Ralph H. Kilmann's Blog

I am thrilled to announce the release of my latest book, Mastering the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. In today's world, where differences, diversity, and discord prevail, conflict management has become an essential skill for individuals, teams, and societies. Drawing from my extensive experience as a conflict management expert and co-creator of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), this comprehensive guide takes you on a transformative journey through conflict management, providing invaluable insights and practical tools.

Unveiling the TKI

At the core of my new book lies the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), which is illuminated through the TKI Conflict Model—which positions the five conflict modes (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating) according to several meaningful dimensions of conflict-handling behavior: the two underlying dimensions of assertiveness and cooperativeness as well as the protective, distributive, and integrative dimensions on the TKI Conflict Model. Together, we will explore this TKI model—along with the TKI tool itself—from the most basic principles of conflict management all the way to using this model and its assessment tool for addressing the most devasting conflicts known to humankind: civil wars and international wars. By understanding the five conflict-handling modes, the two underlying dimensions, and the three diagonal dimensions on the TKI Conflict Model, you will gain a solid grasp of the enhanced potential for effectively resolving all kinds of conflicts that people and organizations increasingly face in our diverse global village.

Navigating Conflict with Confidence

Mastering the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) goes beyond theoretical concepts. It equips you with the necessary tools to confidently navigate conflict situations. Throughout the book, I highlight eight key attributes that define conflict scenarios. By understanding these attributes, you will be able to determine the most appropriate conflict mode to employ. Competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, or accommodating—each mode serves a unique purpose, and I will guide you in making informed choices based on the specific circumstances you encounter.

Insights into Personal Conflict Behavior

One of the highlights of this book is the detailed interpretation of the six diverse TKI Profiles. As you delve into these profiles, you will gain invaluable insights into your own personalized conflict-handling behavior. This self-awareness is a powerful tool for enhancing your approach to conflict resolution and fostering healthier relationships. Additionally, I am excited to introduce the TKI TEAM Report, which provides a fresh perspective on conflict management within group settings, making this book applicable to various contexts.

Exploring Inner and Global Conflicts

Recognizing that our inner conflicts influence our external interactions, I address four fundamental inner conflicts in this book: the physical body vs. energy body, ego vs. soul, self as separate vs. integrated with surrounding systems, and resolved vs. unresolved primal relationships. By examining these internal conflicts, you will gain profound insights into how they shape your approach to external conflicts and discover strategies for alignment and growth.

Tackling Pressing Global Conflicts

In the final chapters, I tackle some of the most pressing conflicts known to humanity, including civil wars and international wars. By exploring the causes of these disastrous conflicts, I introduce you to the progressive stages of human consciousness, with a focus on the ethnocentric stage. My passion lies in advocating for the advancement of human consciousness towards a worldcentric and eventually spiritcentric perspective. Together, we can foster unity and interconnectedness for a thriving future.

A Guide for Transformation

Mastering the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) serves as your guide, offering transformative insights and practical tools for individuals, teams, and societies alike. It is my hope that by embracing the principles and techniques presented within these pages, you will transform conflicts into opportunities for growth and understanding.

In conclusion, I invite you to embark on this transformative journey through conflict management. Let us explore the power of the TKI, gain self-awareness, and discover effective strategies for resolving conflicts. Together, we can create a world where differences are celebrated, diversity is valued, and discord is transformed into harmony.

I’d like to share with you the first new TKI product to appear in a very long time. First, I’ll provide a summary of why Ken Thomas, Gail Thomas, and I developed the TKI Team Report https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/assess... after so many decades of providing the TKI assessment only for individuals, devoid of any specific team or group context. Second, I’ll suggest how this new online report can help all kinds of groups and teams improve their conflict-handling behavior. In essence, the TKI Team Report can help couples, families, business partners, workgroups, departments, and cross-functional teams significantly improve their performance and satisfaction.

And third, I’ll share some specific guidelines for helping you decide WHEN to use the new TKI Team Report instead of habitually proceeding with the long-standing practice of merely averaging team member’s conflict mode scores, as presented on their individual TKI Profile and Interpretive Report, or what we will now simply call, the TKI INDIVIDUAL Report… in contrast to the new TKI TEAM Report. In the process, I’ll also suggest when it’s beneficial to modify the standard TKI instructions, so that team members will respond to each of the 30 A/B items on the TKI assessment in terms of their behavior in their designated team and not their behavior in general (without specifying any situation at all).

Let’s begin: It should be apparent that teams have become the building block of today’s organizations—given the highly complex problems and challenging conflicts that are increasingly propelled from our global village. We have learned that effective teamwork can increase engagement, boost innovation, and improve productivity for every team member, for the team as a whole, for the entire organization, and even for the international economy. Naturally, effective teamwork is also vital in many other social settings in life. In fact, ANY intact group of a manageable size can benefit from using the new TKI Team Report to examine its conflict-handling behavior.

Indeed, studies show that a team’s ability to manage conflict is one of the most important factors that consistently affect its performance. With this important finding clearly in mind, the TKI Team Report is designed to help members learn how to transform their unique CHALLENGES in addressing team conflicts into some very practical REMEDIES for significantly increasing both individual and team performance.

I’ll now outline how you can create a personalized TKI Team Report for every member on your designated team, based on every member’s responses to the TKI assessment tool, either using the TKI’s standard instructions or perhaps modifying those standard TKI instructions. In a little while, I’ll say more about when it’s best to modify the standard TKI instructions and exactly HOW to modify those instructions in order to focus members’ attention exclusively on their designated team.

As usual, it will take each team member about 15 to 20 minutes to respond to all 30 A/B items on the individual TKI assessment—using a computer, laptop, or mobile device. After every team member has completed their individual TKI, the leader and/or facilitator can request that we, at Kilmann Diagnostics, email them a compressed zip file that contains each member’s personalized TKI Team Report. Just to be clear: Each TKI Team Report is unique to each member, since that report not only presents which of the five conflict modes are most and least used for the team as a whole, but each TKI Team Report also includes that member’s own individual tendency to use some conflict modes too much and other conflict modes too little. In fact, it’s always illuminating to discover the striking differences between a team member’s personal preferences for using the five conflict modes in comparison to the entire team’s preferences for using certain modes more than others. Such individual/team comparisons will help you identify the particular CHALLENGES each member faces (including the team as a whole) in improving the results of their conflict management behavior.

