THOMAS KILMANN MODEL

Literature Review on Thomas Kilmann Model



Literature Review on Thomas Kilmann Model

Introduction

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) developed as a research tool by Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann in the early 1970s. The instrument based on theoretical refinements by Kenneth Thomas of a model of management styles proposed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in the 1960s (Blake, 1964).

The Thomas Kilmann mode instrument is the scheme which based on five category scheme of classifying the different types of conflicts. Like, inter actual conflict handling modes; collaborating, competing, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding. Thomas and Kilmann ensured that the TKI statement pairs evenly matched in terms of desirability, so that no conflict-handling mode sounded more attractive than the others.

The TKI used for more than 35 years and is the leading measure of conflict-handling behavior. For most of that time, the instrument was available only in a self-scorable paper-and-pencil format, which made administration easy but also made it difficult to retrieve a large group of client results (Brewer, 2002).

Conflict resolution and Thomas Kilmann

Conflict resolution is a term that we all understand until we try to define it. Synonyms abound: such as conflict settlement, conflict termination, conflict management, and conflict transformation. Moreover, conflict resolution is both a situation and a process. A conflict resolved when all the parties to a dispute agree that it is over for good, in full knowledge of the situation, and without any form of coercion, whether personal, manifest or structural, since they acknowledge that their respective interests and values satisfied. The concerned parties are those who cannot be seen off or defeated and without whom there can be no resolution in the long run. Resolution requires a new relationship to be self-sustaining without any form of coercion (Cohen, 1992).

All conflicts end. Even bitter and decade-long disputes involving several wars resolved. On the way to resolution, there may be truces or temporary settlements in which coercion exerted, but the roots of the conflict remain embedded so that any weakening or withdrawal of coercive mechanisms may risk a new flare-up. Thus, for example, in the Franco-German context, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) was a conflict settlement, whereas the Charter of Paris (1990) was a conflict resolution.

Conflict resolution is at the far end of a spectrum of outcomes that begin with a diktat imposed by a victor. Losers have leeway since victors are often dependent on regional cooperation. Very rarely is the complete destruction of the enemy, or genocide, envisaged. A secondary outcome is a negotiated one involving compromise and lengthy negotiations often accompanied by considerable violence. Such a settlement is contingent on the balance of forces, and should this change; the smoldering conflict may further flare up. A stasis outcome is one in which actual physical violence has ended and its recurrence is unlikely. The protracted conflict continues by other means since noteworthy issues remain unresolved. Finally, a full resolution is one in which all the parties have their values and interests ...