5 TKI Conflict Management Styles and How to Use Them

Some people are technically correct, yet their presence only deepens conflicts.

The TKI (Thomas-Kilmann) conflict management model categorizes responses into five types—competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating—and posits that no single one is always the right answer.

The key is the flexibility to choose the right approach for the situation.

Sociologist Charles Derber coined the term ‘conversational narcissism’ to describe the habit of constantly steering conversations toward oneself. Instead of asking “Tell me more” when someone speaks, these individuals hijack the topic by saying, “Let me tell you about my experience.”

People confident in their logic are particularly prone to filling their heads with this single thought, leaving no room for another person’s perspective.

“No, I am 100% right. Why can’t they understand this?”

In this moment, conflict ceases to be a problem to be solved and becomes an object to be ‘enlightened.’

However, being rational is not about proving you are right to force the other person to submit. I believe true rationality is ‘strategic flexibility’—knowing what tools you have in your hand and being able to swap them depending on the situation.

5 TKI Conflict Management Styles: Shark, Teddy Bear, Turtle, Fox, and Owl

The TKI (Thomas-Kilmann Instrument) is a model that maps conflict resolution styles along two axes: cooperativeness and assertiveness.

It was introduced by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in 1974.

• **X-axis: **Cooperativeness - How much do you consider the other person’s needs?
• Y-axis: Assertiveness - How much do you push to achieve your own needs?

The five styles are positioned where these two axes meet.

The animal names—shark, teddy bear, etc.—are nicknames to aid understanding; the formal terms are competing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating.

In my experience, everyone has a ‘specialty’ among these. Let’s see where you fit.

• ① Shark (Competing): “My victory is justice.” High assertiveness, low cooperativeness. Achieving personal goals is the top priority, so they use status, power, and logic to pressure the other side. They often say things like: “Do it my way” or “This is non-negotiable.” It’s stifling just to hear.
• ② Teddy Bear (Accommodating): “Your happiness is my peace.” Low assertiveness, high cooperativeness. To protect the relationship, they willingly set aside their own needs and, fearing conflict itself, unconditionally yield to others. “Sure, you’re right,” or “Whatever you want.”
• ③ Turtle (Avoiding): “Running away is embarrassing, but it helps?” Both low assertiveness and low cooperativeness. When conflict arises, they physically or psychologically withdraw, covering up or postponing the issue. “Let’s talk about this later,” or “I don’t really know.”
• ④ Fox (Compromising): “Let’s yield halfway and finish this quickly.” Both assertiveness and cooperativeness are in the middle. They are masters of ‘give and take,’ finding quick solutions through mutual concessions. “I’ll give in this time, so you give in next time.”
• ⑤ Owl (Collaborating): “The third way we build together.” High assertiveness and high cooperativeness. They dig deep to find creative alternatives that satisfy both parties’ needs. “What do we really want?” or “Is there another way?”

There is a common misconception that “Owls are good and Sharks are bad.”

Thinking that collaboration (Owl) is ideal and avoiding (Turtle) or competing (Shark) are character flaws is wrong.

If a patient is in critical condition in an operating room and the doctor is debating with nurses, “What should we do?”, they might miss the window of opportunity.

In that moment, you need a ‘shark’ who can make a decision.

Conversely, when your spouse asks what to have for dinner, there is no reason to argue with logic. Being a ‘teddy bear’ is the wiser choice.

The problem isn’t the style itself. The problem is the rigidity of trying to hammer everything in the world with the single tool you happen to be holding.

Be cautious about using the TKI as a personality test. This tool is more of a framework to reflect on which methods you use frequently in conflicts. The formal test is paid, and there is both criticism and support regarding its validity.

Why My Conflict Style Stays the Same: The Link to Attachment Styles

In your head, you know you should change your attitude based on the situation. Yet, in critical moments, you always act the way you always have.

Even while thinking, “I need to stay calm and listen,” you might find yourself snapping at the other person or closing the door and hiding. You can consider that your ‘attachment system’ reacted before your rational brain could.

