Despite all technological advancements, projects are still executed by humans—beings who are inherently susceptible to conflict. In any environment where people work together, conflict is inevitable. As the task at hand becomes more demanding, the chances of encountering conflict increase—especially in project work, where time and resource constraints are intense, and the very nature of the endeavor involves navigating uncharted territory.
A sound understanding of conflict management is essential for any project leader, regardless of the sector, size, or the end user of the project outcome. One powerful tool for understanding conflict dynamics is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed in 1974. This framework provides insight into available behavioral choices during conflict by analyzing two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Assertiveness reflects the extent to which an individual prioritizes their own needs, interests, or goals.
Cooperativeness reflects the extent to which an individual prioritizes the needs, interests, or goals of the other party.
Each dimension—whether focusing on oneself or on others—can be valuable depending on the situation.
While assertiveness is often associated with negative outcomes in conflict situations, it can be the wisest path forward when:
• There is pressure to reach an outcome quickly,
• Ethical or moral principles are involved,
• One possesses expert-level confidence in their position,
• Previous efforts to resolve the issue have failed.
On the other hand, cooperativeness tends to emerge in situations where:
• There is no clearly superior solution,
• Time and resources are sufficient to explore alternatives,
• A forceful approach would cause more damage than it’s worth.
By varying the levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness, countless approaches to conflict resolution are possible. However, five distinct behavioral modes have been defined in the literature. These modes also align with common game theory strategies.
Avoidance:
This mode is low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. It involves withdrawing from the conflict, often by remaining silent or absent, ignoring concerns, or avoiding direct engagement. The typical result is a lose-lose situation, as the conflict remains unresolved. The underlying issues are left unaddressed, making it likely that similar conflicts will arise again.
Compromise:
This mode reflects a medium level of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Conflicts are resolved through give-and-take, with each party gaining something while also conceding something. It is perhaps the most common form of resolution, resulting in a state of partial satisfaction for all parties involved. It’s neither a full win nor a full loss for anyone.
Collaboration:
This is the only true win-win mode, with both assertiveness and cooperativeness at high levels. Collaboration requires parties to engage deeply with each other’s positions, aiming to find a new approach that addresses the root of the problem. It often results in innovative solutions and strengthened relationships, as both sides recognize their mutual interdependence and seek reconciliation.
Accommodation:
This mode is characterized by low assertiveness and high cooperativeness. One party prioritizes the relationship over their own interests, often downplaying differences and emphasizing areas of agreement. This self-sacrificing approach results in a lose-win outcome, which may be part of a broader, long-term strategy—sacrificing a battle to win the war.
Competition:
In this mode, a party pursues their own interests with little or no concern for the other party’s outcomes. High in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness, competition often manifests through the use of authority or organizational power to impose a solution. This results in a win-lose outcome, which may be effective in urgent situations but can strain relationships and hinder collaboration over time.
From a game theory perspective, only the collaborative approach creates a stable, mutually beneficial resolution. The other modes either bypass the conflict or leave behind dissatisfaction—conditions that often fuel future disputes.
In conclusion, while conflict is unavoidable in projects, the way it is managed makes all the difference. A project manager’s ability to choose the appropriate response based on the context—balancing assertiveness and cooperativeness—can transform conflict into an opportunity for growth, innovation, and strengthened team dynamics.
