In Practice
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model:
Into Extreme Conflict
Blair Trippe and Douglas Baumoel
This article discusses an extension to the Thomas–Kilmann conflict
mode instrument (Thomas and Kilmann 1977) designed specifically
for conflict situations in which strong negative emotional relationships are at play. The Thomas–Kilmann (TK) model is widely used to
help participants (disputants and mediators) identify how two basic
conflict characteristics interact to influence how stakeholders shape
their actions with regard to their interests. Essentially the TK Model is
built on the premise that the two salient conflict variables are the
relative importance of the relationships at hand and the substantive
issues being discussed. These variables are illustrated with a simple
matrix that shows how each party will interact with the other based
on the relative importance it places on these variables. Graphically
illustrating where the behaviors fall on the matrix can explicate
parties’ behaviors to add a new perspective that may change the
dynamic of the conflict.
But the TK Model does not address scenarios in which individuals
have very negative or destructive relationships, and sabotage, blocking, and exclusion are behavioral norms. Hence, we developed the
Baumoel–Trippe (BT) Extension to the TK Model to address the highly
negative and often identity-based conflicts that are often found in the
world of family business. Accordingly, the BT Extension to the TK
Blair Trippe is a partner at Continuity Family Business Consulting. She received her mediation and
negotiation training from the Harvard Program on Negotiation and earned her MBA from the
Kellogg School.
Douglas Baumoel is the founding partner of Continuity Family Business Consulting. He received
his mediation training at MCLE and earned his MBA at the Wharton School.
10.1111/nejo.12084
© 2015 President and Fellows of Harvard College
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
89
Model explores conflicts in which the relationships are not merely
unimportant or uncooperative, but where they become negative to
downright vengeful. There is so much at stake for family business
stakeholders that the family relationships may become so adversarial
that the very business and family harmony all parties value are at
risk. With our extension of the TK Model, we seek to provide insight
into how decisions might be made when stakeholders are in highly
negative, conflictual relationships.
Key words: mediation, identity-based conflict, conflict management, family business, dispute resolution, negotiation, conflict
styles, Thomas–Kilmann inventory, continuity.
Introduction
Conceptual models can help conflict management professionals better
assess situational conflict and more effectively communicate with clients
regarding the circumstances of their conflict. The Thomas–Kilmann conflict
mode instrument (Thomas and Kilmann 1977), also known as the TK
Model, is widely used to help evaluate how someone might react in a
conflictual situation. The model uses assertiveness (how hard the individual
will work to satisfy his/her own needs) as the Y-axis and cooperativeness
(how hard the individual will work to satisfy the other party’s concerns) as
the X-axis to graphically depict how these two basic situational characteristics interact. The model is designed to demonstrate that stakeholders
shape their actions in accordance with their interests and to examine what
happens when the interests of two individuals diverge. It can be an
extremely valuable tool for helping both disputants and conflict professionals understand how parties interact, consciously or unconsciously choosing
between assertiveness and cooperativeness as they promote their interests.
These variables can be illustrated in a simple matrix format to show
how each party will interact with each other based on the relative importance that each places on these variables. Conversely, how they approach a
particular situation demonstrates their values. This model graphically illustrates where the behaviors of parties with conflicting interests fall on the
matrix and can show them what is going on between them, adding a
valuable new perspective that may change the dynamic in the room.
But what happens when individuals have very negative or destructive
relationships, and sabotage, blocking, and exclusion are behavioral norms?
In Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury (1983) told the story of two
sisters who fought over an orange, not realizing at first that they could share
90 Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
it because one needed the rind and one needed only the juice. But what
would have happened if one of the sister’s true interest was in neither the
juice nor the rind, and she only wanted the orange so her sister could not
have it? In this article, we will discuss an extension to the TK Model that
considers situations in which strong negative emotional relationships are at
play.
We note that, for the purposes of this article, we have modified the
axes of the original TK Model from assertiveness versus cooperativeness to
substance versus relationship. A Google-images search for conflict styles or
Thomas–Kilmann reveals that this substitution is not unique. Users of the
TK framework have also used terms like focus on self versus focus on
others in their adaptations of the model for their purposes. We believe that
such a modification is functionally equivalent to the original intent of the
model, providing that the five styles identified by the original framework
are preserved.
