Models for Conflict Management

Conflicts often arise due to cross-functional collaboration, competing priorities, and technical dependencies. Here’s an overview of the most effective conflict management models with real-world applications in TPM.

---

1. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)

Purpose: Identifies conflict-handling styles to promote effective resolution.
Key Conflict Modes:

• Competing: Assertive, pursuing own goals at others’ expense.

• Collaborating: Cooperative, working together for a win-win.

• Compromising: Finding a middle ground.

• Avoiding: Withdrawing from the conflict.

• Accommodating: Yielding to the other party’s concerns.

Application in TPM:

• Scenario: Conflict over release deadlines.

  • Engineering wants more time for quality testing.

  • Product management pushes for faster delivery due to business pressures.

• TPM Resolution Using TKI:

  • Initially, both teams are in a competing mode.

  • The TPM facilitates collaboration through joint problem-solving.

  • They compromise by introducing progressive rollouts with staged releases, balancing speed and stability.

Use TKI to identify dominant conflict styles and promote collaboration or compromise where needed.

---

2. Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Model

Purpose: Preserves relationships while resolving conflicts by separating people from the problem.
Key Steps:

1. Clarify individual interests (not just positions).

2. Focus on shared goals.

3. Encourage collaborative problem-solving.

4. Ensure open communication without blame.

Application in TPM:

• Scenario: Conflict between engineering and security teams over feature deployment timelines.

  • Engineering wants fast deployment.

  • Security demands more time for compliance checks.

• TPM Resolution Using IBR:

  • The TPM interviews both teams separately to understand their interests.

  • Shared interest: Both teams value customer trust and security.

  • TPM proposes a joint security checklist in CI/CD pipelines to balance speed with compliance.

Use IBR to de-escalate personal friction by realigning teams on shared business goals.

---

3. Principled Negotiation Model (PNM) – Harvard Negotiation Project

Purpose: Focuses on objective, data-driven conflict resolution.
Key Principles:

1. Separate people from the problem.

2. Focus on interests, not positions.

3. Generate multiple options before deciding.

4. Use objective criteria for evaluation.

Application in TPM:

• Scenario: Conflict over cloud vendor selection for a major migration.

  • IT team prefers AWS for flexibility.

  • Finance team prefers Azure due to existing contracts.

• TPM Resolution Using PNM:

  • TPM facilitates objective analysis of both vendors based on:

    • Cost estimates.

    • Performance benchmarks.

    • Long-term scalability.

  • The decision is made based on data, not personal preferences.

PNM is ideal for data-backed, objective conflict resolution in technical decision-making.

---

4. LEAD Framework (Listen, Empathize, Ask, Discuss)

Purpose: A communication-focused model that emphasizes active listening and empathy.
Key Steps:

1. Listen: Understand each team’s perspective.

2. Empathize: Acknowledge concerns without judgment.

3. Ask: Clarify objectives and constraints.

4. Discuss: Collaborate on solutions.

Application in TPM:

• Scenario: Conflict between DevOps and QA teams regarding CI/CD pipeline stability.

  • DevOps wants faster releases.

  • QA demands more stability testing.

• TPM Resolution Using LEAD:

  • TPM listens to both teams’ concerns in individual sessions.

  • Empathizes with DevOps on release targets and with QA on stability risks.

  • Asks clarifying questions about deployment timelines and test coverage needs.

  • Discusses solutions: introduces a staged rollout with incremental QA sign-offs.

Use LEAD to reduce emotional tension and foster collaborative solutions.

---

5. The GRIT Model (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction)

Purpose: Used for de-escalating conflicts by making small, consistent concessions to build trust.
Key Principles:

1. One side makes a concession (without conditions).

2. The other side reciprocates.

3. Gradual reduction of hostilities builds cooperation.

Application in TPM:

• Scenario: Conflict between engineering and product over technical debt vs. new feature development.

  • Engineering wants to prioritize refactoring.

  • Product pushes for new features.

• TPM Resolution Using GRIT:

  • TPM proposes a small concession:

    • Engineering addresses one major bug fix per sprint.

    • Product team approves one technical debt task alongside new features.

  • Both teams reciprocate the small wins, building cooperation over time.

Use GRIT for long-term conflict de-escalation by making incremental, goodwill gestures.

---

6. DEAR Model (Describe, Express, Assert, Reinforce)

Purpose: A structured communication technique for assertively addressing conflicts.
Key Steps:

1. Describe: State the problem factually.

2. Express: Share how the situation impacts you or the team.

3. Assert: Clearly state the desired outcome.

4. Reinforce: Explain the benefits of resolution.

Application in TPM:

• Scenario: Conflict over changing project requirements mid-sprint.

  • Developers are frustrated by changing scope.

  • Product managers argue it’s necessary for business goals.

• TPM Resolution Using DEAR:

  • Describe: “Changing scope mid-sprint disrupts planned work.”

  • Express: “It creates delivery uncertainty and impacts morale.”

  • Assert: “We need to freeze sprint scope after planning meetings.”

  • Reinforce: “This ensures stable releases, improving delivery confidence.”

Use DEAR for assertive communication in stakeholder conflicts.

Summary

• Use TKI for identifying conflict styles (collaborate, compromise, compete).

• Apply IBR for relationship-focused resolution with shared goals.

• Leverage PNM for data-driven, objective conflict resolution.

• Use LEAD for empathy-driven conflict de-escalation.

• Apply GRIT for gradual tension reduction in long-term conflicts.

• Use DEAR for assertive communication to state and resolve issues clearly.

  References

  • Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

  • Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.

  • Harvard Negotiation Project’s IBR principles:Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation

  • Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.

  • Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.

  • Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. Penguin Books.