The five styles of managing conflict

Many experts have studied the ways in which people respond to conflict. One tool that’s been
developed is the Thomas-Killman Instrument (TKI). It identifies five different styles, or tactics, that
people commonly use when faced with a conflict: accommodating, collaborating, compromising,
avoiding, and competing. Each of the five styles comes with its own set of advantages and
disadvantages.

Do you recognize your preferred style of dealing with conflict here?

Accommodating refers to smoothing things over. The goal with this tactic is to yield – to preserve
harmony and relationships at all costs (although sometimes this means ignoring the issue at hand,
which can be detrimental to a long-term solution). It may be used effectively when you’ve realized
you’re in the wrong, when the issue is clearly more important to the other party than it is to you,
and when you want to build goodwill and demonstrate that you’re reasonable. But beware! If you
use this style too often, you may be seen as weak, ineffective, or fearful of change.
Compromising refers to a bargaining process that often results in a less-than-ideal solution as
concessions are made (one party may be willing to give up something on this issue to gain
leverage for another). Still, this tactic may be useful in arriving at a temporary settlement on a
complex issue, or a quick fix when time is of the essence. It’s best used for issues of mild to
moderate importance – you wouldn’t want to compromise on an issue of patient safety, for
example. And it may work well when both parties have equal power in the hierarchy and are
equally committed to their position. Overuse of this style can have negative consequences,
however. Parties may lose sight of long-term goals or become cynical as concessions are made to
keep people happy without resolving the original conflict. A frequent compromiser may be seen as
having no firm values.
[programpush poi=”RNMSN”]Collaborating is true problem solving. The goal is to find a mutual
solution when both sets of interests are too important to be compromised – for example, when an
issue of patient safety is at odds with the need to use limited resources strategically. The process
of collaborating involves high amounts of both assertiveness and cooperation, as parties with
different perspectives attempt to merge their insights and work through the conflict. This is
generally considered the most effective style of managing conflict, yet it also has pitfalls – use it for
everything and you’ll find yourself spending exorbitant amounts of time sorting out trivial issues.
Avoiding conflict is not generally advised. Yet even this tactic can be used strategically, for
example to create a delay that allows people to cool down or gather more information. Experts
recommend using avoidance only when the issue is of small importance, when you know you can’t
prevail against a more powerful opponent, or when the potential damage of a confrontation
outweighs the benefits. Nurses who avoid conflict at all costs are at odds with the profession’s
goal to advance the standard of care delivery – they are not leaders.
Competing is generally a negative way to manage conflict. The goal is to “win” at all costs and the
style is characterized by high assertiveness and low cooperation – for example when a person
uses her rank to force an issue to resolution. Yet it might be a useful tactic in an emergency when
quick, decisive action is vital, or where an unpopular course of action must be implemented. A
manager who uses this tactic too often, however, will likely end up with a team of unempowered
nurses who are indecisive, slow to act, and prone to withhold feedback.