To enable you to make the best use of the TKI Team Report for all kinds of intact groups that are made up of 2 to 15 or so members, the three co-authors have created a FREE Facilitator’s Guide, which you can download at your convenience. In addition, you can also download a Sample TKI Team Report, so you can review exactly what is provided in this new report and how various individual/team comparisons can pinpoint how members can improve their team functioning and thus their team’s performance.

I’ll now provide you with some more relevant background information about the new TKI Team Report.

If you are a facilitator, trainer, consultant, coach, therapist, ombudsman, or mediator who wishes to improve the conflict-handling behavior of a clearly defined group of 2 to 15 or so members AND the members of that clearly defined group have already been interacting with one another for quite some time, then the TKI Team Report may well be the perfect choice for a learning and development program. But if you are working with a community of more than 15 or so individuals, let alone 25 or many more individuals, AND if those individuals rarely, if ever, have interacted with one another in a work situation or in some other setting, it’s probably best to make use of the TKI INDIVIDUAL Report that only provides feedback for the one respondent who completed the TKI assessment.

I’ll now say more about why you might want to modify the standard TKI instructions for producing a TKI Team Report in order to focus each member’s attention only on the interactions that take place inside a designated team — instead of using the standard TKI instructions, which do not specify any situation at all.

Here are the standard instructions for taking the TKI assessment tool:

“Consider situations in which you find your wishes differing from those of another person. How do you usually respond to such situations?”

The respondent is then provided with this additional instruction:

“The following pages contain 30 pairs of statements describing possible behavioral responses. For each pair, please select the letter (A or B) of the statement that best characterizes your behavior.”

As you can tell from these standard TKI instructions, no situation is specified, which is the best approach when the individuals who are taking part in some educational program want to learn more about their own, individual conflict-handling behavior and, for the time being, are not at all concerned about any specific situation, whether at work or at home.

However, instead of always using those general-purpose instructions of the TKI assessment, you can MODIFY those instructions so the 2 to 15 or so members of a designated team, who have been interacting with one another for quite a while, will respond to the TKI’s 30 A/B items according to how they address conflict INSIDE their designated group—and that designated group only.

Here’s just one example of MODIFIED instructions to the TKI assessment tool, which explicitly names the one team that is the sole focus of member responses to those 30 A/B items:

“Inside the Project Team Alpha in the Finance Department, how do you usually respond when you find that your wishes differ from those of other team members?”

Next to the team’s name in these modified instructions, you might also want to list the names of all team members, just so there will never be any doubt about the exact composition of that team. Most importantly, by having each team member focus exclusively on their behavior in that particular team, the TKI results will be more accurate, since member behavior in all OTHER social settings can no longer dilute, let alone distort, the assessment of only that team’s conflict-handling behavior. By the way, we only modify the TKI instructions to show the full name of the team and perhaps list all of its members; we never change any OTHER significant words or phrases in the standard TKI instructions, since the other parts of those instructions are essential for maintaining the validity of the TKI assessment tool.

Lastly, after you’ve purchased a TKI Report for every member on your team, you can then download the KD_Spreadsheet for Creating Group Accounts, which asks your to list the first name, last name, and email address of each team member. After you email us your carefully completed spreadsheet, we ask you to let us know your preferences for these four services, which Kilmann Diagnostics provides for every quantity purchase of the TKI Team Report:

1. The date, time, and time zone when you want us to import your spreadsheet, which initiates the TKI taking process for your team members.

2. If and when you want us to send a Reminder Email to only those team members who have not yet completed their TKI assessment.

3. If and when you want us to email you 1 Status Report that lists the team members who have—or have not—completed their TKI assessment.

4. After each of your team members has completed their individual TKI assessment, let us know when you would like to receive, via email, a compressed zip file that includes all your team members’ personalized TKI Team Reports—so you can give each member their personalized report, either through an email or in person, just before the start of your training, consulting, coaching, or other educational program.

I hope I’ve provided you with some very useful background information about WHY Ken, Gail, and I created the TKI Team Report and HOW the TKI Team Report can not only help you identify the particular OBSTACLES to managing conflict successfully in that clearly designated team, but can also recommend several practical REMEDIES that will likely improve the team’s performance and satisfaction.



Kilmann Diagnostics offers a series of eleven recorded online courses and nine assessment tools on the four timeless topics: conflict management, change management, consciousness, and transformation. By taking these courses and passing the Final Exams, you can earn your Certification in Conflict and Change Management with the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI). For the most up-to-date and comprehensive discussion of Dr. Kilmann’s theories and methods, see his 2021 Legacy Book: Creating a Quantum Organization

Over the course of many years, I gradually came to realize that the particular words and phrases that a person uses to talk about (or write about) their core beliefs on any topic—specifically, whether they acknowledge the INHERENT UNCERTAINTY in the universe—has much do with whether other people (1) immediately ignore (and perhaps even demean) what was just communicated to them or (2) are wide open to fully incorporating those recent statements into their own knowledge base and belief system. I will now elaborate on what I mean by acknowledging uncertainty in all kinds of communication.

As a former university professor (and thus as a former doctoral student), I had to learn to include in my oral and written statements particular phrases that explicitly recognize the INHERENT UNCERTAINTY of the scientific process in today’s world, the uncertainty of the knowledge that is produced by that scientific process, and the uncertainty of any evidence that seems, at the moment, to support our theories, hypotheses, arguments, and assumptions. As a doctoral student, I learned that you could never PROVE the validity of any theory or hypothesis; you can only REJECT a theory/hypothesis or FAIL TO REJECT a theory/hypothesis. Why? Whatever one believes for the time being might, sometime later, be entirely falsified by a newer theory that does a much better job of predicting and/or explaining the phenomena of interest (often called a new “paradigm”), until another alternative theory is proposed that better predicts and/or explains the subject of interest. Through this ongoing scientific process, we test, revise, refine, and further develop our theories and hypotheses so we can enhance our storehouse of valid and useful knowledge about the universe—and especially about ourselves.

