User:Paigebrinkley/Conflict management styles

Conflict Management Styles

Conflict management styles refer to the five classifications for how individuals handle interpersonal conflict. Thomas (1992) defines conflict as a, “process which begins when one party perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to, frustrate, some concern of his" (p. 265). The five different modes of managing conflict are (1) competing, (2) accommodating, (3) avoiding, (4) collaborating and (5) compromising. They are determined by two independent dimensions-assertiveness and cooperation. Everyone is capable of using all five styles, but certain people use some modes better and, therefore, tend to rely on those modes more heavily. They are used to measure a person’s behavior in conflict situations, and have been formulated into multiple frameworks to help individuals and corporations in a variety of settings understand how different conflict styles affect personal and group dynamics. Since its inception, additional research has been completed on conflict management styles and its relationship to different social variables and organizational orientations such as behavioral patterns, political party affiliation differences, gender and organizational communication styles.

Background

Managerial Grid created by Blake and Mouton (1964).

The original version of the framework was first introduced by Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton in the 1964 book,The Managerial Grid, and was later reinterpreted by Kenneth Thomas in 1976. Blake and Mouton first introduced the five different approaches to conflict management in The Managerial Grid (1964). They met at the University of Texas at Austin in the 1950s, and were both hired by Exxon Inc. to study management processes. Their work at Exxon Inc. led to the development of the Managerial Grid and to the founding of Scientific Methods Inc. (now Grid International) in 1961. Blake and Mouton originally used a framework with the dimensions of “concern for people” and “concern for production”. They drew from studies performed by Ohio State researchers in the 1950s that introduced leadership dimensions that closely resemble those in the Blake-Mouton Model. Additionally, the two humanist researchers were influenced by the Theory X, Theory Y work of Douglas McGregor. Their model placed “concern for people” on the vertical axis, and “concern for production” on the horizontal axis. Blake and Morton posited that how people value these variables in a given situation will influence how they react.

In 1976, Kenneth Thomas reinterpreted the work done by Blake and Mouton into its current five-category scheme that focuses more on interpersonal communication. The dimensions of “concern for people” and “concern for production” were reclassified as cooperativeness (attempting to satisfy other people’s concerns) and assertiveness (attempting to satisfy your own concerns). This iteration of the framework has been specifically utilized in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). The TKI was developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the early 1970s and has been adopted to aid conflict management in organizational and educational settings among diverse groups of people. Additionally, there has been several further reinterpretations of a framework consisting of the five conflict management styles. Pruitt and Rubin (1986), for example, developed a model without the compromising strategy.

Content

Specifically utilizing the Thomas-Kilmann model, the conflict management styles identify five modes for handling interpersonal conflict and are determined by two dimensions.

Dimensions

1. Assertiveness- extent to which a person attempts to satisfy his/her own concerns
2. Cooperativeness- extent to which the person attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns

Styles

1. Competing- assertive and uncooperative; An individual pursues his own self-interest at the other person’s expense, refusing to see the perspective of others. They will use any means necessary to win their position and is a power-oriented mode. This style could be appropriate when you need to make a quick decision, or have to stand up for your rights or values.
2. Accommodating- unassertive and cooperative; An individual will place the concerns of the other person over their own. It is the opposite of the competing style. A person who is accommodating could yield to another’s point of view or follow a command when they would prefer not to. It would be appropriate to use this style if you simply care less about an issue than others.
3. Avoiding- unassertive and uncooperative; The Individual will not pursue his own concerns, or the concerns of the other person. They will completely evade the conflict, and will repeatedly postpone and refrain from confrontation. For example, a person could postpone an argument if they believe it is trivial or leave an uncomfortable situation.
4. Collaborating- assertive and cooperative; This style involves trying to satisfy the concerns of both parties by working with others. It is the opposite of the avoiding style, and attempts to find a solution that satisfies everyone, rather than just trying to find middle ground. An example of collaborating would be trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal conflict in the workplace. It is appropriate when the relationship between the two parties involved in conflict is particularly important, or when multiple viewpoints need to be addressed. Kenneth Thomas emphasized the benefits of collaborating, concluding that, “on the whole, collaboration is a desirable state of affairs” for individuals and organization long-term.  
5. Compromising- moderate in assertiveness and cooperativeness; Falling between competing and accommodating, in this communication style, an individual will focus on trying to find an acceptable solution that partially satisfies all involved. It addresses the conflict more directly than the avoiding style, but less directly than the collaborating style. By trying to find a middle ground, both parties will leave unsatisfied and satisfied to some extent. This communication style is appropriate when a deadline is approaching, and you need a temporary solution.

