The essence of conflict
Most people regard conflict as something to be avoided, yet it is often the seed of the greatest creativity and innovation in any workplace. As humans the challenge we generally have with conflict is that we adopt a mode or style that causes emotional stress and fails to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
The most well-known models of conflict, define a set of styles in terms of two-dimensional axes. In the well-known Thomas-Kilmann model the styles are a balance between the degree of assertiveness on one hand and the degree of co-operation on the other. In Rahim’s model the axes are concern for others versus concern for self. Both of these models yield 5 styles that have different names but share similar characteristics – Integrating/Collaborating, Compromising (both), Dominating/Competing, Obliging/Accommodating and Avoiding. Zacchillietal’s Romantic Partner Conflict Scale offers a sixth style of Reacting and it is this six-style model that we have chosen as the basis for the conflict model we present here.
However we prefer to use the term “mode” rather than “style” because style suggests something that is relatively fixed, whereas mode suggests an approach or stance that is temporary in nature and can easily shift. The conflict mode you adopt in a particular situation will depend on the context, the relationship you have with the other people/person present and how you are feeling that day.
We are not offering a conflict mode assessment because we do not believe that they generate accurate answers. Given what we have said about the contextual nature of conflict it is difficult to generalise. People also tend to respond to questionnaires based on how they would like to think they behave, rather than how they actually do. And there is always a bias in terms of people selecting “socially acceptable” answers. We prefer to assess the conflict modes prevalent in any interaction through an analysis of the verbal behaviours used, which give a much more accurate picture.
We divide our six conflict modes into three different zones, each one of which is characterised by the type of outcome you are likely to achieve by adopting one of the modes within the zone.
The Stuck Zone 
Adopting a mode from the Stuck Zone means that you are unlikely to achieve any outcome from the conflict that is acceptable to either party. The two modes in this Zone are Reacting and Avoiding.
The Reacting mode
The Reacting mode is characterised by a high level of emotionality, usually driven by fear, anger or even grief. The behaviour is typically one we call Defend/Attack, which can be aggressive and shouting, but can also be defensive in tone. We also classify humour as Defend/Attack where the joke is aimed at someone else, as humour is often used as a defence mechanism. The Reacting mode is associated with high levels of attachment anxiety and we can also relate it to the Child ego state of Transactional analysis.
The Avoiding mode
The Avoiding mode can also sound defensive but the key behaviour here is ignoring the issue and failing to respond to it. We measure this through the absence rather than the presence of any behaviour. Managers may adopt avoiding behaviour when they have a difficult employee that they don’t know how to deal with, so they ignore a performance issue. This only makes it more difficult to resolve.
The Power Zone
The Power Zone is where we see people using their power to get what they want, or conceding to another party where they feel powerless. Our research into negotiation suggests that this can only ever result in a short-term outcome. For example for years UK supermarkets have kept the prices low for farmers, now they can’t get eggs because so many producers have either gone out of business or won’t supply them. Or a company we know boasted that they had saved £30 million on supplier contracts, only to have the suppliers renegotiate all the contracts over the subsequent year.
The Dominating mode
The Dominating mode is used by people who feel they are more powerful and use it unscrupulously to get what they want. This is the typical win-lose approach to negotiation. Behaviourally we observe them making proposals, refusing to make concessions, dominating the air time and generally pushing back the other side. Often they open on a contentious issue.
The Conceding mode
Dominating only works when there is a clear power imbalance and the other party adopts the Conceding mode. Behaviourally this is characterised by a lack of proposals, making concessions and general acceptance of terms that are not really beneficial.
The Connecting Zone
Adopting the modes in the Connecting Zone means it is more likely that the conflict will result in an outcome that is sustainable in the long-term (or what is typically called win-win).
The Compromising mode
In the Compromising mode we have a balance of power between the two sides and a willingness to trade. The compromise is about both sides thinking “I might not get all that I want but I can get enough of what I need to be satisfied”. Effective compromising is characterised by a behaviour called Conditional Proposing. For example: “If I reduce my price to this then will you agree to an extension in the contract”. Conditional Proposing is enhanced by both sides being able to identify their “levers“, i.e. what is high value to one side and low cost to the other. For example, a long contract may be of great value to one side but not make much difference to the other.
The Integrating mode
Our final mode is Integrating. The key difference between this and Compromising is that both sides focus on what Fisher and Ury refer to as the underlying interests, rather than the principles. They use the example of the negotiation that ended the Israeli/Egyptian dispute over the Sinai peninsula. Both sides were claiming sovereignty – Egypt because it had always been Egyptian soil and Israel because they did not want Egyptian tanks right on their border. Rather than put a border down the middle the agreement was that it would remain Egyptian territory but be a demilitarised zone, that resolved Israel’s security concerns.
The key here is that long-term sustainable outcomes (despite the constant friction in the area Egypt and Israel have not gone back to war over the Sinai peninsula) generally emerge from the differences between the two sides. And the underlying interests are generally the drivers for the Reacting mode in the Stuck Zone. So if you do find someone in Reacting mode taking the time to understand where they are coming from can take you to Integrating.
Which is why the key behaviours for Integrating are the ability to listen, and demonstrate listening, by using behaviours such as Testing Understanding, Summarising and Matching. Asking questions is also important, especially the ability to probe for underlying reasons.
Finding your mode
This blog is an introduction to our six mode conflict model and the associated behaviours. We provide both conflict mode assessments in the workplace and conflict coaching to help you and your team move more consistently into the Connecting Zone. So if you want help with resolving conflict more effectively in your work place and getting through difficult conversations then please get in touch.
