Conflict in Change: Thomas–Kilmann Modes

Change redistributes things people care about, so disagreement is normal. Common sources of conflict during change include:

• Competition for resources: two teams need the same budget, specialists or time.
• Different goals and priorities: a project team measured on the go-live date, an operations team measured on service levels.
• Differences in values: views on what matters, such as speed versus caution, or efficiency versus personal service.
• Unclear allocation of roles: new responsibilities that overlap or fall between teams.
• Conflicting information: groups working from different data, versions of the plan or rumors.
• Interdependence: one team's change disrupts another's work.

Conflict is not only a problem. Handled well, it surfaces risks and better options that agreement would have hidden.

Conflict in change therefore needs to be managed deliberately, not suppressed.

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann describe behavior in a conflict along two separate dimensions:

• Assertiveness: how far a person tries to satisfy their own concerns.
• Cooperativeness: how far a person tries to satisfy the other party's concerns.

Because the two are independent, a person can be high on both, low on both or high on one only. Plotting them as axes gives five modes: four at the corners and one in the middle. The dimensions adapt Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's managerial grid, which used concern for production and concern for people.

Thomas and Kilmann also built a forced-choice questionnaire, the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), which reports how often a person tends to use each mode. The TKI is a commercial instrument published by The Myers-Briggs Company; this entry describes the modes only.

The Thomas–Kilmann model therefore describes conflict behavior as a combination of two concerns, not a single scale from soft to hard.

1. Competing (assertive, uncooperative): pursuing your own position, using whatever power seems appropriate.
2. Collaborating (assertive, cooperative): working with the other party to find a solution that fully meets both sets of concerns, often by exploring the issue in depth.
3. Compromising (moderate on both): finding a quick, acceptable middle ground in which each side gives something up.
4. Avoiding (unassertive, uncooperative): sidestepping, postponing or withdrawing from the conflict.
5. Accommodating (unassertive, cooperative): setting aside your own concerns to satisfy the other party's.

Compromising is often mistaken for collaborating. Compromise splits the difference; collaboration looks for an answer that gives both sides what they need.

The five Thomas–Kilmann modes are therefore distinct choices, each defined by where it sits on the two dimensions.

Thomas and Kilmann argue that each mode is useful in some situations. The table summarizes common uses and risks in our words.

The Thomas–Kilmann modes therefore work as a repertoire: the skill lies in choosing the mode that fits the situation.

At Harbourside Council, the housing and planning departments both need the same small data team in the same month to migrate records. Each head insists their deadline comes first.

• Avoiding the clash would let both plans slip and the conflict return at a worse moment.
• Compromising, two weeks each, may leave both migrations half done.
• Collaborating means looking at both plans together: which records truly need migrating first, which can wait, and whether temporary staff can help. It takes a workshop but may meet both needs.
• If no joint answer is found before the deadline, the sponsor may need to compete: decide the priority and explain why.

The modes also support self-awareness. Many people have a default mode; a change manager who always accommodates or always competes can notice the pattern and choose more deliberately.

The Thomas–Kilmann modes therefore help a change manager choose a response rather than react by habit.

The model is simple to explain and gives people a shared vocabulary for conflict. Its limits are worth knowing.

• Self-report. The TKI measures how people say they tend to respond, which may differ from what they do under pressure.
• Simplification. Real conflicts move between modes, and the five positions are points on a continuous space.
• Little on causes or power. The model describes how to handle a conflict, not why it arose or how unequal power shapes the options.
• Culture. Norms about open disagreement vary between cultures and organizations, which affects how each mode is read.

The Thomas–Kilmann model is therefore best paired with a diagnosis of the sources of conflict and of the power involved.