There are many different ways to resolve conflicts. In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.
Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:
Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favor” you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcome.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to the problem.
Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:
Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favor” you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcome.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to the problem.
Wow, Devin. Very nicely done! Personally, I think that if someone used the avoiding method, that is really rather pointless. Unless to acknowledge the conflict and work towards a solution, a wall will be blocking the relationship you previously had with that person or persons. But like you said, it may be best to use this method when a solution will never be possible. The accomodating method is okay at times, but then the one party getting what they want will always expect the other party to give up because that's what they had done before. Both the collaborative and compromising methods sound very similiar because the two parties try to reach a solution that they can both live with. For most conflicts, I think either the collaborative or compromising methods would work.
ReplyDeleteGood job Devin. You made some very good points in your blog. there are many different ways to solve a conflict and you got most of the main reasons people get into conflictss. I think that every conflict that you will get into will be solved a different way depending on the person you have the conflict with so it is a good idea to know different methods to solve different types of conflicts.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog Devs! :) You gave a very thorough rundown of the types of methods people use when resolving conflicts. I think each style listed has its strengths and weakness in situation...but I have to say I think the avoiding method is rather childish. Unless someone is stalking you (etc.), I think people should discuss issues with each other and solve them together, so each person is left feeling satisfied with the decision that has been made.
ReplyDeleteI think it's obvious here that collaborative is the overall best way to resolve a conflict. Compromising is okay I guess, but I wouldn't want to give up anything! haha! Well, that's my opinion, but each method is useful for different situations...except Avoiding. I would have to disagree with Jrrrden when she said the avoiding method was appropriate when you are being stalked. If I was being stalked, I would confront the individual and ask them to stop!
ReplyDeleteGood post devin! This gave me a view on many different types of ways to solve a conflict. In my opinion the collaborative or compromising was the best option. Competitive would be next, followed by accommidating, and lastly the avoiding method. Nice work, keep it up!
ReplyDeleteVery good post Devin. My opinion the collaborative way was the best. I just got a new view on different ways to resolve a conflict,
ReplyDeleteThe avoiding method is probably the most commmon method used in today's world. How often do people just tune out the things they don't want to hear? I like the collaborative process because it attempts to satisfy the needs of everyone in the conflict, but if collaborative doesn't work then maybe you should try compromising. You don't always need to be incredibly happy about a conflict resolution, you just need to be satisfied.
ReplyDeleteWhooooo!!! Nice blog Devin!!!! Wheeeeee
Im going to have to agree with jaden here. All these methods do seem to have very strong points, but then there are the spots where you are like wait that wont work. The avoiding method needs to be used at the corect time and then it should not be considered childish. When dealing with an agrument the avoidance method wont work, but when dealing with, say an creeper or some sort or person that wants to harm you in any way shape or form, thats when you should strongly consider avoiding that person. Great blog D!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all of those different types of ways people solve their conflicts i'd have to say that i solve mine in the competitive way, because i am usually stuck on my ways, and it takes alot to change my opinion.
ReplyDeleteNice blog devon, its very popular.
Devin, the aspect of your post I enjoyed the most was how you mentioned various ways of resolving conflicts. I also like how you went on to explain when these models may come into play. To be honest, I would have to say I have probably used each of these processes at least once in my life. I firmly believe that choosing the right solution depends on what kind of conflict you are dealing with. For example, there are some times in which I firmly believe I am right, and therefore would be classified as competitive. However, there are also situations in which I am willing to help others, and I would therefore use the collaborative, compromising, and accomodating processes. Avoiding the situation is my least favorite because althogh you think you have solved the problem, it can come back in the near future.
ReplyDeletealot of people think that by avoiding the problem it will make things better not really
ReplyDeleteYou did an excellent job talking about conflict resolutions. I agree with you mostly, however i do not think you should EVER avoid a situation. Other than that, nice work.
ReplyDeleteNice job Devin,
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say that the most inferior choice by far is the Avoiding style. That doesn't really do anything to solve it..it just puts it off until a later date. Why run away from something that you'll have to face anyway and that could possibly escalate while you're avoiding it? I think that if you at least compromise, everyone tries to take something positive out of the situation.
Great Job Devin! I thought it was very cool to look at how I personally look at problems. I tend to use the competative method which, as you talked about, has its pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteAs almost everyone before me has said, I think that the avoidance method does not help anything in a conflict. Beyond that, I don't think that I can say that one method or tendency is better than another. They are all useful in some circumnstance and can all be bad methods in other circumstances. I think the idea of collaboration, compromise and accomidating are all great methods to avoid conflict, but they may take alot of time to reach a concensus in a large group.