Given that the scientific process can never PROVE anything per se, consider some of the particular phrases that doctoral students are expected to use in order to convey what they know—and what they don’t know—about the topic in question: “It appears that… It seems that… It might be that… I haven’t done the research myself, but my current understanding of the controversy is as follows…. “

Now compare those kinds of “uncertainty acknowledging words and phrases” with the following dogmatic statements, whereby one’s opinions or beliefs are expressed as 100% factual, indisputable, and already proven to be true, even when there is little or no evidence to support or reject such assertions: “This is WHAT happened… This is WHEN it happened…. This is WHO did it… This is WHY they did it… This is HOW they did it…”

Such dogmatic phrases do not acknowledge UNCERTAINTY; indeed, these latter phrases make it seem that the communicator already KNOWS the total truth of “what, when, who, why, and how” and has somehow proven that without any room for doubt. It’s as if the person is proclaiming: “There is only one truth, one PROVEN theory… and I know what it is,” since such dogmatic oral and written communication actively discourages any kind of open discussion on alternative beliefs, alternative theories, or alternative explanations.

Let’s now consider the INHERENT INSECURITY that afflicts all human beings to one degree or another: While some people are more confident and self-assured than others, I find it fairly safe to assume that every person experiences some INSECURITY and UNCERTAINTY about who they are, their self-value and self-worth, and whether or not they will be liked and loved by others. I have found that people’s misgivings about their self-value and self-worth then compels them to NEED other people’s opinions and beliefs to be similar if not identical to their own—to affirm their very existence as well as the value of their existence.

Indeed, if you believe what I believe, we must both be right. If we are both right about something central to our lives, we can then feel more self-assured about who we are and be more confident that we actually have an accurate perception of reality. But the extent to which I question my self-value and self-worth, if you disagree with me on anything that matters to me, that disagreement will likely make me feel even more insecure about who I am and whether I am a likeable and loveable person.

In the early 1950s, Solomon Asch1 conducted a simple experiment to investigate just how powerfully “a group” can influence the beliefs of its members. The experiment was presented to subjects as a study in perception. Three lines—A, B, and C—all of different lengths, were presented on a flip chart in front of the room. Subjects were asked to indicate which of these three lines was identical in length to line, D, displayed on another flip chart that was positioned right next to the first flip chart.

As illustrated in Figure 1, seven persons sat in a row. One by one, they indicated their choice. While line D was in fact identical to line A, each of the first six persons, confederates of the experimenter, reported that line D was identical to C. The seventh person in the row was the only unknowing subject. As the six confederates, one by one, each announced the agreed-upon incorrect response, the unknowing subjects became increasingly uneasy, anxious, and doubtful of their own perceptions—and sense of reality. When it was their turn to respond to the length of those lines, the unknowing subjects seated in Position 7 agreed with the fraudulent responses from those six confederates about 40 percent of the time. When no other persons were present, the subjects chose the wrong line less than 1 percent of the time—a research finding that has been replicated again and again.
No alt text provided for this image

In this social psychological experiment, there wasn’t any opportunity for the seven individuals to discuss the problem among themselves. However, if there had been such an open discussion among the individuals, the effect would likely have been much stronger, because the six confederates would attempt to influence the seventh person to see things their way.

As illustrated in Figure 2, it’s not easy being the sole deviant in a group (i.e., sitting in Position 7) when everyone else appears to be against you. As I noted earlier, it seems that every human being has a need to be accepted by the group—family, friends, coworkers, or neighbors—which gives a group leverage to demand compliance with its belief system. If people did not care about being accepted by others and had little or no fear about being rejected from their Tribe, a group would have little hold, other than formal sanctions, over its individual members. Most people, in fact, will deny their own perceptions when confronted with the group’s beliefs of “objective” or physical reality. Physical reality thus becomes a social reality. As such, we now enter the world of TRIBALISM: strong in-group loyalty that can significantly distort each member’s perceptions of reality in a particular direction.
No alt text provided for this image

Now consider when a discussion is not just about estimating and comparing the length of four lines on two flip charts but, instead, involves highly subjective, emotional, and complex problems, such as the validity of the 2020 presidential election, the safety of the latest COVID vaccines, the existence of systemic racism, whether to defund police departments, or the solution for gun violence in our schools. When discussion topics are highly subjective, the compliance for individuals sitting in Position 7 would probably increase to well over 90%, especially if the six other group members put considerable social pressure on the deviant to conform with the Tribe’s beliefs and perceptions about highly complex and emotional topics.

Let me repeat this most-important principle: If you see a troublesome situation the same way as I do (let alone if several people agree with my beliefs about what, when, who, why, and how), then I can relax and feel that I am a good person who’s sane and functioning well. Just consider how people tend to smile whenever they receive “likes” or some positive response on something they recently posted on a social media platform: “If others like what I just posted, I must be right about my beliefs and facts.” As powerfully demonstrated by the Solomon Asch experiment, if several people agree with us, we are likely to regard our beliefs as absolutely true, right, accurate, and meaningful. If anyone continues to think otherwise, that deviant must be dead wrong and, therefore, should immediately be banished from the Tribe.

Relying on other people’s similar views (and “likes”) to enhance the confidence and certainty of our own beliefs tends to motivate us to spend most of our time with people who see the world the same as we do. Not surprisingly, surrounding ourselves with like-minded friends, colleagues, and connections further reinforces our beliefs that we know the TRUTH about any relevant topic. As such, we no longer have any reason to acknowledge UNCERTAINTY in the world. In time, our language becomes even more dogmatic, as we express our beliefs in the most certain, most absolute, and most extreme terms possible: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY! NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS!

Tribe 1 firmly believes that it has spoken the single TRUTH about something, so there is no room for further debate or dialogue with Tribes 2, 3, 4, and so forth.

Let’s now consider what unfolds when people from other tribes read or hear what Tribe 1 has proclaimed as the ultimate truth on any complex and messy problem: Given my insecurities (and remember, we are ALL insecure to some extent), when I hear a person from another Tribe speak with complete certainty about their beliefs, that makes me feel even more insecure, since I am left wondering how can someone else see reality so differently from me. Am I wrong in my beliefs and my view of the situation? If the other is so right, I must be so wrong! Such black-and-white thinking is a result of not acknowledging the INHERENT UNCERTAINTY in the universe… thereby ignoring the very large gray area that exists between the extremes of black and white, right and wrong, and true or false.

As a result, whenever a person feels that they must defend the credibility or validity of their oral or written statements, they typically restate their beliefs with words and phrases that convey even more certainty, conviction, and “scientific proof” than before, as if their resounding confidence in their own beliefs (and how forcefully and loudly they proclaim them) would somehow negate the fundamentally different beliefs (and evidence) that members from other Tribes express with equal certainty and conviction. As each Tribe gradually becomes more and more dogmatic about its own belief system, each Tribe might also vocalize abusive comments (often laced with foul language) to characterize what the other tribes are saying on the same subject.