Grant Savage, John Blair, and Ritch Sorenson of Texas Tech University
supported this equivalency (Savage, Blair, and Sorenson 1989), arguing that
in any negotiation there are two salient variables: the relative importance of
the substantive matters being discussed and of the relationships between
the parties. They proposed that these variables are equivalent to assertiveness versus cooperativeness, but more relevant to strategy than to style —
in other words, according to their model, assertiveness versus cooperativeness is a “style” metric that derives directly from their “strategy” metric of
substance versus relationship. We, therefore, view the modification of axes
from assertiveness versus cooperativeness to substance versus relationship as consistent with the intent and proper use of the model — analogous
to changing a quantitative graph from English to metric units, for example.
Reviewing the TK Model
According to the substance versus relationship matrix (adapted from the
original assertiveness versus cooperativeness matrix) of the TK Model
described above, a person will adopt one of five particular negotiating
“styles”: competitive, avoidant, accommodating, compromising, or collaborative, depending on what the person cares about most in a particular
situation. This framework enables the conflict management professional to
anticipate the “style” someone will adopt in a negotiation based on his or
her evaluation of how highly that person values the substantive issues
versus how highly that person values his or her relationship with the other
party (or parties) involved in the conflict.
According to this model, a stakeholder would be likely to adopt an
accommodating style if the relationship is very important to him and the
substance of the negotiation is not — for example, the relationship is with
his grandmother and the issue is which restaurant they should choose for
her birthday dinner. The stakeholder will likely accommodate her dining
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
91
choice even if he is not particularly fond of that restaurant. By doing so, the
stakeholder has met his goal of nurturing the relationship at the expense of
a more gastronomically satisfying meal.
Conversely, if someone the stakeholder barely knows and cares little
about suggests getting together sometime for lunch (i.e., something not
deemed particularly important), the stakeholder is more likely to adopt an
avoidant style. She will likely have little interest in spending time with this
person, and if the stakeholder prefers to be alone at lunchtime and does not
care about finding a dining companion, she likely will avoid the situation
entirely and never set the date. Employing this style in this situation meets
her interests because it neither wastes time developing a relationship that
is unimportant to her, nor does it require her to compromise how she
wants to spend her lunch hour. This “style” does not require the stakeholder
to be either assertive or cooperative, and is typically the style of choice for
conflict-averse individuals facing an uncomfortable conversation or situation. Other styles can be plotted on the same graph depending on the
relative importance to the stakeholder of the relationship and the issue
(Figure One).
We note that the relative importance of the relationship (cooperativeness) and the substance (assertiveness) is according to the perspective of
each individual stakeholder only. In the first example above, the stakeholder’s relationship with his grandmother may be very important to him and
this is what will drive his decision. The importance of this relationship may
not be reciprocated, however. The grandmother may believe that her
Figure One
Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Styles
Note: *Substance versus relationship have been substituted for the original assertiveness versus cooperativeness axis labels, respectively.
92 Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
grandson is only trying to ensure a place in her will and may not believe
that the gesture of a birthday dinner is genuine or selfless. Furthermore, the
importance of the birthday dinner or restaurant choice to the grandmother
is not germane to determining her grandson’s conflict style in this situation
— the variables in the TK Model are only relevant from a single individual
decision maker’s perspective.
In addition, the relationship variable is not a qualitative judgment of
closeness or harmony among any group of stakeholders at a decisionmaking point. It is only an identification of the relationship’s relative importance to the decision maker in that situation — no matter the reason. (The
relevance of this limitation will be discussed in detail when we explain the
Baumoel–Trippe Extension (to the TK Model below.)
Understanding Family Business Conflict
Family business conflict often involves a stakeholder’s sense of his or her
own identity. In these situations, parties’ deeply held beliefs and self-images
are often challenged. These identity- or value-based motivations do not lend
themselves easily to negotiation — one cannot negotiate with another
person to make him or her believe a different worldview, change his or her
personality, feel less worthy of a leadership position in the family business,
or become more risk-tolerant, for example. Conflict in family business often
arises when individuals clash over these types of nonnegotiable issues.
