This paper examines the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), a widely used tool for assessing individual conflict management behavior. It explains the theoretical foundation of the instrument's two behavioral dimensions — assertiveness and cooperativeness — and the five resulting conflict styles: competing, avoiding, collaborating, compromising, and accommodating. The paper traces the historical development of the TKI through Kilmann and Thomas's doctoral seminar work, highlighting their effort to eliminate social desirability bias. It also addresses criticisms regarding cultural diversity in the original sample and subsequent validation studies, before concluding with a personal conflict style self-assessment based on the model.
The paper demonstrates the technique of contextualizing a theoretical model within its historical and methodological origins. Rather than simply describing the TKI's five styles, the author explains why the instrument was designed the way it was — specifically, how the forced-choice format was engineered to counteract social desirability bias. This kind of origin-aware analysis strengthens academic credibility and shows deeper engagement with the source material.
The paper opens with a definition of conflict management style supported by a peer-reviewed citation, then introduces the TKI framework. A dedicated section describes each of the five conflict styles. The historical section narrates the instrument's development from a doctoral seminar through to publication. A criticism section weighs limitations and counterevidence. The paper closes with a first-person reflective self-assessment applying the model to the author's own conflict behaviors — a common assignment component at the undergraduate level.
According to Kuhn and Poole (2000), conflict management style entails a consistent and general orientation toward a conflict situation or toward another party. It manifests in observable behaviors that form a pattern sharing common characteristics over time (Kuhn & Poole, 2000).
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) assesses individual behavior in conflict situations, defining such situations as those in which individuals hold differing and incompatible concerns. In these situations, individual behaviors fall along two distinct dimensions. The first is assertiveness — the degree to which an individual seeks to satisfy his or her own needs. The second is cooperativeness — the extent to which an individual attempts to meet the other party's concerns. These two behavioral dimensions yield five distinct conflict-handling styles.
Thomas and Kilmann's (1974) five conflict styles are: competing, avoiding, collaborating, compromising, and accommodating. The competing style is highly self-concerned and is characterized by the drive to maximize personal gain at the expense of others. In contrast, the collaborating style constructs conflict resolution in a way that seeks to meet the demands of all conflicting parties.
The avoiding style reflects low concern for self and withdraws from conflict altogether. The accommodating style sacrifices self-interest in order to meet the needs of others. Finally, the compromising style occupies the midpoint between assertiveness and cooperativeness, invoking a degree of cohesion to attain conflict resolution (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).
The Conflict Mode Instrument originated as a requirement for a doctoral program in which Kilmann and his colleague participated in a seminar on behavioral science. During the seminar, Kilmann developed a strong interest in understanding the reliability and validity of assessments of human behavior. Discussions with Kenneth W. Thomas — a PhD student from Purdue University and Kilmann's colleague — sparked Kilmann's deeper interest in understanding conflict and conflict management (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006).
Intellectual discussions both inside and outside the classroom revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the measures then used in conflict research. The wording of most response items was laden with bias, allowing respondents to select the socially desirable answer rather than one that reflected reality. In the five-statement question format prevalent at the time, the majority of managers chose the collaborative response, while the fewest selected avoidance. The seminar requirement helped both scholars understand the problem of interpersonal values and socially desirable response biases embedded in existing conflict assessment instruments.
The central challenge in developing a new conflict model was counteracting respondents' tendency to choose answers based on social desirability rather than genuine self-assessment. According to Kuhn and Poole (2000), this bias was precisely what had discredited the Blake and Mouton instrument as a conflict resolution tool. To address this, Ken Thomas and Kilmann created thirty questions with two forced-choice options each. Both options were designed to represent — and be equal in — social desirability, one describing collaborating behavior and the other avoiding behavior. Because the options were equally socially acceptable, respondents were compelled to choose based solely on the content and their own honest self-assessment. The calibration of the two options across thirty items made it difficult for individuals to craft responses that simply projected a favorable image (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).
The sixteen-page booklet that resulted from Kilmann and Thomas's brainstorming and follow-up work was published by Xicom Publishers. This followed a period of deliberation over whether to include the instrument as an appendix in their doctoral article or to publish it as a standalone document (Deutsch et al., 2006).
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.