The Two Dimensional Model for Conflict Resolution

Disagreements are a normal part of human interaction – at work, at home, in friendships, and in communities. What matters isn’t whether conflict arises, but how we respond to it. In 1974, psychologists Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann introduced a framework that changed how we think about conflict resolution: the Two Dimensional Model, commonly known as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). Rather than labeling any one approach as “right” or “wrong,” this model maps out five distinct ways people handle conflict – and gives us the tools to choose the most effective one for each situation.

The two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness 🔗

At the heart of this model are two behavioral dimensions. Assertiveness refers to how much a person attempts to satisfy their own concerns in a conflict. Cooperativeness refers to how much they attempt to satisfy the concerns of the other person. According to the official TKI overview, these two dimensions can describe virtually any conflict behavior – from standing firmly on your position to stepping back entirely. Every conflict response a person makes falls somewhere along these two axes, and the combination of where they land defines their conflict-handling mode.

It is important to note that cooperativeness and assertiveness are not opposites. A person can be high in both, low in both, or high in one and low in the other. This is what makes the model genuinely two-dimensional – and it is what generates five meaningfully different modes rather than a simple spectrum.

The five conflict-handling modes 🔗

Each mode reflects a unique combination of assertiveness and cooperativeness. None is universally superior. As Thomas and Kilmann emphasize, all five modes are useful in some situations, and most people have the capacity to use all of them – even if they tend to rely on one or two by default.

Competing: high assertiveness, low cooperativeness 🔗

The competing mode is assertive and uncooperative. A person using this style pursues their own concerns at the other person’s expense. It is a power-oriented approach – relying on the ability to argue, positional authority, or other forms of influence to win. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

This mode is not inherently negative. It is well-suited to situations requiring fast, decisive action – such as emergencies – or when an unpopular but necessary decision must be implemented. However, a purely competitive orientation can win the battle while losing the relationship. Overusing it can erode trust, lower morale, and create friction – particularly among equally assertive colleagues.

Accommodating: low assertiveness, high cooperativeness 🔗

Accommodating is the direct opposite of competing. It is unassertive and cooperative: the person sets aside their own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other party. There is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. It can take the form of selfless generosity, yielding to another’s point of view, or simply going along with a decision you disagree with to preserve harmony.

This mode has real value in specific contexts. Accommodating may be prudent when a supervisor is upset and immediate de-escalation is necessary, or when the issue at hand matters more to the other person than to you. The risk, however, is that frequent accommodating can reduce personal motivation and lead to a loss of influence over time, especially if one’s concerns consistently go unaddressed.

Avoiding: low assertiveness, low cooperativeness 🔗

Avoiding is both unassertive and uncooperative. The person neither pursues their own concerns nor the other party’s – the conflict simply goes unaddressed. This can look like diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing a conversation to a “better time,” or withdrawing from a tense situation entirely.

Avoidance is sometimes the most rational choice. Avoiding can be wise when dealing with a volatile individual, when the issue is genuinely trivial, or when the potential disruption of engaging outweighs any benefit. That said, research published in PMC’s medical education journals found that the avoiding style correlated with lower faculty evaluations on professionalism and problem-solving – a reminder that chronic avoidance tends to leave needs unmet and conflicts unresolved.

Collaborating: high assertiveness, high cooperativeness 🔗

Collaborating is the direct opposite of avoiding. It is both assertive and cooperative – the person actively works with the other party to find a solution that fully satisfies both sets of concerns. This means digging beneath the surface of the disagreement to understand each person’s underlying interests, then finding a creative solution that addresses both.

Collaboration is often considered the most constructive mode because it produces genuinely integrative, win-win outcomes. High scores on collaboration were associated with stronger faculty evaluations across multiple professional competencies in medical training research. However, it is also the most time-intensive mode. It requires mutual openness and roughly equal power between parties – conditions that are not always present.

Compromising: moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness 🔗

Compromising occupies the center of the model. It is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness, and its goal is to find a mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. This might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or settling on a middle-ground position that neither party loves but both can live with.

Compromising is useful when goals are moderately important but not worth the disruption of a more assertive approach. It is faster than collaboration and more engaging than avoidance. The downside is that partial satisfaction on both sides can leave underlying tensions intact, meaning the same conflict may resurface later.

No single mode is the “right” answer 🔗

One of the most important insights of the Two Dimensional Model is that no conflict mode is universally superior. The same situation that calls for decisive competition might, the following week, call for genuine collaboration. A review published on ResearchGate emphasizes that the model aids individuals and organizations in recognizing their default styles while also understanding the most effective approaches across different situations.

The key variable is context. According to the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, the most effective conflict managers are not those who master one mode – they are those who develop strategic flexibility, recognizing which approach best fits the specific dynamics at play. Factors that influence that choice include the urgency of the decision, the power relationship between parties, the importance of the long-term relationship, and whether both parties’ concerns need to be addressed or just one.

The TKI instrument and how it works 🔗

To make this model practically useful, Thomas and Kilmann developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) – a 30-item questionnaire that helps individuals identify which modes they tend to rely on most and least. Scores are reported as percentiles, comparing a person’s conflict-handling preferences against a reference population. This gives a nuanced picture – not a fixed personality label, but a view of tendencies that can be developed and refined over time.

The instrument also allows for context-specific assessment. A person might handle conflict very differently inside a close-knit team versus in cross-departmental negotiations. By taking the TKI with a specific situation in mind, individuals and organizations can generate targeted, practical recommendations for change. As noted in research on TKI in managerial practice, training programs designed around TKI results have shown measurable shifts away from avoidance and toward more integrative approaches like collaboration.

Why this model still matters 🔗

The Two Dimensional Model has endured for over five decades because it translates a deeply human challenge – how to handle disagreement – into a clear, actionable framework. It does not reduce conflict to a problem to be eliminated. Instead, it treats conflict as a normal part of relationships that can be managed with skill and intention.

Whether you are navigating a tense conversation with a colleague, negotiating a team decision, or trying to understand why certain interactions feel draining, the five modes give you a shared vocabulary and a map. The most effective people are not those who use one style exclusively, but those who can adapt their style to the situation – becoming proficient across all five rather than defaulting to the one that feels most comfortable. That kind of flexibility is not just a professional skill. It is a core aspect of psychological maturity.

What do you think? When you reflect on how you typically handle conflict, which of the five modes do you rely on most – and is it serving you well in every situation? Are there contexts in your life where a different mode might lead to a better outcome for everyone involved?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas%E2%80%93Kilmann_Conflict_Mode_Instrument
2. https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki/
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4054741/
4. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/conflict-management-styles-pitfalls-and-best-practices/
5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2931232/
6. https://www.bitesizelearning.co.uk/resources/thomas-kilmann-conflict-model
7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382078559_Review_The_Thomas_Kilmann_Conflict_Resolution_Model_What_Lesson_for_Organizational_Conflict_Management_can_be_Drawn_from_this_Model
8. https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/brief-overview-of-the-tki-assessment/
9. https://www.hftp.org/downloads/documents/annual-convention/ac25-pres_tki-test-managerial-practice.pdf
10. https://sonary.com/content/the-pros-and-cons-of-different-conflict-management-styles/