Moreover, family business stakeholders are often locked into battle by
circumstances they cannot easily change or escape. These can include, most
obviously,their family relationships,their positions of ownership in the family
business (which can be logistically difficult to relinquish), and their sense of
responsibility for the business, which is often seen as their family’s legacy.
Disassociating is usually not feasible in family business situations. When a
dispute arises between coworkers at a nonfamily company,they at least have
the option of escaping the conflict by disassociating from the firm.But if these
stakeholders are cousins, each may feel a responsibility to his or her branch
of the family to influence business operations.Leaving could put that cousin’s
siblings and children at a disadvantage, spawning a new set of disputes.
Additionally, either cousin may resent having sacrificed other career opportunities, which can also cause lasting conflict within the family.
Disputes among family business stakeholders cannot be resolved in
isolation because stakeholders must also consider how a possible resolution
may spawn additional conflict with other family members. For example,if the
president of the company attempts to resolve a conflict in the workplace by
promoting a nonfamily member over his daughter or son,he may have to face
the wrath of his spouse and suffer a damaged relationship with that child.The
significance of these long-term,continuing relationships makes management
of these conflicts so challenging. Tools such as the TK Model can be useful
in helping disputants, mediators, and consultants better understand and
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
93
discuss the motivations behind decision-making behaviors. We emphasize
that these stakeholders are involved in systemic conflict, not mere disputes,
and their relationships are typically complex, running the gamut from very
positive to extremely negative. In our experience, ongoing management of
this type of systemic conflict rather than serial dispute resolution provides the
only sustainable solution.
We also note that the identity-based conflicts found among family
business stakeholders have characteristics similar in many respects to those
of ethnic conflicts. These conflicts are often intractable because individuals
involved hold “sacred values” that shape their core identity and that they
believe cannot be negotiated. Sacred values are defined as “moral beliefs
that drive action in ways dissociated from prospects for success” (Atran and
Axelrod 2008: 221). While sacred values are significantly more difficult to
negotiate, if an advisor can help parties in conflict understand and acknowledge each other’s values, they can be helped to accommodate and adapt
their behaviors.
Limits to the TK Model
While we find the TK Model useful, our work with family business stakeholders, as discussed above, often includes clients in extreme conflict. To
address such conflicts, we must apply the best tools and thinking available,
and this naturally led us to consider how to apply the TK Model. While its
creators refer to the styles they have identified as “conflict styles,” we
believe these styles are more accurately described as “negotiating” or
“decision-making” styles. The model does not actually imply that the parties
involved are necessarily in conflict — instead, they may simply need to
make joint decisions or negotiate a course of action when they have
apparently contradictory or mutually exclusive goals.
We recognized a need to expand the TK Model when working with a
particularly challenging family business client. Three managers from three
branches of a family were engaged in extreme conflict. If we were to praise
one manager’s behavior, the others (or their close family members) would
view that as a direct criticism of, or insult to, them. Just as Jennifer Brown
(2012) described, these family members bargained (or actually functioned)
only in a distributive mode and did not believe that the proverbial pie could
be expanded. In this particular situation, it was as if there was a limited
amount of love, approbation, and success to be had — the parties viewed
the situation through a “zero-sum perspective” that diminished the chances
of collaboration.
When we considered the kind of identity-based conflict we saw in that
family business situation, we realized that the TK Model only addresses
relationship importance from negligible to important — or from neutral to
positive; in the TK Model, an important relationship is inherently a positive
relationship. The TK Model does not consider important relationships that
94 Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
are also negative. In our work with families with intractable conflict,
however, we see a much broader range of relationships occurring among
stakeholders, including highly negative ones. The TK Model does not
address truly malevolent or destructive behaviors, but these behaviors are
all too common in the real world of conflict management. We, therefore,
saw the need to extend the TK Model to include them.
