10.2 Addressing Conflict and the Thomas-Kilmann Model
Key Takeaways
- The Thomas-Kilmann model places five conflict modes on axes of assertiveness and cooperativeness: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.
- Collaborating produces the best joint outcome but costs the most time, so it fits high-stakes issues where a durable solution matters.
- Competing is appropriate where safety, legality, or compliance is at stake and speed matters more than consensus.
- Avoiding is a legitimate choice for trivial issues or when emotions need time to cool — but not for material risks.
- No mode is universally right: the examinable skill is justifying the mode against the situation, stakes, time available, and relationship.
Outcome 11c asks you to know ways in which conflict can be addressed in different situations, and names the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument explicitly. A named model in the syllabus means you should be able to name all five modes and, more importantly, say when each is appropriate — the marks sit in matching the mode to the situation, not in reciting the grid.
Ways conflict can be addressed
Addressing conflict is a process, not a single conversation. Practical steps for the project manager:
- Recognise early — delayed attention often converts task conflict into relationship conflict.
- Diagnose source and stakeholders — interests, power, urgency, and what "winning" means to each party.
- Choose mode and forum — private 1:1, facilitated workshop, joint problem-solving, or formal escalation.
- Separate people from problem where possible — reframe to interests and project objectives.
- Generate options — expand the pie before dividing it (scope trade-offs, sequence change, extra resource, temporary workaround).
- Agree decision and record — who decided what, why, and any residual risk.
- Follow up — check behaviour and delivery after the agreement; repair trust if needed.
- Escalate when authority, safety, ethics, or business-case impact exceeds the PM’s remit — with options, not only problems.
Other organisational mechanisms (mediation, commercial dispute procedures, HR processes, assurance reviews) sit alongside the interpersonal modes below when stakes or formality rise.
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument describes five conflict-handling modes along two dimensions:
- Assertiveness — extent to which you pursue your own concerns.
- Cooperativeness — extent to which you pursue the other party’s concerns.
| Mode | Assertiveness | Cooperativeness | Essence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competing | High | Low | Pursue own position; win-lose |
| Collaborating | High | High | Seek integrative solution that satisfies both |
| Compromising | Medium | Medium | Partial satisfaction; split the difference |
| Avoiding | Low | Low | Sidestep, postpone, or withdraw |
| Accommodating | Low | High | Yield to the other party’s concerns |
No mode is universally "best." PMQ marks reward fit to situation.
When-to-use table (examinable judgement)
| Mode | When it is often appropriate | When it is often weak |
|---|---|---|
| Competing | Quick decisive action needed; safety/compliance non-negotiable; unpopular but necessary decisions; defending against exploitation | Complex multi-party problems needing buy-in; long-term partnership damage if overused |
| Collaborating | Both stakes and relationships matter; learning needed; root causes complex; time available for joint design | True zero-sum emergencies with no time; one party acting in bad faith |
| Compromising | Moderate importance; time-limited; temporary settlement; parties of equal power; collaboration attempted and stalled | Critical safety/quality where half-measures fail; chronic use that leaves root causes unsolved |
| Avoiding | Issue trivial; need to cool emotions; no power to change outcome now; more information coming soon | Chronic issues that grow; safety/ethics concerns; avoidance used to dodge accountability |
| Accommodating | You are wrong or outranked on the point; preserving harmony more valuable than this issue; building credit for later; low personal stake | Pattern of always yielding that creates resentment or bad decisions; critical project objectives sacrificed |
Mode deep dives with project flavour
Competing. Useful when a sponsor or PM must stop unsafe work, enforce a regulatory hold, or protect a non-negotiable constraint. Tone still matters: firm on the decision, respectful of people. Over-competing creates fear and silence — risks stop being reported.
Collaborating. The gold standard when two stakeholders both hold legitimate needs (for example operations uptime vs release window). Process: share interests, invent options, use objective criteria (benefits, risk, cost of delay). Takes time and facilitation skill; often the best long-term mode for matrix conflicts.
Compromising. Each side gives something (for example half the features this release, half next; shared specialist 50/50 for two weeks). Fast and pragmatic, but repeated compromise can produce mediocre solutions nobody fully owns. Use as a bridge, then plan a better structural fix.
Avoiding. Legitimate for minor preference clashes or when a public argument would harm a sensitive negotiation. Dangerous when used for known critical-path blockers or ethical issues. If you avoid, state when you will return to the issue.
Accommodating. Yield on a reporting format the PMO prefers if it costs little and builds goodwill. Do not accommodate on safety, legal compliance, or knowingly false status reporting.
Worked scenarios (PMQ style)
Scenario A — schedule vs quality. Testing leads want two more weeks; marketing has booked a launch. Source: schedule/priority. Impact could be constructive if it forces a risk-based release decision. Mode: start with collaborating (minimum viable release criteria, phased launch, extra test resource options). If a legal non-compliance risk remains, compete to stop unsafe go-live and escalate to the sponsor/board.
Scenario B — two specialists, one design. Both designs are viable; personality heat is rising. Source: technical plus personality. Mode: collaborate with decision criteria (lifecycle cost, maintainability, risk); if time-boxed and still stuck, compromise on a pilot of one approach with a review gate; PM facilitates and records the decision.
Scenario C — supplier variation dispute. Source: commercial. Early hard competing on every point may destroy delivery relationship; pure accommodating may bust the budget. Use evidence-based negotiation: interests, contract facts, and where needed formal change control and escalation — modes shift by issue (collaborate on programme recovery; compete on clear contractual breach).
Scenario D — trivial tool preference. Team argue over which chat channel to use. Source: low-stakes style. Avoid prolonged debate or accommodate majority preference quickly; save collaborative energy for benefits-critical conflicts.
Putting conflict resolution together for exam answers
When a scenario shows friction:
- Name sources (often more than one).
- State positive and/or negative impacts if the conflict continues as-is.
- Select a Thomas-Kilmann mode (or sequence of modes) and justify with stakes, time, relationships, and non-negotiables.
- Describe process steps (diagnose, facilitate, options, decide, record, follow up).
- Escalate with options when authority or business justification is at risk.
That chain matches how APM PMQ rewards applied conflict management rather than a single memorised "always collaborate" slogan.
Two stakeholders have legitimate but conflicting needs that both affect long-term benefits, and there is enough time for joint problem-solving. Which Thomas-Kilmann mode is usually most constructive?
A safety-critical non-compliance is discovered two days before a public launch. Marketing insists on proceeding. What is the most appropriate conflict-handling emphasis?