This vicious cycle then produces an EXTREME POLARIZATION that might even be backed by threats of violence or actual physical violence. Different Tribes thus become increasingly locked into a narrow worldview, defending themselves verbally (and physically) against any contradictory beliefs, factual claims, and alternative explanations of cause and effect. Oftentimes, various conspiracy theories are creatively fabricated and then aggressively disseminated as each Tribe attempts to seize control of reality. Indeed, people are inclined to say and do all sorts of things just to feel more normal, mentally healthy, accepted, respected, and loved by others. Welcome to the human race!

On occasion, it seems that some human beings are even prepared to kill other human beings just because of their radically different points of view on complex and challenging topics. When Tribes become locked into such polarized beliefs as supported by language that expresses 100% certainty and conviction, we have the seeds of CIVIL WAR, which includes the collective desire to destroy any Tribes with different belief systems, which includes destroying their property and all their belongings—so as to nullify their entire existence. Before you know it, we have recreated the current divisiveness and EXTREME POLARIZATION between the far right and the far left of our political system, which implicitly encourages domestic and international violence.

If there will be a WW III, it will likely be initially fueled by the polarized conflict among contradictory belief systems held by different Tribes—which is further fueled by the abundant fear and overwhelming stress that are usually rampant during economic crises, pandemics, all incidents of social and racial injustice, as well as military invasions of other countries.

And yet, I am firmly convinced that if every Tribe of like-minded people (whether Democrats, Republicans, for-or-against abortion, for-or-against vaccination, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.) used explicit phrases in their written and oral statements to convey the INHERENT UNCERTAINTY of all matters complex and controversial, everyone would be more at ease, have less reason to be defensive, feel more respected by others, and then openly acknowledge that different people are bound to experience events differently, based on their unique journey through life.

As different Tribes acknowledge the INHERENT UNCERTAINTY in today’s world and the INHERENT INSECURITY that afflicts all human beings, inter-Tribe bridges might be formed (i.e., a safe haven) that will enable those previously warring Tribes to interact with one another in a more relaxed, peaceful, open-minded, and open-hearted manner: Instead of anger, fear, pride, arrogance, and dogma ruling the day, a diverse community of different Tribes that fully acknowledges everyone’s UNCERTAINTY and INSECURITY will soon discover that they can successfully address their complex challenges when they are finally able to radiate love, joy, peace, and compassion—which WILL, ultimately, create a better life for everyone.

Despite the enormous potential for creating a healthy bridge between two or more previously warring Tribes (by explicitly acknowledging UNCERTAINTY and INSECURITY during every oral and written communication), I must acknowledge that some Tribes may be past the point of no return: It seems there will always be some Tribes that have been totally effective at RADICALIZING (brainwashing) their members with an onslaught of relentless conditioning and constant social pressure (as depicted in Asch’s experiment on social reality). As a result, such RADICALIZED Tribes might “never” be open to listening and learning from the members of any other Tribe that supports a different belief system.

Not surprisingly, it’s easier to RADICALIZE the members of a Tribe when they are particularly INSECURE about their self-value and self-worth, such that it would be much too threatening for them to even consider the remote possibility that another belief system (being expressed by another Tribe) might be more in tune with the times and also more in tune with reality. For some vulnerable people, in fact, it would be virtually impossible for them to admit that their long-standing thoughts, feelings, and behavior are actually rooted in fictitious assumptions about what, when, who, why, and how on any controversial, complex, messy social issue. Said differently: What will it take for RADICALIZED persons (who are so INSECURE that they cannot embrace any kind of UNCERTAINTY in their belief system) to admit to themselves (and all others) that they have been thoroughly conditioned, thoroughly coerced, and perhaps effectively misled to perpetuate their seriously distorted perceptions of what, when, who, why, and how? For highly INSECURE persons (perhaps further derailed by experiencing mental illness of one kind or another) to change the course of their lives might be close to impossible.

Moreover, living with certain kinds of MENTAL ILLNESS might make some members especially attracted (and thus more vulnerable) to RADICALIZATION in the first place, since their fellow RADICALIZED members would then provide them with a close-knit community to justify and defend such dysfunctional—if not destructive—belief systems. In essence, different forms of MENTAL ILLNESS are simply different ways of (a) distorting reality (via one neurosis or another) or (b) losing contact with reality (via one psychosis or another), which thus supports the serious distortions and breaches of reality that are the hallmark of every RADICALIZATION process.

Nevertheless, it’s vital that all Tribes are initially considered as potential sources for enhancing everyone’s knowledge and understanding of “what, when, who, why, and how” on all matters that pertain to society’s survival, success, and wellbeing. Not until we have convincing evidence that any particular Tribe has been RADICALIZED BEYOND REPAIR, is it reasonable to define that Tribe as either “mentally ill” or “too far gone.” But once we have accumulated convincing evidence that MENTAL ILLNESS and/or RADICALIZATION are solidly at work in a particular Tribe, we must then take the necessary steps to confine (isolate) that dysfunctional Tribe and their dysfunctional members so they are no longer in a position to harm others. To repeat: It’s not a resourceful (or compassionate) practice to quickly label another Tribe as hopelessly—and permanently—dysfunctional without a good deal of convincing evidence that’s gathered over a suitable period of time.

I remember an old story about a White Man and an American Indian that takes place in the mid-1800s. The White Man insists that the American Indian has little knowledge about the world as compared to the more educated, technologically advanced, dominant, White Tribe (e.g., having developed guns and bullets instead of relying on “primitive” bows and arrows).

To emphasize his point, the White Man uses a wooden stick to draw a very small circle in the sand that is about 1 foot in diameter, which is meant to symbolize the American Indian’s supposedly limited knowledge about everything. The White Man next draws a much larger circle (about 5 feet in diameter) that easily encompasses the Indian’s much smaller “circle of knowledge.” The White Man then states that while the Indian possesses very little knowledge (all of which can be contained within that very small 1-foot circle), the White man knows much, much more (as symbolized by that larger 5-foot circle).

At this point, the American Indian picks up another wooden stick and draws a much larger circle in the sand (this time, about 25 feet in diameter) that easily encompasses both the Indian’s small 1-foot circle as well as the White Man’s larger 5-foot circle. Pointing back and forth from the 1-foot circle to the 5-foot circle, the Indian proclaims: “This is what we both know.” The Indian then points to the 25-foot circle that is much, much larger than both of those two smaller circles combined, and proclaims: “This is what we both do NOT know!”

