In conflict styles training, you have an option to use either a paper or online version. I used to be ambivalent on this, but no more.
I'm an old-school trainer. I love the simplicity of paper and face-to-face training. But after Style Matters had been out in paper for several years, demand for an online tool drove us to also develop a digital version. That was an eye-opener for me.
After dozens of hours honing our scoring algorithm, I couldn't deny that the score report our server spits out for each user mines the user data in ways I can't match in a workshop from a hand-tallied score summary. It would take quick thinking and 10-15 minutes dedicated to each participant for a trainer to come even close to the detailed insights contained in the 10 page score report generated by our server. That's just not realistic with 10-20 people in a workshop.
So I'm a reluctant convert to the digital version of Style Matters. We still sell the print version, but in my opinion the ideal approach in training is to have users take the online version before the workshop, print out the score report at home, and bring it to a live workshop. (Already, you've saved 20 minutes of group time that would otherwise be spent passing around paper forms, giving instructions, and waiting for everyone to finish!)
Then in a face to face setting take users through a learning experience (supported by this Powerpoint or your own sketch of it) that provides some input on conflict styles, reinforced by review and discussion of digital score reports in small and large group settings.
The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument or TKI has been around since the 1970s and bills itself as the world's most widely used conflict style inventory. I started out as a Thomas Kilmann trainer in the 80s and found it very useful. I got frustrated eventually and developed an alternative, for reasons I'll explain. But for at least one purpose, you should still use the Thomas Kilmann.
A concern of Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in developing the TKI was "social desirability bias", a phenomenon in testing in which test takers answer questions dishonestly. Rather than truly describe their own behavior, they answer in ways they think are socially desirable. Kilmann writes in his explanation of the development of the TKI that he and Thomas were inspired by their study of the Mouton Blake inventory, a predecessor to and paradigm for their own instrument. But the Mouton Blake had a glaring social desirability bias problem.
Kilmann observed a situation in which the Mouton Blake inventory had been administered to managers. From the way statements in the inventory were worded, he writes, "it was obvious that 'collaborating' was the ideal mode, while 'avoiding' was the least desirable one." "Sure enough," he continues, "that’s exactly how managers rated themselves, with over 90% ranking themselves highest on collaborating and lowest on avoiding. Their subordinates, of course, experienced those same managers very differently."
Thomas and Kilmann set out to create a similar conflict style test that would be free of the influence of social desirability bias. They adopted the underlying framework of the Mouton Blake, but designed their conflict mode instrument with 30 questions containing paired statements, each worded to be equally desirable. Takers are asked to choose the statement in each pair that more accurately describes them.Since 1974 when it was first published, good publisher support, ongoing engagement by the authors in how to use the TKI, and use of the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in various research projects have propelled the TKI to a leading role.
So why look any farther? The following experiences with the Thomas Kilmann drove me to seek alternatives and eventually create my own:1) The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument frustrates many users. As a trainer I discovered that the forced choice question format of the Thomas Kilmann greatly annoys a significant number of test takers. Users are presented with two descriptions of responses to conflict and required to choose one of them.
Do you know people who get upset and insulted easily? They may not realize it, but they're setups for easy manipulation. When you’re easily triggered, you’re a sitting duck for anyone having a bad day.
All it takes is a few choice words. Your buttons are pushed and you shuffle yourself off to the land of the Grumps.
Why give other people that kind of power over you?
You have no control over the behavior of others. You can't stop them from being annoying. But you can remove your "Insult" button from easy public access. Be un-insultable.
It’s much easier said than done, of course. But it’s a choice you can make and work at achieving.
Can you lead in times of emergency? Don’t think that's for someone else. Life exempts none from this call.
Unless you're a hermit, a time will come when you too must act and lead in the face of danger, no matter your rank or station.
And now is the time to prepare.
In times of grave threat, tough decisions must be made and actions quickly taken. What protective measures to take? Must you flee? What to carry with you? Who gets priority for assistance? What about those who won't budge? Where to shelter and how to get there?
Professional emergency responders such as police, fire, medical, and transportation structure decision-making and action in tight chain-of-command hierarchies. Superiors decide and give orders; subordinates obey.
The NY Times carries a gripping account about vandalism by young whites against a mosque in Texas. One youth writes a heartfelt letter of apology and Muslim leaders are so moved that they request the judge to be lenient.
The prosecutor thinks this is a bad idea and forbids the youth from even visiting the mosque. Nevertheless, well, just read the story - you won't regret it.
In a time when alienation is widespread, the response of NY Times readers to this story is one of visceral gratitude. Many comment it is the best they have read in a long time. This is a story about restorative justice that Americans really need to hear. If we are to find our way back from the abyss of polarization, we have to stop planting seeds of alienation. This requires changes to a justice system that systematically blocks people from relationally-based responses to crime. .
The concept of justice widely known and applied in our society is court-centered punitive justice, which holds no interest in healing of relationships or individuals. The court calls all the shots. The individuals involved have only small roles in the process, and no say in what happens.
Victims often have the tiniest role and the least say in this process. They are expected to provide evidence of wrong-doing and then disappear for the court to mete out punish against an offender.
Whenever violence takes place as a result of public conflict, well-intentioned leaders face a challenging question. How should they respond? What should they say that might reduce possibility of further bloodshed?
They can learn from the tragic experience of the Yugoslav Wars in the Balkans in the 1990s where some 130,000 were killed in a decade of horrific genocidal conflict.
Most of the combatants were religious, loyal to the eastern or western branch of Christianity or to Islam. All three traditions are home to resources for peace. Each has scriptures that affirm kindness and peaceful conduct. Each has individuals deeply committed to peaceful coexistence with others.
Yet religion played a central role in the violence in the Balkans. And religious leaders often contributed to the violence rather than help end it.
One way religious leaders stoked the war was through public comments on the conflict that superficially seemed to support peace but actually stirred followers up and ultimately supported an upward spiral of violence.
Insult has become a daily aspect of life. It's hard to read the newspaper or view screens without encountering it. This is bad, not just for us, but for our future and our children's future.
Public insult damages more than its target. It erodes community by implanting destructive messages in all who witness it, eg:
When insult is allowed to have the last word, when it succeeds in silencing or humiliating people, those messages are planted like seeds. Eventually the seeds become norms and people begin acting on them on a broad scale. Then violence is just a stone's throw away.
Among the many things we can do to prevent this is learning, modeling, and teaching the art of responding constructively to insult, without using insult ourselves.
Don't fight fire with fire. Fight fire with water.
Trainers often ask: how much time to budget for a conflict styles workshop? It depends!
In traditional pencil and paper training format, you might calculate
That would be enough to cover the basics of conflict styles in 80-120 minutes. You could easily do a lot more, of course, if you have another hour or several more. See my Trainers Guide, available as a free download, for ideas.
Online tools open another scenario that many trainers like because it pushes individual activities outside of workshop time and allows the trainer to dedicate more classroom time to discussion.
Using the online version could look something like this:
