3J

Thomas_kilmanTestItook.pdf

THOMAS KILMAN CONFLICT MODE INSTRUMENT

Kenneth L. Thomas and

Ralph H. Kilman

INSTRUCTIONS Consider situations in which you find your wishes differing from those of another person. How do you usually respond to such situations? On the following pages are several pairs of statements describing possible behavioral responses. For each pair, please circle the “A” or “B” statement which is most characteristic of your own behavior. In many cases, neither the “A” nor the “B” statement may be very typical of your behavior, but please select the response which you would be more likely to use.

1. A There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem. B Rather than negotiate the things on which we disagree, I try to stress the things upon which we both agree. 2. A I try to find a compromise situation. B I attempt to deal with all of his and my concerns. 3. A I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. B I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship. 4. A I try to find a compromise solution. B I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person. 5. A I consistently seek the other’s help in working out a solution. B I try to do what is necessary to avoid useless tensions. 6. A I try to avoid creating unpleasantness for myself. B I try to win my position. 7. A I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over. B I give up some points in exchange for others. 8. A I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. B I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out I the open. 9. A I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about. B I make some effort to get my way. 10. A I am firm in pursuing my goals. B I try to find a compromise solution. 11. A I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open. B I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship. 12. A I sometimes avoid taking positions which would create controversy. B I will let him have some of his positions if he lets me have some of mine.

13. A I propose a middle ground. B I press to get my points made. 14. A I tell him my ideas and ask him for his. B I try to show him the logic and benefits of my position. 15. A I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship. B I try to do what is necessary to avoid tensions. 16. A I try not to hurt the other’s feelings. B I try to convince the other person of the merits of my position. 17. A I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. B I will let him have some of his positions if he lets me have some of mine. 18. A If it makes the other person happy, I might let him maintain his views. B I will let him have some of his positions if he lets me have some of mine. 19. A I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open. B I try to postpone the issue until I have had some time to think it over. 20. A I attempt to immediately work through our differences. B I try to find a fair combination of gains and losses for everyone. 21 A In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes. B I always lean toward a direct discussion of the problem. 22. A I try to find a position that is intermediate between his and mine. B I assert my wishes. 23. A I am very often concerned with satisfying all our wishes. B There are times when I let others take responsibility for solving the problem.

24. A If the other’s position seems very important to him, I would try to meet his wishes. B I try to get him to settle for a compromise. 25. A I try to show him the logic and benefits of my position. B In approaching negotiations, I try to be considerate of the other person’s wishes. 26. A I propose a middle ground. B I am nearly always concerned with satisfying all our wishes. 27. A I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy. B If it makes the other person happy, I might let him maintain his views. 28. A I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. B I usually seek the other’s help in working out a solution. 29. A I propose a middle ground. B I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about. 30. A I try not to hurt the other’s feelings. B I always share the problem with the other person so that we can work it out.

SCORING Circle the letters below which correspond to the letter your circled on each item of the questionnaire and then total the number of items circled in each column. Competing

(forcing) Collaborating

(problem solving) Compromising

(sharing) Avoiding

(withdrawal) Accommodating

(soothing) 1. - - - A B 2. - B A - - 3. A - - - B 4. - - A - B 5. - A - B - 6. B - - A - 7. - - B A - 8. A B - - - 9. B - - A - 10. A - B - - 11. - A - - B 12. - - B A - 13. B - A - - 14. B A - - - 15. - - - B A 16. B - - - A 17. A - - B - 18. - - B - A 19. - A - B - 20. - A B - - 21. - B - - A 22. B - A - - 23. - A - B - 24. - - B - A 25. A - - - B 26. - B A - - 27. - - - A B 28. A B - - - 29. - - A B - 30. - B - - A _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding Accommodating

GRAPHING YOUR PROFILE SCORES Your profile of scores indicates the repertoire of conflict handling skills which you, as an individual, use in the kinds of conflict situations you face. Your score profile can be graphed on the next page entitled, “Your Scores on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.” The five modes are represented by the five columns labeled “competing,” “collaborating,” and so on. In the column under each model label is the range of possible scores on that mode - - - from 0 (for every low use) to 12 (for very high use). Circle your own scores on each of the five modes. Each possible score is graphed in relation to the scores of managers who have already taken the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. The horizontal lines represent percentiles – the percentage of people who have scored at or below a given number. If you had scored some number above the “80%” line on competing, for example, that would mean that you had scored higher than 80% of the people who have taken the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument – that you were in the top 20% in competition. The double lines (at the 25th and 75th percentiles) separate the middle 50% of the scores on each mode from the top 25% and the bottom 25%. In general, if your score falls somewhere within the middle 50% on a given mode, you are close to the average in your use of that mode. If your score falls outside that range, then your use of that mode is somewhat higher or lower than most of the people who have taken the instrument. Remember that extreme scores are not necessarily bad, however, since your situation may require high or low use of a given conflict-handling mode.