Essentially, the difference between the two smaller circles and the much larger one represents UNCERTAINTY, since we don’t know what’s there. Indeed, we don’t even know what we don’t know. If both the White Man’s Tribe and the American Indian’s Tribe begin to acknowledge that UNCERTAINTY in all their oral and written communications, each will likely feel more respected, be more comfortable with any disagreement, and be more inclined to work together in search of greater knowledge and truth for the best of both worlds.

People have asked me how I came to appreciate the importance of always acknowledging the INHERENT UNCERTAINTY and the INHERENT INSECURITY in every form of human communication, regarding any belief or account of what, when, who, why, and how something actually happened. Somewhere along the way of my personal and professional journey, I realized this fact of life: If instead of my having been born and raised in New York City, I had been born and raised in a remote village in Central Africa, I would surely have developed (acquired) very different attitudes, beliefs, and values than people who were born and raised in New York City, and I surely would explain any what, when, who, why, and how very differently than they do!
No alt text provided for this image

Knowing just how much every human being is conditioned (domesticated) by their local Tribe, whenever I hear a member from another Tribe in America (or another Tribe in Africa) state a belief about anything (whether opinion or fact), I now realize that if I had been born and raised in THAT other Tribe, I’d also be voicing the same exact beliefs as that Tribe’s long-standing members. Knowing this, it’s quite impossible for me to conclude that my beliefs are absolutely right and another person’s beliefs are obviously wrong, since I’d be putting down my own beliefs… if I had actually been born and raised in that other (African) Tribe.

Yes, it’s so important to realize just how much we human beings have been conditioned by our family, friends, neighborhoods, schools, and places of work to believe particular things with great confidence, and then, to top it all off, we are prone to choose friends and live in communities that further reinforce the validity of our very limited belief system, just so we can feel more confident that we are okay and that we are in touch with reality. And yet, if we can learn to always acknowledge that INHERENT UNCERTAINTY in the universe and our own INHERENT INSECURITY in every kind of human communication (especially with those who belong to other Tribes), we’ll be more likely to listen and learn from diverse others (regardless of which Tribes are involved in the dialogue), instead of instantly dismissing and demeaning other Tribes as being insane and evil—or even worse.

Asch, S. E. “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Scientific American, November 1955, pp. 31–34.



Kilmann Diagnostics offers a series of eleven recorded online courses and nine assessment tools on the four timeless topics: conflict management, change management, consciousness, and transformation. By taking these courses and passing the Final Exams, you can earn your Certification in Conflict and Change Management with the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI). For the most up-to-date and comprehensive discussion of Dr. Kilmann’s theories and methods, see his 2021 Legacy Book: Creating a Quantum Organization: The Whys and Hows of Implementing Eight Tracks for Long-Term Success.

Ever since mid-March 2020, when the first U.S. lockdowns took effect as the coronavirus began ravaging the globe, the shift from in-person learning to online platforms began has been rapidly accelerating. In fact, soon after those initial mandated lockdowns took effect, live training programs in organizations and face-to-face interactions in colleges and universities were abruptly cancelled. For the next few months, companies and colleges were struggling with how to shift from their previous utilization of in-person programs in one physical location to some type of online virtual technology on the World Wide Web. In a relatively short period of time, several virtual meeting platforms, such as Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams, replaced many or most of the previous in-person venues for all kinds of degree and non-degree programs.

Since the initial year of the pandemic (2020), the switch from in-person to virtual meetings has continued to accelerate as most students in universities and most employees in organizations have learned to appreciate the comfort and convenience of holding group meetings and taking educational programs right from their own home office, kitchen, or living room — thus substantially reducing travel time, transportation costs, and the additional expense of maintaining (or renting) physical facilities (such as office spaces and conference rooms).

Eventually, when the pandemic fades into the background of our daily lives, I don’t believe that educational programs will revert back to the previous levels of in-person facilities for universities and companies. Online education is here to stay in a big way, even though the extensive use of online meetings will surely be supported with a return to “some” in-person programs. The latter venue works best when in-person interactions in the same physical space are essential for achieving the educational objectives at hand (e.g., developing better interpersonal skills and not just acquiring more academic knowledge about the psychodynamics of interpersonal relationships). Nevertheless, the ratio of in-person to virtual programs will never return to what it was before the pandemic, now that so many people have become adept — and at ease — with learning through an online platform.

Although there are many educational objectives for which virtual meetings are much preferred to in-person workshops or classrooms (based on the time, cost, and convenience of scheduling and conducting such programs), there is one key advantage to online courses (particularly recorded online courses) that is rarely mentioned or discussed:

An online course can be delivered by the particular person or persons who originally created the material, which, if recorded (versus online live presentations) can then be experienced at any time, on any time zone, on any continent 24/7.

In sharp contrast, a trainer or instructor providing various concepts, theories, and methods to an in-person audience in one physical location usually presents material that has been developed by someone else. Or consider when a trainer or instructor has learned the material from another person who has previously learned the material from someone else (who also had nothing to do with developing the original material), so there might be many accumulated modifications to that material, which can be further misinterpreted, distorted or, in fact, can even be in conflict with what was originally presented by the author or coauthors of that material.

I’ll now remind you of a popular childhood game that beautifully illustrates the dangers of what can happen when the presentation of educational material is several steps removed from the person who originally created that material, as one person after another (neither of whom had anything to do with creating the material that they are presenting to an audience) adds his own perspective to the concepts or theories and then passes that unique interpretation to someone else — and this happens again and again. If you think back to your childhood, do you remember the “Telephone Game?”

A row of people (children or adults) are standing or sitting side by side, just physically close enough so one person can easily whisper in the next person’s ear, but not so close that others can hear what one of the other persons in the row is whispering in another person’s ear.

The game begins when the first person in the row is provided with a written word or phrase (that is neither too simple nor too complex), which he/she then whispers into the next person’s ear. Based on what the latter person hears, he or she then whispers that “same” word or phrase into the next person’s ear, which continues one person after another until the next-to-last person in the row whispers that “same” passed-on word or phrase to the very last person in the Telephone Game.