Extending the TK Model
The BT Extension to the TK Model explores the terrain to the “left” of the
TK Model where relationships are not just unimportant or uncooperative,
but where they have become negative and even vengeful. Vengeful relationships, for example, underlie behaviors that contrast sharply with behaviors characteristic of the TK Model’s competitive and avoidant styles
(Figure Two).
By observing stakeholders whose relationships and goals are both highly
conflictual, we identified three additional behaviors/styles to add to the five
identified in the TK Model: blocking (substance is relatively unimportant,
relationship is very negative), exclusion (substance has relatively moderate
importance, relationship is moderately negative), and sabotaging (the substance is relatively very important, the relationship is very negative).
We note that in the following examples it is the motivation of the
person who acts that is important, not the act itself. Identical acts may be
Figure Two
The Baumoel–Trippe Extension of the Thomas–Kilmann Model
Note: *Adapted from Thomas–Kilmann conflict styles model. Copyright 2013 ©
Baumoel, Trippe.
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
95
examples of blocking, exclusionary, or sabotaging behavior, depending on
the motivation. Accordingly, in our adapted framework shown above, when
the substance is unimportant but the relationship is quite negative, one
party, or an allied coalition, will do what it can to block whatever initiative
the other person or group takes. The result of this behavior satisfies the
aggressor’s need to thwart the efforts of the other, which is the goal of that
decision-making or conflict behavior style. Blocking behavior is pursued to
thwart the efforts of another in order to hurt that person, not because the
substance of those efforts matters to the aggressor. For example, if a
quorum of the board of directors is required for a vote on a topic of no
particular interest to the aggressor, a blocking party, whose sole intent is
simply to thwart whatever her target desires, could intentionally miss the
meeting to prevent the issue from being voted upon. Similarly, she could
use her power to block an issue from being included on the agenda.
In a scenario in which the relationship between two parties is very
negative but the substance of the issue at hand is critically important to one
of the stakeholders, the other party (or parties) will seek to sabotage the
other’s efforts. This behavior is designed to both vengefully undermine the
disliked individual, while simultaneously advancing the substantive aspects
of the conflict in the saboteur’s favor. If the aggressor in the previous
example cared deeply about stopping the initiative from being discussed at
the board meeting, her boycott of the meeting would then be an example
of sabotage behavior. In comparison, if the relationship between the aggressor and target was not negative, she would be more likely to show up at the
meeting and argue her point respectfully, pursuing the competitive style
identified in the TK Model.
Exclusionary behavior can be evidenced in two ways: excluding the
target from influencing one’s own initiatives by excluding them from the
information and decision making, or by excluding oneself from being a
resource to assist the other person’s initiatives. It occurs when the relationship is moderately negative and the substance is moderately important but
does not rise to the level of an existential threat; the party would not
actively block or sabotage the other party (or parties) but will seek to
exclude her from the decision-making process however possible. Examples
of exclusionary behavior are holding clandestine meetings, not including
the other party in relevant e-mails or other communications, being strategic
about keeping a party “out of the loop,” not responding to requests for
assistance, and not proactively sharing information. Exclusionary behavior
is used to ensure that one’s own efforts are not thwarted by another or that
one is not helping the other pursue his/her goals.
Cousins at War: An Illustration of the BT Extension
The following case illustrates these motivations and behaviors. Four
cousins operated a company that manufactures and distributes high-
96 Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
performance sporting equipment. Two older cousins, who controlled 50
percent of the stock, were content with the status quo. By any independent measure, their jobs were relatively easy because the company
seemed to run itself. The younger two cousins, who controlled the other
50 percent of the stock, were “go-getters” who believed that investment in
new product areas would lead to long-term growth and profitability, but
the older cousins thought that such a plan would be too risky. All four of
these cousins wanted the company to be successful and wanted other
family members to respect their work and appreciate the value they
created.
If the younger cousins were able to generate consumer interest in the
new products through social media and traditional marketing channels, the
company would need to modernize its manufacturing processes and implement new systems to measure productivity. These changes could “expose”
the relative lack of modern skill sets and entrepreneurial work ethic of the
older cousins — qualities that the older cousins did not believe were
important or needed as the company was doing fine as is. The older cousins
also feared that taking on these financial risks at this time would put their
retirements at risk, while their younger cousins worried that maintaining
the status quo jeopardized their own futures because the company would
fall behind its more innovative competitors.
