In the last post we began what will be a two part series regarding family conflict. In that post, we explored the stages of conflict using a simplified version of Frederich Glasl’s model of conflict escalation. In this piece I would like to introduce what may be the more familiar Thomas-Killman Conflict Styles rubric and then discuss the relationship between these two models.
The Thomas-Killman model dates back to earlier work done by Black and Mouton in the 1960s who noted that in many groups there was a tension between “attention to task” and “concern for people”. This led them to identify five management or leadership styles – the country club style (which put a high premium on concern for people but very low attention to task), the produce-or-perish style (which put a premium on attention to task but evidenced low concern for people), the improvished style (which cared about neither), the team style (which placed high emphasis on both task and people) and the middle-of-the-road style (which compromised on both task and connectivity).
Conflict Styles
In 1974, Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Killman applied this well-accepted managerial framework to conflict resolution and developed both an assessment (the “TKI”) and an explanatory grid that looks like the diagram below:
Under the Thomas-Killman model, people tend to approach conflict with certain predispositions or styles. There are advantages and disadvantages to each style and no one style is ideal for all situations. For example in emergencies when fast action is required, spending the time necessary to collaborate or even compromise is not wise. There you want a competitive style to take charge and others to either get out of the way (avoid) or cooperate (accommodate) by following the leader. However competitive styles have profound disadvantages in organizations and environments that are not transactional but attempting to cohere and excel over time. Competitors tend to run roughshod over others, and are often serving their individual needs over the needs of other stakeholders, which, in turn, can breed anxiety, resentment, anger and conflict. Over time this degrades cohesion and fractures groups. For groups to endure over time and with sufficient flexibility to be resilient under stress, they must create collaborative environments with high degrees of cooperation, information sharing and engagement.
The Thomas-Killman model is now widely accepted. There is a newer version of this rubric called the Dynamic Negotiating Approach Diagnostic (DYNAD) developed by Andrea Schneider and Jennifer Brown. The DYNAD has a very helpful public domain survey that you can take that will tell you about your own conflict style. It can be found here. The DYNAD builds on the TKI by creating a more dynamic view of conflict styles in that it looks at normal response styles and styles adopted under stress.
Why Families Fail
To apply this to family governance, the TKI/DYNAD model suggests why most families with dominant family leaders fail. These families have competitive family leaders whose style fosters either direct competition, accommodation or avoidance while they are alive. When they die the family either lacks cohesion sufficient to endure or is unable to be effective because the skills necessary to support outcome have never developed. The result is what one would expect, namely that the family is unable to survive in the long run either because it drifts or because it falls apart – or both. The TKI/DYNAD would suggest that creating long-term family coherence requires adopting styles of collaboration (or at the very least compromise) where outcome and cohesion each receive sufficient attention to create sustainability.
De-escalating Conflict
Now comes the fun part. When we put this together with conflict escalation model from our last post we have a more complete tool that is profoundly useful. These two models, when put side by side, suggest a number of key observations and guidelines for effective interventions by professionals attempting to help families de-escalate conflict:
- First of all, for conflict to escalate there must be two or more parties who are operating as competitors. Conflict does not escalate along the path outlined in the Glasl model if the style of one party is to avoid the conflict or to accommodate to the competitior. It is also very difficult to move through the stages of increasing conflict in Glasl’s model if key stakeholders are thoroughly committed to compromise or collaboration. As the Glasl model would have it, positions harden when attempts at compromise and collaboration fail and at least two parties in the family system move to the competitive box in the TKI/DYNAD model.
- Second, in the very early stages of group conflict (before positions start to harden and the parties begin to square off), conflict is diffused if any competitive party or faction decisively moves to another style and, most importantly, stays there. This is best done by being absolutely explicit in announcing the intention to renounce competition, make the move to another style and then following through. A move in the early stages of conflict by any party from the competitive style to any other “square” or style will serve to de-escalate or resolve the conflict. This shift robs the conflict of the competitive “energy” required to sustain it. Such a move requires not only awareness but also a resilient ego structure that can tolerate significant anxiety.
- Third, moving deeper into this hardening stage (the first phase of Glasl’s conflict escalation) provides a key inflection point in group or family conflict. It is in this stage that positions form and a problem solving approaches begins to fade. Glasl’s model suggests that backing down from truly hardened positions is quite difficult without a great deal of skill and maturity. To enter this hardening phase, the parties will have attempted to collaborate and compromise and may have even attempted to avoid the conflict or accommodate to the competitor. The family’s abilities to resolve their issues will have been exhausted as they square off and begin the process of conflict escalation. Backing down from that degree of “stuckness” requires substantial self-management, situational awareness, insight and emotional maturity. Many groups and families lack these capacities on their own. The time when positions begin to harden presents the best time to call in a skilled outside facilitator who can help families develop patterns of compromise and collaboration. Facilitation in this sense serves as an external structure that allow the parties to do what they cannot do for themselves. (While some will recognize the advisability of being proactive before they are stuck based on what is at stake in the discussions and a recognition that outside facilitation is likely to be quite useful, these clients are few and far between. That said, they are also far more likely to succeed in the long run – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.)
