# Handling conflict: the Thomas-Kilmann modes and difficult conversations Source: https://sarang.pro/handling-conflict-thomas-kilmann-difficult-conversations/ Author: Sarang | Published: 25 October 2026 Conflict at work is normal. Two people want different things from the same budget, a colleague misses a deadline that wrecks your plan, a team splits over which customer to prioritise. The problem is rarely the conflict itself. It is the habit of handling every disagreement the same way, usually by avoiding it or by trying to win it. This guide covers two tools. The Thomas-Kilmann model gives you five ways to handle conflict and helps you choose one on purpose. The approach from the book *Difficult Conversations* helps you hold the conversation once you have decided to have it. ## The five Thomas-Kilmann modes Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann introduced their Conflict Mode Instrument in 1974. It describes conflict behaviour on two dimensions: assertiveness (how far you try to meet your own concerns) and cooperativeness (how far you try to meet the other person's). [Kilmann Diagnostics](https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki/) describes the five resulting modes: ModeAssertive?Cooperative?Useful whenCompetingHighLowYou must defend a position you are confident is right, or protect rights or safetyAccommodatingLowHighThe issue matters more to them than to you, or you realise you are wrongAvoidingLowLowThe issue is trivial, or emotions are too high and a pause will helpCollaboratingHighHighBoth sides' concerns matter and there is time to find a solution that meets themCompromisingMediumMediumYou need a quick, workable middle ground and both sides can accept partial gainsThe central point is that every mode has its place. Everyone can use all five, but most people lean on one or two. The skill lies in noticing your default and choosing deliberately. ## What the evidence says The model grew out of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's managerial grid, which plotted concern for people against concern for task. [The instrument itself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Kilmann_Conflict_Mode_Instrument) uses 30 pairs of statements, designed so that neither option in a pair sounds more socially desirable. Thomas and Kilmann's own 1978 analysis reported moderate reliability and low to moderate agreement with other conflict instruments. Because it has been used so widely in workplaces, some people learn which answers produce the profile they want. Treat your profile as a starting point for reflection, not a fixed type. The five modes are most useful as a menu of options. ## Choosing a mode: three questions - **How important is the outcome to me?** High importance pushes you towards competing or collaborating. - **How important is the relationship?** High importance pushes you towards collaborating or accommodating. - **How much time do we have?** Collaboration takes time. Under pressure, compromising or a clear decision may be better. A manager who always collaborates can stall urgent decisions. One who always competes wins arguments and loses people. One who always avoids lets small problems grow into large ones. ## Preparing for a difficult conversation Once you decide a conflict needs a conversation, the book *Difficult Conversations* by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen (1999) gives a practical structure.[A summary from Beyond Intractability](https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/stone-difficult) sets out its core idea: every difficult conversation contains three conversations at once. - **The "what happened?" conversation.** Disagreement about the facts, what should have happened and who is to blame. The common errors are treating your interpretation as fact and assuming you know the other person's intent. - **The feelings conversation.** Emotions that are often left unspoken but shape everything said. - **The identity conversation.** What the situation says about each person: am I competent, am I a good person, am I respected? Before you start, check your purpose. The authors note that changing the other person is rarely a realistic goal. Better goals are to understand their view, to express yours clearly and to solve the problem together. ## Holding the conversation - **Start with the third story.** Describe the difference between your views neutrally, as an observer would. "We seem to see the launch date differently, and I'd like to understand how you see it" works better than "You keep missing deadlines." - **Separate intent from impact.** Describe the effect on you, and ask what they intended instead of assuming it. - **Map contribution, not blame.** Ask how each of you contributed to the situation. Blame shuts down learning. - **Listen to learn.** Ask open questions, paraphrase what you hear and acknowledge feelings. People listen better once they feel heard. - **Say what matters to you.** Share your view and your reasoning. Avoid "always" and "never". - **Solve together.** Generate options, agree fair criteria and settle on next steps. If you cannot agree, say what you will do and why. ## A worked example An example (illustration only). Omar manages a design team and Grace leads sales. Grace keeps promising clients bespoke designs in three days, which Omar's team cannot deliver without dropping other work. Omar's default is avoiding, so he has absorbed the extra work for two months while resentment builds. He decides the outcome and the relationship both matter, so he aims to collaborate. He opens with a third story: "We seem to have different expectations about turnaround for bespoke designs, and I'd like us to agree something that works for your clients and my team." He describes the impact (two designers working late most weeks) and asks what pressure Grace is under. She explains that a competitor offers three-day turnaround. Together they agree a tiered offer: standard templates in three days, bespoke work in seven, with sales checking capacity before promising anything faster. ## Common mistakes - **Avoiding for too long.** Delay makes the eventual conversation harder and more emotional. - **Arguing about intent.** "You did it on purpose" invites denial. Talk about impact. - **Rehearsing a speech.** Preparing to persuade leaves no room to learn something new. - **Compromising by reflex.** Splitting the difference can leave both sides unhappy when a better solution existed. - **Ignoring the identity layer.** If someone feels their competence is under attack, they will defend it before they hear anything else. ## When to use these tools and when to escalate Use these tools for ordinary workplace disagreements about priorities, behaviour and resources. If a conflict involves bullying, harassment, discrimination or a formal complaint, follow your organisation's policy and involve HR. Workplace mediation can also help when two people are stuck despite good-faith efforts. For giving feedback on behaviour, which is a related but different skill, a structured method such as situation, behaviour and impact works well alongside the approach here.