continues to exist unresolved until circumstances change or until someone acts to resolve the conflict “their way.”

Sometimes, Avoidance and Accommodation can be good strategies. Consider a person who is asked, “Why didn’t you stick up for your point of view?” and answers, “I choose my battles carefully” or “That hill wasn’t worth defending.” There are limits on a person’s energy, and this person may be saving their energy (and their team’s energy) for other, more important things.

Is it possible to be both highly assertive and highly cooperative in dealing with conflict? Thomas and Kilmann said “yes,” and call it COLLABORATION. Recent studies of high-functioning work teams have found that high-performing teams are often composed of highly assertive members who are also committed to working through conflict in ways that bring success to the entire team. People who see themselves as part of the same “ecosystem” or community, may choose Collaboration as their conflict management strategy in order to promote the good of the system or of the community they share an interest in.

In the middle of all this is COMPROMISE. This may be a good approach when attempts at any of the other four approaches fail. For instance, you may be sold on the strategy of Competition but find yourself unable to “win.” Or the parties have tried to identify “win-win” solutions but have not found a way to collaborate to deliver a clean “win” to each side. Or, all sides are in Avoidance, but the unresolved conflict is a source of too much irritation to let it go any further. In each case, the sides identify the non-negotiable outcome(s) they seek and prepare to negotiate away other desired but unessential outcomes.

Where Does “Empathy” Enter into Conflict Resolution?

I saw some re-interpretations of Thomas & Killman’s work that relabeled the “Cooperation” dimension to “Empathy.” Empathy implies a willingness to appreciate the viewpoint of the party on the other side of the conflict. But in some cases, an “Accommodation” strategy is not taken out of a true willingness, but rather because of perceived powerlessness to do otherwise; or as a calculated (not empathetic) attempt to gain “bargaining chips” for some bigger negotiation envisioned down the road.

Yet there is a place for empathy as a conflict management ingredient, particularly in two of the five modes: Collaboration and Compromise. Collaboration requires the sides to educate each other on what is important to them and why; and to acknowledge the legitimacy of what the other side considers valuable. Collaborative conversations like this require trust, and empathy feeds that kind of trust.

Empathy is also essential to Compromise solutions. The parties know each will need to give up something in order to get something else they want. Enduring compromise requires each side to understand what the concessions mean to the other side. Both sides can see in this way that the other side has some real “skin in the game;” and that acknowledgement can become a foundation of future respect and trust.

Sam, Revisited: What Conflict Management Modes Might He Adopt?

Like many of us, our husband/fire chief/steward of the family fortune faces multiple conflicts that he can decide to navigate differently based on what’s at stake, and his power to impact the outcome. Let’s examine some of his conflict management possibilities:

• The Anniversary Dinner: If Sam places a high value on the quality of his marriage, “Competition” might not serve him well. “Accommodation” may be an excellent choice if Sam can tolerate Rummy’s Steakhouse and thinks his wife will appreciate his flexibility. Then again, he knows that dinner at the steakhouse will prevent him from paying off the monthly credit card bill in full, as promised. In that case, talking it through and ending up in “Collaboration” to find an affordable option they’ll both enjoy, might be best.

• Double-checking the Fire Hose: Because Sam perceives an unacceptable risk to human life, he will not consider “Accommodation” or “Avoidance.” He may feel justified in “Competition” mode. This is a fight he must win on behalf of those high-rise residents! Or, he may decide to test his influence by meeting with city government and union officials to build a consensus that the present risk to human life is unacceptable. He may ask the union to temporarily support his frequent inspection schedule while the city finds money in the budget to order new hose and couplings for his station. This could turn out to be an example of either “Collaboration” or “Compromise.”

• Protecting His Investment: Sam wants to put his three kids through college and desires a nice retirement lifestyle. The future value of his investment in XYZ matters a lot - he’d like Competition and getting his way! But he takes medication for high blood pressure, has some sleeplessness, and a doctor’s warning to de-stress. As significant as the outcome might be to his family finances, his only power is to proxy vote his shares in favor of the sale. Beyond that, Sam wants to think about it as little as possible – the strategy of Avoidance.

  
  

Any of the Five Conflict Modes Can Be the “Right” One

It’s tempting to think that Collaboration is the “best” Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode because it combines the highest level of Assertiveness with the highest level of Cooperation. And it may be true that many professional conflicts can be best resolved with Collaboration (I think innovation in business most often results from dealing with conflict in this manner). But as Sam has just shown us, there’s a place for all five flavors of conflict management that the Thomas-Kilmann model provides to us. Here's four helpful questions to ask ourselves when determining which mode to adopt. Perhaps you can think of more:

• What's really at stake?

• How much power or influence do I have to get the outcome I need?

• Is it possible that I can talk with the other parties to identify common goals?

• Is the outcome I'm seeking worth the effort it will likely require?