Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes: The 5 Conflict Styles Explained

By Kevin Kim · Updated Oct 12, 2026

The Thomas-Kilmann model sorts the ways people handle conflict into five modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. Each mode is a different mix of two things, how hard you push for your own concerns (assertiveness) and how far you work to meet the other person's concerns (cooperativeness). No mode is best. The skill is choosing one on purpose.

Key Facts

• The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) was published by Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann in 1974, according to the publisher's history and validity page.
• It builds on Kenneth Thomas's refinements of a management-styles model that Robert Blake and Jane Mouton proposed in the 1960s, per the same history page.
• Assertiveness is defined as "the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy his own concerns," and cooperativeness as the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy the other person's concerns, per Kilmann Diagnostics.
• The assessment takes about fifteen minutes to complete, and Kilmann Diagnostics notes that each of us is capable of using all five modes (source).
• The statement pairs in the instrument were "evenly matched in terms of desirability," so no mode sounds more attractive than the others (source).
• The current norm sample is 8,000 employed individuals, split evenly by gender (source).
• The publisher's position is that no single mode is best: each has pros and cons, and the right choice depends on the situation.

What the Thomas-Kilmann Model Actually Measures

Most conflict advice tells you to "communicate better" or "find a win-win." The TKI is more specific. It describes what you do when your goals and someone else's collide, and it says there are only so many basic moves available.

Those moves come from two questions. How much do you pursue your own concerns? And how much do you pursue the other party's? Kilmann Diagnostics calls these assertiveness and cooperativeness. Plot them against each other and you get a grid. Four modes sit near the corners and one sits in the middle.

That layout is why the model is easy to remember and easy to teach. A manager who understands it can name what's happening in a meeting in a few words: "I think we're both competing right now" or "we've been avoiding this for three weeks."

It also helps to be clear about what the TKI is not. It isn't a personality type (that is closer to what the DISC personality model describes) and it isn't a ranking of good and bad behavior. It measures how often you report using each mode, and the same person can act very differently with a customer, a peer and a boss. Kilmann Diagnostics makes the same point: each person can use all five modes.

For the wider competency that this model sits inside, including proficiency levels and mediation, see the conflict resolution competency guide. This article stays on the five modes themselves.

Where the Model Comes From

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed the instrument as a research tool in the early 1970s and published it in 1974, as the publisher's history page records. The same page says it builds on Thomas's refinements of a management-styles model from Robert Blake and Jane Mouton.

That earlier model is the Blake and Mouton managerial grid, which plotted concern for production against concern for people. The TKI keeps the two-axis idea but changes the question. Instead of asking what kind of manager you are, it asks how you handle a conflict when your concerns and someone else's don't line up.

One design detail matters for how you read results. The statement pairs were written to be equally desirable, so you can't "win" by picking the answer that sounds best. That's a deliberate guard against people flattering themselves, and it's why the results can feel uncomfortably honest.

The Five Modes at a Glance

Kilmann Diagnostics describes each mode by its position on the two axes. Here's how they line up, with practical guidance on use and overuse added from common management practice.

Competing

Competing is assertive and uncooperative. Kilmann Diagnostics calls it a power-oriented mode where you pursue your own position at the other person's expense. It includes standing up for your rights.

It has a real place. A finance lead who refuses to approve a payment that breaks a compliance rule isn't being difficult. A manager who calls a decision during an outage isn't asking for a vote. The mode becomes a problem when it's the default, because people around a habitual competitor learn to stay quiet, and you stop hearing bad news.

Collaborating

Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative. Kilmann Diagnostics describes it as working with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies both sets of concerns, which means digging into what each side actually needs.

This is the mode most workplace advice praises, and it's often the right call for a high-stakes disagreement between functions. But it costs time and emotional energy. Use it on a trivial argument about meeting formats and you've spent real effort on a decision that didn't deserve it.

Compromising

Compromising sits in the middle on both axes. The goal is a mutually acceptable answer that partially satisfies both parties, often by splitting the difference or trading concessions.

It's fast, and it keeps things moving. The trap is reaching for it too early. If two teams each want a different launch date and you split it down the middle, you may get a date that suits neither. Sometimes a short collaborating conversation would have found a better answer than the midpoint.

Avoiding

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. You don't pursue your own concerns or the other person's, and you don't deal with the conflict. Kilmann Diagnostics lists postponing an issue until a better time as one example.

Avoiding gets a bad reputation, and that's partly unfair. Delaying a reply to a furious email until the next morning is avoiding, and it's often smart. Letting a recurring problem sit for a quarter is also avoiding, and it isn't. The difference is whether you've chosen to wait for a reason or you're just uncomfortable.

Accommodating

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative. You set aside your own concerns to meet the other person's, sometimes with some self-sacrifice. Kilmann Diagnostics gives yielding to another's point of view as an example.

