The Multi-Level Learning Coach 63
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
A useful framework for understanding the di erences in how people
relate to con ict—and a path forward for helping teams become more ef-
fective at handling it—is re ected in the dual concerns model depicted in
Figure 3.4, a version of which is incorporated into the Thomas- Kilmann
con ict mode instrument (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). The horizontal axis
represents the degree to which an individual or group is attempting to
satisfy others’ concerns. The vertical axis represents the degree to which
someone is attempting to satisfy her own concerns. The result leads to ve
di erent styles that people bring to con ict situations: competing, avoid-
ing, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. The approach
that is most suitable for a given situation depends on the degree to which
an ongoing relationship needs to be maintained and the importance of the
outcome to participants. For example, if an individual inadvertently says
something that is irritating or o ensive to another, it may be worth avoid-
ing, given the low degree of severity and impact. However, in situations
where two or more individuals are responsible for making choices that af-
fect others in a signi cant way, such as in the case of important project de-
cisions, strategy formulation, or process designs, a collaborative approach
to negotiating a successful outcome is preferable, as it enables multiple
perspectives to be combined. No party to the decision “caves in,” tries to
“win” at the expense of others, avoids the decision, or compromises his
views to accommodate others. Rather, each fully represents her point of
view, advocating it with an appropriate level of assertiveness and with an
appropriate degree of cooperation that seeks to inquire and understand
the underlying basis for others’ points of view.
In their book Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury (1991) out-
line a number of steps that participants can take to resolve con icts in a
collaborative way, reaching outcomes that satisfy all parties’ needs in a
win- win fashion. They help us to realize that bargaining over positions can
often lead to ine ective solutions, with results that are potentially damag-
ing to the people involved. Positions can be viewed as opening demands,
and may come in the form of something like, “We don’t have additional
resources to put into this e ort.” They can come in the form of posturing
or blaming as a way of protecting one’s own interests, as when someone
says, “You’ve consumed enough time from our department on this project
already.”