When that last person in the row loudly announces what he just heard to the whole row of participants, there’s usually much surprise as well as much laughter. The reason for all the surprise and laughter is that everyone becomes immediately aware of how significantly the original word or phrase has been modified (distorted), just from being whispered from one person in the row to the next in line. Indeed, in many instances of playing the Telephone Game, the “final” word or phrase that the last person in the row announces to the others is not even on the same subject as the original word or phrase that was handed to the first person in the row! Obviously, something has significantly gotten “lost in translation,” which, depending on the topic, can have dire consequences for individuals and their organizations.

If such a huge distortion consistently takes place for a single word or short phrase, imagine just how much distortion is likely to occur when people are passing on their understanding of a highly complex topic to other people, as is usually the case for what is presented and discussed in a college classroom or a corporate training program. Naturally, the concepts, theories, and methods that one person has already created can be dramatically enhanced — and further improved — by other professors and trainers in the field. But it’s still worthwhile to begin with an accurate and thorough understanding of an original work before subsequent enhancements and improvements are purposely created and then disseminated to others.

Here, simply put, is the key lesson of this entire article: With online platforms, you may now have the opportunity to learn the material of interest directly from the person who actually created it (the first person in the row, so to speak)… not a university instructor or corporate trainer who is many steps removed from the original source of the material (the last person in the row, so to speak) and what the author of that material actually had in mind with his/her work and how it can be applied in an organization. The latter, based on the consistent results that unfold from playing the Telephone Game, typically results in huge distortions of how to interpret and then use the concepts, theories, and methods on any topic or problem.

Take the case of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (also known as the TKI), which I developed with Ken Thomas in the early 1970s. The TKI is, by far, the world’s leading self-report instrument for assessing the relative frequency that a person uses the five classic conflict-handling modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. As such, the TKI has been extensively presented and discussed across the globe in both university degree programs and corporate training programs.

In past decades, I was occasionally asked to attend a corporate trainer’s presentation to a large group of company employees about the meaning, purpose, and interpretation of the TKI assessment tool. At first, I was very flattered to be invited to these formal presentations for large, well-known companies — so I could see (and enjoy) the continuing fruits of my labors. However, in many of these opportunities to witness how others were presenting my work to a corporate audience, the flattery that I had initially experienced wore off very quickly when I realized that the presenter was seriously distorting and/or painfully misinterpreting the meaning, purpose, and utilization of my cherished instrument. On some occasions, I was even tempted to let the presenters know that they had badly misused and abused the TKI, which would surely prevent the members in the audience from improving how they resolve their most important conflicts and problems. But on some of those occasions, when asked explicitly, I did offer a few suggestions on the “alternative ways” that the TKI results could be presented and interpreted during the trainer’s next presentation to a corporate audience.

I remember one particular encounter with a corporate trainer and a large audience of middle managers that significantly broke my threshold of acceptability. That particular encounter was, in fact, one of the factors that led to my forming Kilmann Diagnostics and thereby creating online courses where I, myself, would explain the true meaning and effective use of the TKI assessment tool. As a result of having my recorded online courses available worldwide on an online platform, other professors, trainers, and consultants can now learn all about the TKI from one of its co-authors… and thus, they would no longer have to be subject to the dysfunctions of the “Telephone Game” while attempting to transmit that complex knowledge from one person to the next (as in “train-the-trainer” programs), which would leave any audience with a highly distorted word or phrase — let alone a highly distorted interpretation of what the TKI measures and how to interpret its results in order to improve conflict-handling behavior.

I also remember a time when I received an email from a customer who had just been certified in The TKI Package of our three TKI-based online courses (BASIC, GROUP, and ADVANCED Training in Conflict Management). The customer was so happy that he had the opportunity to learn this material directly from one of the co-authors, me, rather than through a corporate trainer who had only learned the material through a long chain of well-intentioned practitioners who were, in essence, playing the Telephone Game with my legacy.

I wrote back and thanked this customer for his feedback. In my response, I encouraged him to always investigate whether the creator of a concept, theory, or method had previously taken the time to record his own work so it would be accessible to a much larger audience on the Internet. Naturally, if a particular author did not have a website and had not (yet) recorded his material in an online course, the customer would have to hope that some other course or presentation was, at most, only a slight distortion of the original work. But I suggested that learners should always be cautious about taking courses, whether in-person or online, when the material has already passed through so many “minds and mouths” that it would be difficult to know if what was being presented in an accurate manner to the participants in any educational program.

Naturally, in many situations, participants might not have a choice in terms of selecting the instructor who will present the educational material to them in one setting or another. Nevertheless, a preliminary search may discover that the creator of the material has indeed recorded an online course that was never filtered by a slew of intermediaries who might have unknowingly misunderstood (and thereby misinterpreted) the original author’s intentions, theories, and methods.

Kilmann Diagnostics offers a series of eleven recorded online courses and nine assessment tools on the four timeless topics: conflict management, change management, consciousness, and transformation. By taking these courses and passing the Final Exams, you can earn your Certification in Conflict and Change Management with the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI). For the most up-to-date and comprehensive discussion of Dr. Kilmann’s theories and methods, see his 2021 Legacy Book: Creating a Quantum Organization: The Whys and Hows of Implementing Eight Tracks for Long-Term Success

Here is a far-reaching question: What causes conflict? In particular, does conflict largely stem from differences within and between people? Or does conflict primarily arise from the attributes and forces in the situation, that is, the larger system within which people interact with one another? 



In my experience, I have found that the great majority of the conflict we experience stems from the system — not the people. Indeed, if you replaced the employees in an organization and gave the new recruits sufficient time to learn their jobs and what is expected of them, it wouldn’t be long before the same conflicts arose. Soon, you’d even hear the same disagreements! As a rough estimate, I’d say that most conflicts are 80% system driven and only 20% people driven. Quality guru W. Edwards Deming repeatedly claimed that this ratio is closer to 85/15. So what IS the system that creates conflict? 



Many years ago, I developed a model, The Big Picture, as a way of capturing the source of all problems and conflicts. This Big Picture does acknowledge individuals…their different styles and skills for managing people and problems. But that, as I suggested, is only 20% of the equation. The remaining 80% consists of these interrelated, systemic aspects: The External Setting (dynamic complexity in general and the needs external stakeholders in particular); The Organization (strategy-structure and the reward system); The Culture (the rules of the road that dictate “how things are done around here” and sanctioning systems that keep people in line with those rules); The Group (the processes by which individuals get together and then address their problems and conflicts); and The Results (satisfying internal and external stakeholders, short term and long term).