- Fourth, in the very early stages of conflict (Glasl’s “hardening” and “polemics” stages) applying principles such as those found in Non-Violent Communication (NVC) or Fisher & Ury’s negotiating approach can be a powerful intervention. Both of these help participants focus on needs and interests rather than positions. As soon as hardening sets in, the focus narrows to the point where the parties believe that there is only one path to meeting their needs. If needs are seen as competitive, then meeting these needs becomes a zero sum game and conflict escalation ensue. (There is more on the practical applications of this approach in one of my prior posts found here.) To engage in these de-escalation conversations using interest based approaches requires focus on the other, clear communication, active listening, open curiosity and a willingness to temporarily bracket one’s own needs. Often these skills must be formally taught to family members.[1] They must also be supported by the facilitative design of the conversation. This also implies that once the conflict has escalated to stages 4 or 5, these techniques on their own are likely to lose their effectiveness. They will be seen by the other side as gamesmanship that cannot be trusted. This means that techniques such as NVC and interest based negotiations will reach points of diminishing returns and the facilitator who relies on these techniques without much deeper skill sets will be doomed to frustration and may actually exacerbate the conflict. (One of many reasons why one-trick pony or “canned” facilitation is ultimately ineffective.)
- Fifth, skilled facilitation becomes critical as groups loose trust in one another in the middle stage of level one and it becomes absolutely essential in the later stages of Level 1 when the parties are beginning to act out the conflict rather than simply talk about it. As the Squaring off phase comes to a close and the parties are no longer in full control of themselves or the process, it is highly unlikely that the conflict will de-escalate without highly competent outside help. Here the family has moved beyond the need of merely skilled facilitation and stands in need of an outsider who has the capacity and capabilities to manage complex facilitation.
- Sixth, as group conflict moves into Level 2: Engaging the Enemy, the parties begin to rapidly lose the most basic executive functions and personal ego structures necessary to resolve the conflict. For people in these states, compromise and collaboration is simply out of reach. Simple facilitation is no longer sufficient and, if introduced, will actually make the problems worse. What is required is someone skilled at complex facilitation. This involves tightly designed structures and a facilitator who has the capacity to work in highly charged and very dynamic environments. Design structures are necessary to replace the inability of individuals to manage and control their own impulses and behavior or act effectively within the family context. Complex facilitation de-escalates the conflict by providing people with structures and process that they can begin to access for themselves. A skilled complex facilitator will be looking for ways to give power back to the participants so that they can resolve their own problems, but will be doing that in tightly designed and controlled facilitative structures. In my own philosophy of facilitation, this re-investiture of power involves, in part, helping the participants come to collaborative agreements which are inherently self-reinforcing. Another critical piece of this is taking steps increase the self-awareness and self-control of the parties involved in the conflict. When seen through the lens of these models, agreements and self-control constitute small but significant wins that de-escalate the conflict and move the parties from competitive stances to progressive positions of compromise, collaboration and accommodation.
- Seventh, as conflict results in competitive “loss of face” in stage 5 of Glasl’s model, it is extraordinary difficult to truly resolve the conflict or even de-escalate it to the point where relationship between the parties can be maintained. At this stage the parties have supposedly “unmasked” the other side and are contemptuous of what they see.[2] The only way to de-escalate conflict in the later stages is to do so over extended time. This is done by building strong agreements that create real boundaries that are then consistently observed by the parties over time. With a consistent track record of success, the parties might recover a degree of trust and respect for one another to restore relationship, but it is long, slow and doubtful process. Often the best that can be achieved is a kind of detente. Very few facilitators are willing or able to engage in situations that are deeply into or have passed Glasl’s stage 5.
- Eighth, the strategic phase of conflict requires professional intervention that is likely to be both therapeutic and facilitative, ideally provided by two or more professionals. So much personal damage has been done in the conflict to this point that it requires the help of skilled mental health professionals to deal with the individuals and a highly skilled facilitator or group of facilitators to address the group process issues in play. These team based approaches exist in a realm beyond skilled or even complex facilitation in what might be termed “extreme” facilitation.
- Finally, in the Endgame stages of the Glasl model we find the territory that litigators in highly personal legal actions are familiar with. Here the only structures that are likely to work to contain the breakdown of ego structures and executive function are those where the parties are not directly interacting with each other, but must communicate through representatives or intermediaries in a process that is highly structured (such as a lawsuit or arbitration).
Conclusion
The Glasl model and the TKI/DYNAD model, when viewed together, provide a powerful set of clues and insights for designing interventions in families that are in conflict. They also demarcate what facilitative strategies are likely to work and which will almost certainly fail. By understanding the level of conflict and the dynamics of each stage, the required moves to de-escalate the conflict, and the skills necessary to make those moves, the family consultant can be begin to design smart approaches to helping families find a path back away from the brink of conflict and onto the road of sustainability.
___________________________
[1] Glasl’s model would suggest that after stage 5 (loss of face) and beyond, these techniques will be dramatically less effective outside of a structured process.
[2] In marriage research, John Gottman claims (with some credibility) that he can determine if a marriage will survive by watching a couple of 15 minutes. The signature emotion he looks for and the one he says will kill a relationship more quickly than any other is contempt. Contempt is a mark of stage 5 conflict.
— June 1, 2013