YOUR SCORES ON THE THOMAS-KILMANN CONFLICT MODE INSTRUMENT

Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding Accommodating 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100% 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 11 10 10 High 25% 90% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90%

9 10 8 7 80% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 80% ===== ===== ======== = 9 = ======== ====== = 6 = ===== 70% - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 70% 60% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60% 6 8 5 7 6 Middle 50% 50% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50%

5 7 40% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40%

4 6

5 4

30% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30% 6 5 ===== ===== ======== ======== ======== ====== ======== ===== 3 4 3 20% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20% 5 4 2 3 Low 25% 10% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10%

1 0

4 3 2 1 0

3 2 1 0

2 1 0

0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% Scores are graphed in relation to the scores of the practicing managers at middle and upper levels in business and government organizations.

INTERPRETING YOUR SCORES ON THE THOMAS-KILMANN CONFLICT MODE INSTRUMENT

The Five Conflict Handling Modes The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is designed to assess an individual’s behavior in conflict situations. “Conflict Situations” are the situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In such situation, we can describe a person’s behavior along two basic dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. These two basic dimensions of behavior can be used to define five specific methods of dealing with conflicts. These five “conflict-handling modes” are shown below: Competing Collaborating

A ● - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ● s Assertiveness s e r t I v Compromising e ● s Unassertive s ● _________________________________________● Avoiding Accommodating Uncooperative Cooperative C o o p e r a t i v e n e s s

Competing is assertiveness and uncooperative- -an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is power-oriented mode, in which ones uses whatever power seems appropriate to win one’s own position- -“standing up for your rights, defending a position when you believe is correct, or simply trying to win. Accommodating is an unassertive and cooperative—the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person, there is an element of self-sacrifice in this obeying another person’s order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view. Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative—the individual does not immediately pursue his own concerns or those of the other person. He does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.

Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative—the opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with the other person to find some solution which fully satisfies the concerns of both persons. It means digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative which meets both sets of concerns. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, concluding to resolve some condition which would otherwise have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem. Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties. It falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions or seeking a quick middle-ground position. Interpreting Your Scores Usually, after getting back the results of any test, people first want to know: “What are the right answers?” In the case of conflict-handling behavior, there are no universal right answers. All five modes are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful social skills. Our conventional wisdom recognizes, for example, that often “two heads are better than one” (Collaborating). But it also says, “Kill your enemies with kindness” (Accommodating), “Split the difference” (Compromising) “Leave well enough alone” (Avoiding), “Might makes right” (Competing). The effectiveness of a given conflict-handling mode depends upon the requirements of the specific conflict situation and the skill with which the mode is used. Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes: none of us can be characterized as having a single rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, any given individual uses some modes better than others and therefore, tends to rely upon those modes more heavily than others, whether because of temperament or practice. The conflict behaviors which an individual uses are therefore a result of both his personal predispositions and the requirements of the situation in which he finds himself. The Thomas- Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is designed to assess this mix of conflict-handling modes. To help you judge how appropriate your utilization of the five modes is for your situation. We have listed a number of uses for each mode—based upon lists generated by company presidents. Your score, high or low, indicates its usefulness in your situation. However, there is the possibility that your social skills lead you to rely upon some conflict behaviors more or less than necessary. To help you determine this, we have also listed some diagnostic questions concerning warning signals for the overuse or under use of each mode.

A. Competing Uses: 1. When quick, decisive action is vital—e.g., emergencies. 2. On important issues where unpopular courses of action need implementing-e.g., cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline. 3. On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right. 4. To protect yourself against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior. If you scored High: 1. Are you surrounded by “yes” men? (If so, perhaps it’s because they have learned that it’s unwise to disagree with you, or have given up trying to influence you. This closes you off from information. 2. Are subordinates afraid to admit ignorance and uncertainties to your? (In competitive climates, one must fight for influence and respect—which means acting more certain and confident than one feels. The upshot is that people are less able to ask for information and opinion—they are less able to learn.) If you scored Low: 1. Do you often feel powerless in situations? (It may be because you are unaware of the power you do have, unskilled in its use, or uncomfortable with the idea of using it. This may hinder your effectiveness by restricting your influence. 2. Do you have trouble taking a firm stand, even when you see the need? Sometimes concerns for others’ feelings or anxieties about the use of power cause us to vacillate, which may mean postponing the decision and adding to the suffering and, or resentment of others. B. Collaborating Uses: 1. To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised. 2. When your objective is to learn—e.g., testing your own assumptions understanding the views of others. 3. To merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem.