Application

Blake and Mouton Instrument

           The first application of the five conflict management styles was developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton in The Managerial Grid in 1964. Their assessment to measure the five styles consisted of five statements, each describing one of the classifications. Respondents were asked to pick the statement that best described their behavior in reaction to conflict. The wording of the five statements, however, made it obvious which conflict management style was most desirable which skewed the data due to social desirability response bias. For example, managers, with over 90%, ranked themselves highest on the collaborating style and lowest on the avoiding style. A study done by Thomas and Kilmann on the Blake and Mouton Instrument found that, on average, more than 80% of the variance of the items and over 90% of the variance on mode scores could be attributed to social desirability values.

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)

           The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) was developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilman, and was first published in 1977 in Educational and Psychological Management. It reframed the Blake and Mouton Instrument and has been the most widely used method for assessing conflict resolution for more than thirty years. It has been adopted by organizations around the world to aid in individual and team development workshops, management training and conflict management guidance. The instrument uses the five conflict management styles to measure conflict-handling behavior, while overcoming the social desirability bias that was present in the Blake and Mouton instrument. The TKI consists of thirty pairs of statements. One statement may depict avoiding, while the other may depict compromising, and respondents must choose one or the other to determine typical behavior. Each pair of statements was designed to be equal is social desirability, so respondents would not simply choose statements because it made them look good.

           In 1974, Xicom Inc. published the TKI as a management training tool in a sixteen-page booklet. Along with a self-scoring page and the 30 statements that Thomas and Kilman devised, a normative sample of managers in businesses and government was included so respondents could graph their scores in comparison. The booklet helped individuals interpret their scores by including developmental questions about particular modes and suggestions about which style is most useful in a particular situation. In 1998, Xicom was acquired by CPP Inc., the current publisher of the TKI booklet, who also publishes management tools such as the Myers-Briggs Indicator. The TKI became an online resource in 2002. This enabled CPP Inc. to gather extensive data from a wider range of respondents, and provided respondents with computer-generated results and graphs to compare their scores on screen. The TKI has also been published in various languages, allowing it to be proliferated to organizations around the world.

Additional Research

           A plethora of additional research has been conducted on conflict management styles and its applicability to other fields of study in organizational and relational communication and social psychology.

Conflict Management Styles and Organizational Communication

A study conducted in 1986 by Donald Morley and Pamela Shockley-Zalabak found a correlation between individuals preferred conflict management style and their organizational communication within the workplace. In the study, 118 members of a community who were employed by a variety of different corporations and agencies were asked to complete the TKI questionnaire, describe their current employment and the frequency of their communication behaviors. The researchers found that compromisers were more likely to characterize their communication as informative rather than regulative and more innovative than integrative. Avoiders reported a tendency to use more integrative and informative communication, and were overall the least satisfied with organizational communication within their workplace. By relating conflict management styles to specific behaviors, individuals and corporations can better predict and manage conflict within the professional context.

Conflict Management Styles and Negotiation

Research conducted by G. Richard Shell (2001) used the five conflict management styles to predict typical bargaining behaviors in individuals. Based on an individuals very strong or very weak preference for one of the conflict management styles, Shell was able to develop profiles that could describe their typical bargaining behavior. For example, Shell found strong collaborators were more like to enjoy negotiations because they enjoy solving difficult problems, while strong compromisers would be more likely to prefer to "close the gap" quickly in negotiations. Shell (2001) concluded that, with the five conflict modes, "negotiators are better able to look critically and intelligently at the unique combinations and nuances of behavior that they are their counterparts bring to the bargaining table" (p. 172)

Conflict Management Styles and Behavioral Patterns

The relationship between the assertiveness and cooperativeness dimensions of conflict management styles and specific behaviors was examined in a study done by Roger J. Volkema and Thomas J. Bergmann. By using American business school students as a sample, they were able to find a correlation. The results suggested a strong preference for assertiveness was reflected in strategic and tactical use of behaviors, while preference for cooperation is associated with last-choice behavioral patterns.

Critiques

The critiques associated with conflict management styles have mostly involved it's application in assessing and managing conflict in real-life contexts. There have been many studies performed on the validity of the Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), and the ability of the conflict management styles to predict conflict outcomes. In the 1980s, there was significant criticism concerning the small and demographically limited sample size that was used to establish conflict-handling norms and the distribution of conflict management styles within the American population. In their original publication that introduced the five modes within the TKI, Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Killman only sampled 339 middle and upper-level managers in business and government. Because this sample was taken in the 1970s, the participants were predominately highly-educated white males. Critics observed that this was not representative of the modern, significantly more diverse U.S. workforce, and researchers could not make assumptions about conflict management style norms across professions and organizational positions based on this sample. In 2007, the CPP Inc. published a study of the conflict management styles that had a sample of over 59,000 respondents and was stratified by race/ethnicity, gender, age and geographical region. Surprisingly, they found that, "conflict-handling norms are pretty much the same across demographic distinctions and have remained largely the same for the past thirty years" (Cordell, 2018, p. 3).