Incidentally, most formal organizations (e.g., businesses) have documented their strategy-structure and reward systems. But even informal organizations (e.g., extended families and communities) also have systems…but they aren’t usually written down. Thus families have implicit goals and strategies (to keep members safe, healthy, and nurtured), structure (the hierarchy and authority of parents), and reward systems (the consequences for misbehavior). So EVERY social system has the attributes of the Big Picture; they only differ on how large the system and what is formally documented. 



While there is limited space to detail all the possibilities, consider a few: External stakeholders create expectations and demands on the organization, which the organization may not be able to fulfill (hence conflict); the cultural norms in the organization may expect its lower-level employees to avoid challenging senior management, while many members are still eager to speak the truth (hence conflict); different departments have different goals (cost containment vs. expanding the market), which pits people from these departments against one another (hence conflict); the performance appraisal system expects people to take chances and express innovative ideas, while the culture says protect yourself and maintain the status quo at all costs (hence conflict); and the overall misalignment of the external environment with the organization’s strategy, structure, reward system, culture, group process, and the skills and abilities of its members — all these disharmonies lead to widespread GAPS between what is and what could or should be (hence conflict).



Although it’s useful to give people insights and awareness about their five conflict modes, we must also provide them with a deep appreciation of the Big Picture, so they (1) can see the 80% that regularly throws the 20% into conflict, (2) don’t take personally what is far beyond the immediate manifestation of their conflict, and (3) become more knowledgeable and skilled at CHANGING the situation, which will allow them to gain greater control over the resolution of their root conflicts.

Kilmann Diagnostics offers a series of eleven recorded online courses and nine assessment tools on the four timeless topics: conflict management, change management, consciousness, and transformation. By taking these courses and passing the Final Exams, you can earn your Certification in Conflict and Change Management with the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI). For the most up-to-date and comprehensive discussion of Dr. Kilmann’s theories and methods, see his 2021 Legacy Book: Creating a Quantum Organization: The Whys and Hows of Implementing Eight Tracks for Long-Term Success

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) assesses five conflict modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. These five behavioral choices are defined by two underlying dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. In essence, the five conflict-handling modes are different combinations of trying to get your needs met (low, medium, and high) and trying to get the other person’s needs met (low, medium, and high).

The TKI Conflict Model also includes the distributive dimension (the win-lose behaviors and outcomes along the full diagonal from competing through compromising to accommodating), the integrative dimension (the win-win behaviors and outcomes on the half diagonal from compromising to collaborating), and the protective dimension (the lose-lose behaviors and outcomes on the half diagonal between avoiding and compromising).



Although the standard instructions for the TKI do not specify a situation (since it’s often useful to know a person’s conflict-handling preferences across a great variety of situations), the magic of the TKI is when we modify the instructions to pinpoint a specific situation: “Inside your group (or in your organization, or in your family, or in your neighborhood, etc.), how to you usually respond when you find your wishes differing from those of another person?” A person then responds to the TKI’s 30 items with that specific situation in mind. Using such modified instructions, and next examining the resulting TKI Profile of high and low conflict-handling modes, then allows us to offer very specific—and useful—action recommendations to people, since their conflict-handling behavior is often very different from one situation to another (for better or worse).



Moreover, by having groups (work units, families, etc.) take the TKI twice with modified instructions (one TKI for “INSIDE your group” and the other TKI for “OUTSIDE your group”), we can assess the impact of cultural norms, reward systems, leader behavior, and other situational pressures that might be unduly influencing workgroups or family members to use different conflict-handling behaviors in different situations…and whether these behavioral choices are, in fact, effective—or not.



Lastly, from using the two TKI assessments to capture specific situational differences allows us to develop context-specific action recommendations that are combinations of (a) transforming the formal and informal systems that surround members, (b) developing the members’ understanding and skills in matching the right conflict modes in the specific attributes of the situation, and (c) transferring member’s conflict management wisdom from one situation to their other—more challenging—settings.



Kilmann Diagnostics offers a series of eleven recorded online courses and nine assessment tools on the four timeless topics: conflict management, change management, consciousness, and transformation. By taking these courses and passing the Final Exams, you can earn your Certification in Conflict and Change Management with the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI). For the most up-to-date and comprehensive discussion of Dr. Kilmann’s theories and methods, see his 2021 Legacy Book: Creating a Quantum Organization: The Whys and Hows of Implementing Eight Tracks for Long-Term Success.

Lately, I seem to be receiving more requests to reduce the complexity of conflict management and the TKI Assessment into a few simple “tips” that people can quickly learn and use. I’ve had a great reluctance to do this in the past, given my many years of decrying the use of quick fixes for addressing complex problems. Nevertheless, I decided to give it a try and see what happens! So, here are my SIX TIPS:

1. Is Conflict Bad?

Since some people have been hurt by conflict, they understandably want to stay away from it—or get rid of it. In fact, some believe the world would be a better place if there were no conflict at all. But once we accept that conflict itself is neutral, we can then see that its goodness or badness is entirely based on how it is handled. Indeed, any conflict can be addressed with respect and dignity or can be approached with anger and malice. But even more important, conflict can be a great opportunity to create better solutions to old problems. Not surprisingly, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) has been designed to promote the potential goodness of conflict—how it can be managed creatively—so it can help people satisfy their needs in all kinds of situations.

2. What Is the TKI Assessment?

The TKI assesses five conflict-handling modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. These five behavioral choices are defined by two underlying dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. In essence, the five conflict-handling modes are different combinations of trying to get your needs met (low, medium, and high) and trying to get the other person’s needs met (low, medium, and high). The TKI Conflict Model also includes the distributive dimension (the win-lose behaviors and outcomes along the full diagonal from competing through compromising to accommodating), the integrative dimension (the win-win behaviors and outcomes on the half diagonal from compromising to collaborating), and the protective dimension (the lose-lose behaviors and outcomes on the half diagonal between avoiding and compromising).

3. Distinguish Good versus Bad Avoiding

There are two kinds of “avoiding” to keep in mind: good avoiding and bad avoiding. Good avoiding is when you purposely leave a conflict situation in order to collect more information, wait for tempers to calm down, or because you’ve concluded that what you first thought was a vital issue isn’t that important after all. Bad avoiding, however, is when the topic is very important to both persons (and to the organization), but you aren’t comfortable with confronting other people: Instead, you’re inclined to sacrifice your needs for others—which undermines your self-esteem leaves you perpetually dissatisfied, and prevents you from learning from others.