As the cousins’ visions diverged, each contingent saw the other side’s
plans as an existential threat. Conflict and anger, some of it the residue of
previous disputes among the various branches of the family, increased
steadily as each side argued for its position. In time, their relationships
deteriorated to the point where the older cousins barely spoke to the
younger cousins and vice versa, doing so only when necessary.
Because the board was deadlocked, the conflict played out in the
factory. Accordingly, the two older cousins began a campaign to discredit
their younger cousins as they worked to buoy their own stature. For
example, when the younger cohort wanted to purchase land that could be
used to build a facility for the expanded line, they sabotaged the purchase
by using their banking connections to have the loan denied.
As relationships continued to deteriorate, anything the younger
cousins proposed (even if unrelated to the expansion) was blocked
by the others, regardless of whether or not the idea had merit. The
younger cousins were unable to reason with the older cousins because
their relationship became so bad that emotion drove all decision
making.
Feeling powerless and unable to compete fairly to have their ideas
vetted, the younger cousins began to exclude the older cousins from meetings and correspondence as much as possible. As one would imagine, this
behavior only further eroded the relationships and the parties’ trust in each
other, leading to more blocking, exclusion, and sabotage.
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
97
Neuropsychological Bases of Identity-Based
Conflict Behavior
In the world of family business, where continuing relationships matter and
systemic conflict is usually built into the system, we often see such
relationship-based decision making. As we noted earlier, these conflicts are
often identity-based, rooted in the so-called sacred values. When a disputant’s sense of identity is threatened, he or she may feel unsafe and may be
unable to act from a clear-headed, logical analysis of the facts.
So, while sabotaging their younger cousins’ plans to grow their
company may have only damaged themselves, such reasoning is likely to be
lost on the elder cousins. From their perspective, they must prevent their
cousins from threatening their livelihoods and their family legacy, and
casting them as poor leaders or incompetent stewards of their family
enterprise (a threat to their senses of identity and self-image). So much is at
stake for individuals in these situations, that the family relationships can
become so adversarial that the business and family harmony that they all
value is threatened.
We believe that Abraham Maslow’s model of the hierarchy of needs
offers an effective way of understanding such existential threats (Maslow
1943). Maslow suggested that every individual has basic needs that fall
within several categories, which he represented in a pyramid form to show
the most basic needs on the bottom and the more aspirational needs at the
top (Figure Three).
Figure Three
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
98 Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
When faced with existential threats (e.g., threats to each of the needs
identified in Maslow’s model), people react instinctually. These “fight or
flight” reactions are centered in the amygdala, a part of the brain fueled by
adrenaline, hardwired for action, and often not the result of a rational,
analytical thought process. Reaching clients who feel so threatened can be
a fundamental challenge in our work. Calling on them to use their prefrontal cortex to engage in problem solving, analytical decision making, and
behavioral management requires substantial rebuilding of trust and the
creation of safe zones for communication. But we also find that it helps to
have a contextual model that can be used to identify those behaviors that
may come from fear and insecurity, and contrast them with more rational or
intentional behaviors. The BT Extension to the TK Model provides this
context and perspective.
Not all family businesses are in extreme conflict, and many family
business behaviors may fall on the positive side of the TK axis. Even in
these cases, the desire to accommodate behaviors to appease family
members can lead to poor business decision making, which reflects needs
in the Maslow hierarchy: the need to be loved and included. Thus, using the
right side of the TK Model in such cases, we are better able to examine
even benevolent behavior to help us guide stakeholders to adopt rational
decision-making processes as opposed to emotionally driven decision
making.
Exploring the Relationship Factor
The core insight of the original TK Model — that relationships affect
decision making — led us to use the model in our work with family
business stakeholders. In our methodology, we use a group of observed
family characteristics that we call the “family factor” to answer the question,
“Is the family bond strong enough to weather the storm of conflict?”
