difficult conversations: whose style is right?

We all have a preference for our conflict style. In mediation, we often use the lens of the Thomas Kilman Instrument which arranges preferences along two axes.

One measures concern for our own goals / assertiveness and the other measures concern for others / co-operativeness.

• avoiders: anything is better than having a difficult conversation. No personal goal / relationship is more important than avoiding the conflict
• competitors: conflict is a fun and challenging opportunity to persuade others, win arguments and achieve their goals
• collaborators: conflict is a chance for integrative problem solving and we should work hard to expand the options to find win/win options
• accommodators: goals are less important that maintaining good relationships. we should give up our own goals if the other person feels very strongly
• compromisers: our own goals and the other person's goals should receive equal attention, and we need to focus on getting a deal done

For those who have a high focus on their own goals and a relatively low interest in relationships, they may adopt a competitive stance. For those who wish to dash to a conclusion or get a deal, they may compromise too quickly to achieve the deal. Each conflict preference has a pro / con.  It may sound like being competitive may sound like a winning strategy, but if this is a long-term relationship then winning at all costs may backfire.

Having spoken to many people in training / classes about their personal conflict preferences, most people have a strong idea of their own preference.  We know ourselves. What people are less aware of is that we are all able to adapt our behaviour to assume a different style if we want to.

What criteria should we use to decide which style to use?

• importance of relationship / interactions: is this a long-term relationship? will we be working with the other person going forward or is this a one-off interaction?
• time: do we have a tight deadline, or do we have time to explore mutually advantageous solutions and be collaborative?
• importance of issues: is this  an issue which is critical to the other person and of minimal importance to us, maybe we can be accommodating? or is this something of crucial importance to us?

Using these criteria to approach communication in conflict can be part of a planning process that occurs prior to the interaction. Next time you are approaching a difficult conversation, pause and think for a moment about how you could be in the conflict?

---