0
0
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) and the Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory both explore personal conflict resolution strategies, yet they employ different frameworks and terminologies to categorize these strategies. Both tools are used to increase self-awareness and enhance interpersonal conflict management but approach the topic from slightly varied perspectives.
Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (1974)
Thomas and Kilmann’s model uses two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. It identifies five distinct styles of conflict resolution:
Competing: High assertiveness and low cooperativeness. This style is aggressive and unyielding, focusing on winning the conflict.
Accommodating: Low assertiveness and high cooperativeness. This style emphasizes making concessions and prioritizing the relationship over one’s own interests.
Avoiding: Low in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. This style involves withdrawing or sidestepping the conflict.
Collaborating: High in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. This style seeks a win-win solution by addressing all parties’ needs.
Compromising: Moderate levels of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. It aims for solutions that partially satisfy everyone involved.
Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory
Developed by Ron Kraybill, this model also assesses conflict styles along two axes: assertiveness and cooperativeness, similar to the TKI. However, it categorizes the styles into four primary types and considers an additional component of how behavior changes under stress:
Directing: Similar to competing in TKI, this style is assertive and uncooperative.
Harmonizing: Comparable to accommodating in TKI, focusing on cooperation over assertiveness.
Avoiding: This matches the avoiding style of TKI, with a low focus on both personal goals and relationships.
Cooperating: Analogous to collaborating in TKI, this style seeks solutions that satisfy everyone’s needs fully.
Compromising: Like TKI, this style seeks a middle ground, though it’s considered a primary style in Kraybill’s model rather than a blend.
Kraybill also introduces how an individual’s style might shift under stress, adding a dynamic component to understanding conflict styles, which is not explicitly addressed by the TKI.
Comparison and Uses
Both instruments are valuable in personal development and organizational settings for improving conflict resolution skills. The TKI is often praised for its straightforward categorization and ease of understanding, making it a popular choice in corporate and educational settings. Kraybill’s model, with its focus on behavior under stress, provides additional insights, particularly useful in counseling and conflict mediation scenarios where understanding shifts in conflict style is crucial.
In summary, while both models share a foundation in assessing assertiveness and cooperativeness, the Kraybill Inventory’s consideration of stress effects provides a deeper layer of analysis, which can be particularly useful for understanding and predicting changes in conflict behavior in more volatile or high-pressure situations.