4. To gain commitment by incorporating other’s concerns into a consensual decision. 5. To work through hard feelings which have been interfering with an interpersonal relationship. If you scored High: 1. Do you spend time discussing issues in depth that do not seem to deserve it? (Collaboration takes time and energy—perhaps the scarcest organizational resources. Trivial problems don’t require optimal solutions, and not all personal differences need to be hashed out. The overuse of collaboration and consensual decision making sometimes represents a desire to minimize risk—by diffusing responsibility for a decision or by postponing action. 2. Does your collaborative behavior fail to elicit collaborative responses from others? (The exploratory and tentative nature of some collaborative behavior may make it easy for others to disregard collaborative overtures; or the trust and openness may be taken advantage of. You may be missing some cues which would indicate the presence of defensiveness, strong feelings, impatience, competitiveness, or conflicting interests. If you scored Low: 1. Is it hard for you to see differences as opportunities for joint gain—as opportunities to learn or solve problems? (Although there are often threatening or unproductive aspects of conflict, indiscriminate pessimism can prevent you from seeing collaborative possibilities and thus deprive you of the mutual gains and satisfactions which accompany successful collaboration.) 2. Are subordinates uncommitted to your decisions or policies? (Perhaps their own concerns are not being incorporated into those decisions or policies.) C. Compromising Uses: 1. When goals are moderately important, but not worth the effort or potential disruption of more assertive modes. 2. When to opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals—are in labor-management bargaining. 3. To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues.

4. To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure. 5. As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails to be successful. If you scored High: 1. Do you concentrate so heavily upon the practicalities and tactics of compromise that you sometimes lose sight of larger issues—principles, values, long-term objectives company welfare? 2. Does an emphasis on bargaining and trading create a cynical climate of gamesmanship? If you scored Low: 1. Do you find yourself too sensitive or embarrassed to be effective in bargaining situations? 2. Do you find it hard to make concessions? Without this safety value, you may have trouble getting gracefully out of mutually destructive arguments, power struggles, etc. D. Avoiding Uses: 1. When an issue is trivial, of only passing importance, or when other more important issues are pressing. 2. When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns—e.g., when you have low power or you are frustrated by something which would be very difficult to change (national policies, someone’s personality structure, etc.) 3. When the potential damage of confronting a conflict outweighs the benefits of its resolution. 4. To let people cool down—to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain perspective and composure. 5. When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision. 6. When others are resolve the conflict more effectively. 7. When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another more basic issue.

If you scored High: 1. Does your coordination suffer because people have trouble getting your inputs on issues? 2. Does it often appear that people are “walking on eggshells?” (Sometimes a dysfunctional amount of energy can be devoted to caution and the avoiding of issues, indicating that issues need to be faced and resolved). 3. Are decisions on important issues made by default? If you scored Low: 1. Do you find yourself hurting people’s feelings or stirring up hostilities? You may need to exercise more discretion in confronting issues or more tact in framing issues in non-threatening ways. Tact is partially the art of avoiding potentially disruptive aspects of an issue. 2. Do you often feel harried or overwhelmed by a number of issues? You may need to devote more time to setting priorities—deciding which issues are relatively unimportant and perhaps delegating them to others. E. Accommodating Uses: 1. When you realize that you are wrong—to allow a better position to be heard, to learn from others, and to show that you are reasonable. 2. When the issue is much more important to the other person than to yourself—to satisfy the needs of others, and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship. 3. To build up social credits for later issues which are important to you. 4. When continued competition would only damage your cause—when you are outmatched and losing. 5. When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important. 6. To aid in the managerial development of subordinates by allowing them to experiment and learn from their own mistakes.

If you scored High: 1. Do you feel that your own ideas and concerns are not getting the attention they deserve? (Deferring too much to the concerns of others can deprive you of influence, respect, and recognition. It also deprives the organization of your potential contributions.) 2. Is discipline lax? (Although discipline for its own sake may be of little value, there are often rules, procedures, and assignments whose implementation is crucial for you or the organization.) If you scored Low: 1. Do you have trouble building goodwill with others? (Accommodation on minor issues which are important to others are gestures of goodwill.) 2. Do others often seem to regard you as unreasonable? 3. Do you have trouble admitting it when you are wrong? 4. Do you recognize legitimate exceptions to rules? 5. Do you know when to give up?

What Happens

When Used: Appropriate to Use When:

Inappropriate to Use When:

Person tried to solve problem by denying its existence. Results in win/lose.

Issue is relatively unimportant, timing is wrong; cooling off period is needed, short-term use.

Issue is important; when issue will not disappear, but build.

Differences are played down; surface harmony exists. Results in win/lose in forms of resentment, defensiveness, and possible sabotage if issue remains suppressed

Same as above, also when preservation of relationship is more important at the moment.

Reluctance to deal with conflict leads to evasion of an important issue; when others are ready and willing to deal with issue.

One’s authority position, majority rule, or a persuasive minority settles the conflict. Results in win/lose if the dominated party sees no hope for self.

When power comes with position of authority; when this method has been agreed upon.

Losers have no way to express needs; could result in future disruptions.

Each party gives up something in order to meet midway. Results in win/lose if “middle of the road” position ignores the real diversity of the issue.

Both parties have enough leeway to give; resources are limited; when win/lose stance is undesirable.

Original inflated position is unrealistic; solution is watered won to be effective; commitment is doubted by parties involved.

Abilities, values, and expertise of all are recognized; each person’s position is clear, but emphasis on group solution. Results in win/win for all.

Time is available to complete the process; parties are committed and trained in use of process.

The conditions of time, abilities, and commitment are not present.