4. The Avoiding Culture in Most Organizations

Many organizations seem to have a strong avoiding culture, which can best be investigated with a specific change in TKI instructions. Instead of asking members to respond to the thirty items in general terms (which are the official TKI instructions), I provide these modified instructions: “IN THIS ORGANIZATION, when you find your wishes differing from those of another person, how do you usually respond?”

What is the impact of this change in instructions? Instead of a person’s responses to the TKI being an average of ALL the conflict situations he faces (which can vary significantly between home and work, for example), with the modified instructions, a person’s responses on the TKI are specifically geared to his behavior in his workplace. When I then average the raw TKI scores of groups, departments, and the whole organization, I usually find that avoiding is in the top 25% (suggesting that it is being used too much), while one or more of the assertive modes (collaborating, competing, and compromising) are in the lower portion of the TKI profile (and thus being used too little).

As a sharp contrast to this finding, on a second TKI assessment I ask the same people to respond to these instructions: “OUTSIDE THIS ORGANIZATION, when you find your wishes differing from those of another person, how do you usually respond?” When I average the results to these modified instructions by group, department, and the whole organization, I am no longer surprised to find that members have more balanced profiles and, in fact, the avoiding mode may even be in the low 25% on the TKI profile, while the more assertive modes often appear in the middle 50% or high 25% on the profile.

This dual finding from two different TKI assessments (with the two different sets of instructions) suggests that the culture in the organization has taught people to avoid confronting others, even on matters that are very important to both the organization and its members. And the avoiding culture may also be reinforced by a reward system that penalizes people who confront their managers (as witnessed by who gets special assignments, bonuses, favors, and promotions).

5. Collaborating: The Least Understood Conflict Mode

Even though the collaborating mode sounds ideal to most people, it can only be used successfully under the right conditions. In fact, there are more conditions that affect the choice of collaborating than any other conflict mode.

For example, if people are faced with overwhelming stress, they won’t have the mental clarity to engage in a productive dialogue about what each person underlying concerns. As a result, they will find one of the other modes more suited to the high-pressure situation. Only if the stress is stimulating, inviting, and manageable can the collaborating mode possibly result in a win-win outcome.

Moreover, often overwhelming stress gives the impression that there is too much to do with so little time. With collaborating, however, it takes time for people to explore and then express what they really need and want. Thus, only use collaborating when you have the time (or can take the time) for a collaborative conversation.

Because collaborating requires an open, candid, and creative exchange among those whose needs, at first, appear to be incompatible, the relationship between people must be based on trust, which must also be supported by a corporate culture that encourages the same. Moreover, the reward system must have a history of rewarding people for expressing their real concerns as opposed to a legacy of critical incidents where employees have learned that people who had challenged the status quo later received a poor performance review (or even an abrupt dismissal). As a result, using the collaborating mode can be personally dangerous if it is not based on a trustworthy culture and reward system.

To use collaborating effectively also means that people must communicate (verbally and non-verbally) in ways that fully respect and honor one another. But if people don’t have the interpersonal skills to discuss differences in a non-defensive-producing manner, any attempt at collaborating will likely fail. Especially since this mode, by definition, may require people to share their innermost feelings with one another (and actively listen when others are sharing theirs), a higher level of interpersonal skills is needed with collaborating than with any of the other conflict modes.

In the end, although the collaborating mode has the potential to fully satisfy all persons involved in a conflict, it is important to understand when, and under what conditions, this integrative mode has the best chance to realize its promise.

6. Moving Beyond the TKI to Effective Behavior

The immediate benefit of taking the TKI and reviewing your results (which includes a personalized report with the online version of the assessment) is self-awareness: You learn which conflict modes you might be using too much (usually out of habit) and which ones you might be using too little (since you have not been exposed to the many positive uses of your underutilized modes). Although gaining awareness is the decisive Step One, four additional steps must be taken to improve how you actually BEHAVE in conflict situations—so you and other people will be more satisfied and your organization will be more successful.

Step Two is sharing your TKI results in a small group (family members or work associates) and hearing what others have to say about THEIR results as well as how they experience YOUR behavior in conflict situations. So long as the discussion remains supportive and is backed by a healthy culture, you will gain additional awareness as well as receive specific feedback about how you use one or more modes in different situations.

Step Three is to learn the key attributes of a conflict situation that determine which modes work best under what conditions. This step is learning to assess a situation in terms of (a) the level of stress (overwhelming or stimulating); (b) the complexity of the conflict (one-dimensional or multidimensional); (c) the relative importance of the conflict to each person (high/low, equal/different); (d) the available time to discuss the conflict (very little, moderate, or much); (e) the level of trust among the relevant persons (high, medium, or low); (f) the quality of speaking and listening skills (supportive/active versus defensive-producing/pseudo); (g) the group or organizational culture (protective and political versus open and honest); and (h) the importance of the relationship (high, medium, or low). Through a mini-lecture, group discussion, and practice, people can easily learn to read a conflict situation in order to choose which mode to use at first—and how to switch from one mode to another, as the situation changes.

Step Four is to practice, practice, and practice using each mode effectively. If you choose to avoid, how do you do that in a manner that respects and honors the other people in the situation? If you choose to compete, how do you get your way in a manner that engenders trust, respect, and a supportive culture (assuming you want those relationships to last)? How do you compromise so the door stays open for collaboration in the future, especially if the topic becomes more important to both of you? Thus, it is one thing to know how to choose the theoretically best mode in a given situation, but it is quite another to enact it effectively, efficiently, and with dignity. Typically, role playing a number of conflict situations and getting feedback from others (in a supportive group) will help you learn how to use each mode to its full potential.

Step Five is to keep improving how you read the key attributes of a conflict situation, how you choose and enact different conflict modes, and how you can engender more trust and supportive communication in both your personal life and work life.



Kilmann Diagnostics offers a series of eleven recorded online courses and nine assessment tools on the four timeless topics: conflict management, change management, consciousness, and transformation. By taking these courses and passing the Final Exams, you can earn your Certification in Conflict and Change Management with the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI). For the most up-to-date and comprehensive discussion of Dr. Kilmann’s theories and methods, see his 2021 Legacy Book: Creating a Quantum Organization: The Whys and Hows of Implementing Eight Tracks for Long-Term Success.