Studies suggest that conflict resolution styles vary by attachment type. However, note that attachment types and TKI styles don’t map one-to-one; please read the following as a summary of commonly observed trends to help you understand these dynamics. This flow is often discussed in popular adult attachment books like 『Attached』.

Anxious attachment tends to lean toward the Accommodating (Teddy Bear) style.

For the anxious type, conflict is an alarm signal that a relationship might end. The fear of “What if they leave me?” overrides logic, leading them to sacrifice their own legitimate rights just to comply. While it may look peaceful on the surface, resentment and anger build up inside until they eventually explode.

Avoidant attachment often leads to the Avoiding (Turtle) style.

They find emotional conflict extremely uncomfortable, so if someone invades their space or demands emotional labor, they retreat into their ‘cave.’ While it’s a self-protective strategy, the golden time for problem-solving passes, and it leaves the other person with the misunderstanding that “You are ignoring me.”

Secure attachment resembles the ease of the Collaborating (Owl) style.

This is because they accept conflict not as the end of a relationship, but as part of the adjustment process. With the belief that “Even if we disagree, our relationship is safe”—a psychological base camp—they have the breathing room to assert their own views while still listening to the other person.

This is why knowing your conflict style, or self-awareness, is the starting point for all strategies.

“Ah, I’m not speaking up because I’m afraid of being abandoned.” “I’m running away because I dislike emotional drain.” Facing these unconscious motives is quite a painful process. Nevertheless, it is a necessary step to stop the automatic reflexes and make ‘rational choices.’

Competing vs. Avoiding Conflict Management: When is it Poison, and When is it Medicine?

Competing is poison when long-term relationships are at stake, but medicine during crises involving principles.

The representative example of it being poison is the young Steve Jobs.

In Walter Isaacson’s 『Steve Jobs』, he is portrayed as a ‘shark’ who pushed his colleagues by prioritizing perfectionism. In April 1985, the Apple board sided with John Sculley, removing Jobs from his role as head of the Macintosh division, and he left Apple on September 16 of that year. While people often say he was ‘kicked out,’ the path was technically a resignation after being sidelined from his position. He may have upheld product quality, but he lost the human side of the relationship. Overusing a competitive strategy where long-term partnership is needed is an own-goal. The process of winning the argument but losing the relationship is covered in Why You Win the Argument but Lose the Relationship and the 3-Step ERI Solution.

Conversely, when an organization is in a dire crisis or unethical practices are exposed, someone must step up and say “No!” When principles are being violated, the competing style can be the most courageous choice.

Avoiding also has two faces.

First, the failure side. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to avoid the conflict of war by handing over the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Germany in the Munich Agreement in September 1938. However, war broke out about a year later in September 1939, and this policy of appeasement is cited as a symbol of ‘avoidance that covers a festering wound.’ However, historians remain divided. Since the UK had been planning rearmament since late 1933 and a 1935 white paper indicated they wouldn’t be ready to fight until 1939, some interpret it as a calculation to buy time through negotiation. It means that even with the same avoidance, the outcome depends on how you use the time you’ve gained.

The success side is a meeting room where emotions are high. When shouting occurs and things are out of control, saying “Let’s take a 10-minute break and discuss this later” is a brilliant strategy. Reserving judgment when information is lacking is also a form of strategic avoidance.

For workplace conflicts involving emotions, it is helpful to read this alongside Workplace Conflict Resolution: 3 Steps to Read the Heart Over Logic. Avoidance should be a wait for better timing, not an act of running away.

Accommodating, Compromising, and Collaborating: Mandela, Costco Cheonan, and Camp David

Accommodating can be a choice to give up something small to protect something larger.

Shortly after South Africa moved past apartheid, the symbol of the white-dominated rugby team, the Springboks, was a memory of oppression to many Black South Africans.

Although there was pressure within the ANC to remove the Springbok emblem, Mandela did not accept it, and appeared at the 1995 Rugby World Cup final wearing a jersey modeled after captain Francois Pienaar’s number 6. Instead of the ‘competing’ response his supporters wanted, he embraced the opponent’s symbol. In my view, this wasn’t “I lost,” but an attitude of “I will yield for your sake,” and that concession created a sense of indebtedness in the other side, serving as a foundation for greater cooperation later.

