Leaders Conference Room

You most likely have a different view on conflict than me. I was raised in a home where heated discussions were forbidden. We were not allowed to argue at supper or raise our voices. We didn't openly state our positions.

So we avoided a lot of things that maybe should have been dealt with. In some cases this was probably a good idea. But in other situations we probably should have tried another approach.

I have since learned that life requires many conflict resolution strategies--at home and at work. The classic framework of approaches to conflict is known as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes. It suggests that we tend to come at conflict from one or more modes:

• avoidance: I won't play at all
• accommodation: I'm willing to lose so you can win
• compromise: We both lose a little...but we move on
• collaboration: We both can win
• competition: For me to win, you have to lose

The question is not which one is right, but which one is best for the current situation. It is important to remember that these are modes or approaches. Not "good and evil"'s.

If you use competitive, when you should use collaborative, you are likely to lose in the long run. If you use collaborative when you should be using competitive, you will lose as well. You should examine each situation and check if you are using the most effective mode for the type of conflict.

If you're only fluent with one mode, you are only going to be effective with certain conflicts. You're free to argue if you disagree with me. But if you find my response to be a little lacking in passion, it may be because I still want to avoid the conflict.