Families with a strong family factor can generally tolerate conflict better,
respond more resiliently, negotiate compromises, and maintain a commitment to change. The characteristics that make up the family factor can
often be enhanced or ameliorated in order to improve the overall chances
of success in family conflict management.
In most cases where we see blocking and sabotage, we assume this
behavior results from negative relationships, and we therefore suspect that
the family factor is close to zero and collaboration is unlikely. Rather than
assume they will adopt a “scorched earth” strategy and destroy the
company and/or the family, we try to strengthen the disputants’ family
factor by constructing a shared narrative of their past, developing a vision
for being family in the future, and rebuilding trust. This is a difficult process,
but the value created for the business and for the extended family can be
considerable. The use of the BT Extension to the TK Model facilitates
identification and diagnosis of the problem.
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
99
Another implication of the BT Extension to the TK Model is how it
applies to the management of intractable conflict among family members.
As discussed above, it is clear that for many family members, their sense of
identity often depends on their role in the family business, and as we noted
above, threats to identity are existential threats that can curtail rational
thought. Accordingly, in these situations of identity-based conflict, finding
common interests on the substantive axis is not enough.
Furthermore, efforts to reach a negotiated or mediated agreement are
likely to fail unless these identity concerns are addressed. This is because
identity conflict does not respond to either force or bargaining. Our
approach acknowledges the issues at hand and subsequently develops the
individuals and the systems in which they operate so that the conflict and
hence their relationships can be better managed. With regard to the organizations, we recommend defining policies and procedures that make
objective those decisions that previously may have been made subjectively
or without transparency. This may include developing family employment
and compensation policies and articulated career paths.
In the case of the battling cousins that we described above, we suggested strengthening the board of directors by adding independent directors who would be responsible for approving strategy and evaluating
capital expenditures in accordance with shareholder wishes. It is critical
that shareholders of a family firm be certain that their board of directors
holds their family executives accountable for behaving professionally and in
the best interest of all shareholders.
With regard to the individuals, we helped each one clarify his or her
values, goals, and interests so that they could understand what was important to each of them and where the seeds of their conflict may have been
sown. We recommended both individual and group coaching and further
education to improve their skills and outlooks. By acknowledging what was
important to each stakeholder without judgment (as below), but holding
each person responsible for meeting agreed-upon strategic goals and performance criteria, everyone was held to the same objective standards.1
Implementing the BT–TK Conflict Behaviors Model
So how is the new model useful? In a recent article, Andrea Kupfer
Schneider and Jennifer Gerarda Brown (2013) argued that greater selfawareness and mindfulness enhance negotiation effectiveness and that
labels can be useful in describing individual behaviors. We believe that
helping our clients better understand the emotional underpinnings of their
behaviors leads to more productive interactions.
The original TK Model has helped family members better understand
how they make the choices they make when they are in neutral to positive
relationships. The BT Extension of the TK Model provides insight into
decision-making behaviors when stakeholders are in negative, conflictual
100
Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
relationships. By graphically illustrating their choices within a more comprehensive or inclusive model, we help stakeholders gain perspective and
come to terms with how their relationships and the emotional reactions
they breed affect their decision-making behavior.
In the example of the cousins described above, we created a time line
of recent events and noted the associated behaviors of all parties. This,
combined with interest-based discussion, opened the door to inquiring
about each party’s motivations behind the decision that he or she made.
Labeling “bad behaviors” can be risky and must be done with utmost care
and sensitivity. It is critical to “separate the person from the behavior” and
not judge any party. Rather, explaining that these negative, destructive
behaviors may have root in the fight or flight part of the brain (amygdala)
rather than in the logical, rational part (prefrontal cortex) because of the
emotional stress of relationships perceived as threatening may give advisors
a way to reach clients locked in such battles.
By deconstructing the situation into its substantive and relationship
components with the help of a time line and facilitated meetings, a conflict
manager can ask the parties to plot particular past actions on the extended
TK Model graph. Just seeing their behavior in this context can be eyeopening for parties as they view the situation from another perspective and
begin to understand and accept their contribution to the problem. This
acknowledgment, or shift in perception, can move the decision making
forward in a more objective and productive way so that the pros and cons
of substantive issues can then be examined on their merits, separate from
the emotions associated with the particular relationship.