Used well, it builds goodwill. If a colleague cares much more about a deliverable's format than you do, giving way costs you little and earns trust you can spend later. Used constantly, it teaches everyone around you that your needs are optional.

How the TKI Compares With Related Frameworks

The TKI isn't the only way to describe conflict behavior. It helps to know the neighbors so you pick the right tool.

A few things stand out. The managerial grid is the TKI's ancestor, but it's about management style, not conflict. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II is the closest cousin. According to an ENACT learning document on the ROCI-II, it measures five styles (integrating, avoiding, dominating, obliging and compromising), uses 28 statements on a five-point scale, and comes in three forms covering conflict with a supervisor, subordinates and peers. Its integrating style combines high concern for self and for the other party, which is the same territory as the TKI's collaborating mode.

Interest-based approaches work at a different level. The TKI helps you decide which stance to take. An interest-based process then guides what you do when you've picked collaboration. They fit together rather than compete. For the negotiating side, see negotiation.

How to Choose a Mode in a Live Conflict

Knowing the five modes is the easy part. The hard part is choosing one when your pulse is up. Here's a sequence you can run in about two minutes, in your head or on paper.

1. Name the conflict in one sentence. "Sales wants to promise a custom feature; engineering says it can't ship this quarter." If you can't state it plainly, you may need to avoid for a day and gather facts.
2. Rate the stakes for you. Low, medium or high. Be honest about whether this is a principle or a preference.
3. Rate the stakes for them. What does the other person lose if they don't get what they want? You often can't know, which is a reason to ask.
4. Check the relationship. Will you work with this person next quarter? If yes, accommodating or competing carries a longer-term price.
5. Check the clock. Is there a deadline that forces a decision today? Time pressure pushes toward competing or compromising; plenty of time makes collaborating possible.
6. Pick the mode that fits your answers. High stakes for both and time available suggests collaborating. High stakes for you with a hard limit suggests competing. Moderate stakes and a deadline suggests compromising. Low stakes or high emotion suggests avoiding for now. Higher stakes for them than for you suggests accommodating.
7. Say your choice out loud when you can. "I'd like us to find an option that works for both teams. Can we spend twenty minutes on it?" Announcing the mode invites the other person to join you in it.
8. Review afterward. Did the mode work? If you reached for your default and it wasn't the best fit, note it. That's the pattern the TKI helps you spot.

A Ready-to-Copy Template

Paste this table into your notes before a difficult conversation and fill it in.

The "default mode" and "mode that fits" rows are the point of the exercise. When they differ, you've caught yourself before you went on autopilot.

Examples by Business Function

The modes look different depending on where the conflict happens. These are illustrative scenarios, not case studies.

Sales negotiation

A rep and a prospect disagree on contract length. If the deal is small and the quarter closes tomorrow, the rep might compromise on the term. If the prospect is a strategic account, collaborating makes more sense: find out why the prospect wants a shorter term (budget cycles, risk) and build something around it. Competing, such as refusing to move on term at all, is right when a discount would break pricing policy. Our notes on negotiation cover the bargaining side in more depth.

Cross-functional projects

Product wants a feature; support wants the bug backlog cleared first. Both teams have legitimate claims on the same engineers. This is a classic fit for collaborating: put both sets of customer data on the table, then agree on a sequence. If the roadmap meeting runs out of time, a short compromise (half the sprint each) may be the pragmatic call. Avoiding the conversation altogether usually means the loudest team wins by default, which is competing in disguise. Good collaboration skills make this far easier.

Management

A manager has a direct report who keeps missing handoffs. Accommodating (quietly doing the work) feels kind and creates a bigger problem. Avoiding lets the pattern set, and both often rest on an untested story about why the handoffs slip, the kind of leap the ladder of inference helps you catch. Collaborating on cause ("what's getting in the way?") usually comes first, with competing held in reserve for the point where expectations are clear and still unmet. Pairing this with active listening keeps the first conversation from sounding like an accusation.

Customer escalations

An angry customer wants a refund the policy doesn't allow. Accommodating fully may set a precedent you can't afford. Competing ("the policy says no") can lose the account. A common path is to accommodate on the part that costs little (a sincere apology, a faster fix), compromise on the part that costs more (a partial credit), and hold firm where policy truly requires it. Staying calm under pressure draws on emotional intelligence.

Do's and Don'ts

What to Keep in Mind About the Assessment

The TKI is a commercial instrument sold through its publisher, and certified practitioners often run it with teams. You don't need the assessment to use the five modes. The framework above works on its own as a thinking tool.

If you do take it, treat the output as a snapshot of your reported tendencies, not a verdict on your character. The publisher's own page says no single mode is best, and that's the reason to use the framework at all: it gives you a menu where you used to have a habit.