Compromising is the art of realistic trading.

Conflict over the entry of large supermarkets usually trends toward a ‘zero-sum’ game. However, ahead of the opening of the Costco Cheonan branch in 2014, they consulted with local merchants and agreed not to sell 8 items handled by the merchants—jujubes, perilla leaves, lettuce, radish, crown daisy, mugwort, onions, and garlic—as reported by the Hankook Ilbo. The supermarket gave up revenue on those items, and the merchants protected those items. Even if both sides weren’t 100% satisfied, they avoided catastrophe and chose coexistence. If you lack time or have similar power, compromising is the most efficient exit.

Collaboration is creative destruction that solves seemingly impossible problems.

Before the Camp David Accords were signed in 1978, Egypt and Israel had fought several wars since 1948, and Israel had occupied the Sinai Peninsula since 1967.

• Egypt: “Give me back my land.” (Sovereignty recovery)
• Israel: “Absolutely not. You’ll just attack us again from there.” (Security concerns)

Looking only at positions, there is no answer.

Through the mediation of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the two countries identified the interests behind their positions. They settled on returning the Sinai to Egypt while operating it as a demilitarized zone with limited troops, and having Egypt recognize Israel—a structure famously cited in 『Getting to Yes』. The result was Egyptian sovereignty and Israeli security. They didn’t just split the land in half; they created a third alternative that satisfied both parties’ needs. Practicing how to find the fears and needs behind positions is linked to 5-Step Conflict Cause Analysis: Win-Win Through Needs and Fears.

Virtual Conflict Management: How to Adjust TKI Strategies for Slack and KakaoTalk

Nowadays, we argue via Slack or KakaoTalk rather than face-to-face.

When the buffers of facial expressions and tone are gone, the sentence “Please take care of this” is read by some as a polite request and by others as a blunt command.

Karen Sobel Lojeski, author of 『Leading the Virtual Workforce』, called this layered phenomenon of physical distance, technology-mediated communication, and severed relationships ‘virtual distance’. Conflict strategies must be adjusted where virtual distance is wide.

1. Strategic use of emojis: Emojis are tools to add the softness of an accommodating style to dry text. A simple smiley face after a stiff report can act as a lubricant for the relationship.
2. Asynchronous avoidance: When you are angry, don’t reply right away; use ‘save draft.’ This is a digital-age avoidance strategy to buy time for emotions to settle.
3. Switching to high-context channels: If misunderstandings deepen via text (a point where compromise is difficult), switch to a video call or phone call to enter a collaborative mode. Saying, “Do you have a moment to talk?” is stronger than dozens of KakaoTalk messages.

Quick Guide: TKI Conflict Management Selection by Situation

I have summarized the suitable situations and precautions for each of the 5 TKI conflict management types.

Type	Assertiveness / Cooperativeness	Suitable Situations	Precautions
Shark (Competing)	High / Low	Crises, principles/ethics issues, when immediate decisions are needed	Damage to long-term relationships
Teddy Bear (Accommodating)	Low / High	Small for me, big for them; when relationship recovery is priority	Accumulation of resentment
Turtle (Avoiding)	Low / Low	Moments of high emotion, lacking information, trivial issues	Ignoring festering problems
Fox (Compromising)	Medium / Medium	No time, or power is balanced	Failure to address core needs
Owl (Collaborating)	High / High	Important to both sides, when time is available	Time/energy consumption

The goal is not to become a saint or someone who never gets angry.

It is to widen the space between stimulus and response. When conflict strikes, your heart beats fast, your face flushes, and voices inside you scream, “Run!” or “Attack!” In that moment, stop and ask two questions:

“Where did my current emotion come from?” “What is the most necessary weapon for me in this situation?”

Retreat and catch your breath like a turtle when the other person attacks without logic, stand firm like a shark before important principles, yield warmly like a teddy bear to someone precious, and become an owl to find alternatives when facing truly important issues.

Those who only talk about themselves break the world with a single hammer, but alchemists of conflict build a new world with five distinct tools.