The goal of such work would be to move the behaviors to the right
side of the TK Model — toward more harmonious relationships. From this
position, stakeholders can make more productive decisions even when
they have opposing goals. As in many other disciplines, simply “naming the
problem” can provide needed perspective to stakeholders and enable them
to at least acknowledge other choices. By seeing graphically how decisionmaking behaviors relate to relationships, stakeholders can more readily
assess their own behavior and motivation.
Future Development
The relationship (cooperativeness) axis of the BT Extension of the TK
Model is more nuanced than in the TK Model itself. The TK Model only
considers the importance of the relationship to one decision maker as the
motivation for his negotiating style. The BT Extension allows one to look
beyond the importance of the relationship to consider the quality of the
relationship from highly negative to highly positive, or from adversarial to
harmonious.
This broadened perspective raises the question of relationship symmetry. Does the BT Extension of the TK Model demand that both parties
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
101
perceive their relationship similarly? What if one party secretly dislikes the
other but believes that the other party cares a great deal about her? Will she
adopt blocking, exclusion, and sabotaging behaviors? Or will she use that
positive relationship to her advantage in negotiation by employing behaviors on the right side of the axis?
One could explore each permutation and combination of such asymmetric relationships to develop a matrix of expected behaviors associated
with each. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this article and might be
more appropriate for game theorists to explore. For our purposes, we are
concerned only with the decision maker’s perception of symmetric relationships from adversarial to harmonious. When relationships go negative
among stakeholders who are highly involved with each other through
work, ownership, and/or family ties, they most often go negative together.
Asymmetric relationships are difficult to sustain in highly interactive settings, such as the family business.
Conclusion
The BT Extension is only one tool and is no panacea for understanding or
managing family business conflict. We believe, however, that it can be useful
in cases of extreme conflict when stakeholders can benefit from
deconstructing the destructive behaviors in which they engage. It is not
unusual for stakeholders involved in this type of identity-based conflict to
be unaware of how damaging their actions are to both the business and
their family relationships. They often believe they are acting in the best
interests of their family members as well as themselves and perceive their
actions are critical to preserving their family’s legacy.
NOTE
1. Another arena in which we think the BT Extension to the TK Model could be applied is to
the U.S. government and electorate. With an adversarial, two-party system, we see countless
examples of blocking, exclusion, and sabotage recounted in the media almost daily. Party members
often express notable antipathy, take a distributive view of every issue that comes before them
(access to guns, abortion rights, health care, immigration), and seem to do whatever they can to
thwart the initiatives of those on the other side even if working together could lead to progress for
all. Whether or not party leaders (e.g., Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Harry Reid) truly hold their
stated values as “sacred values,” we may never know. As elected officials, they act as agents for their
perceived constituencies, many of whom do indeed hold these values as sacred and, therefore, they
remain on the left side of the matrix.
REFERENCES
Atran, S., and R. Axelrod. 2008. Reframing sacred values. Negotiation Journal 24(3): 221–246.
Brown, J. 2012. Empowering students to create and claim value through the Thomas-Kilmann
Conflict Mode Instrument. Negotiation Journal 28(1): 79–91.
Fisher, R., and W. Ury. 1983. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York:
Penguin Books.
Maslow, A. 1943. Hierarchy of needs: A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4):
370–396.
102
Trippe and Baumoel
Beyond the Thomas–Kilmann Model
Savage, G., J. Blair, and R. Sorenson. 1989. Consider both relationships and substance when
negotiating strategically. Academy of Management Executive 3(1): 37–48.
Schneider, A. K., and J. G. Brown. 2013. Negotiation barometry: A dynamic measure of conflict
management style. Ohio State University Journal On Dispute Resolution 11(3): 1–23.
Thomas, K. W., and R. H. Kilmann. 1977. Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling
behavior: The “mode” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement 37(2): 309–
325.
Negotiation Journal
April 2015
103