The competing conflict style, characterized by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness, is often viewed negatively, but it is an essential tool for specific, high-stakes situations where decisive action, protection of principles, or confronting exploitation is required. Knowing when to employ this direct, power-oriented approach, and when to opt for other styles, is a mark of effective conflict resolution.
Understanding the Competing Style
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a widely recognized framework that describes five primary styles of responding to conflict. The Competing style is one of these, defined by pursuing your own concerns at another person's expense. It sits in the "high assertiveness, low cooperativeness" quadrant, meaning your focus is squarely on achieving your objectives, often without much regard for the other party's needs or maintaining the relationship. This approach is typically power-oriented, using whatever power seems appropriate to win your position. It's a "win-lose" scenario where one party's success comes at the cost of the other's.
While competing can damage relationships if used indiscriminately, there are specific contexts where its directness and firm stance are not only appropriate but necessary. It's not about being aggressive for aggression's sake, but about strategically deploying a powerful tool when the situation demands unwavering resolve.
When Immediate Action is Critical
One of the clearest instances for using a competing style is in emergencies or situations demanding swift, decisive action. When time is of the essence and there's no room for debate or lengthy discussion, a competing approach ensures that a critical decision is made and implemented without delay. This applies to scenarios where safety is at risk, a crisis is unfolding, or a crucial deadline is looming.
For example, if you are a project manager and a critical system is failing, you wouldn't engage in a collaborative discussion about whose fault it is or how everyone feels. You would assertively direct the team to follow the emergency protocol, assign immediate tasks, and expect compliance. Similarly, in a medical emergency, a doctor must act decisively and instruct staff, not consult them on every step. In these moments, the need for quick resolution and clear direction outweighs the desire for consensus or relationship building.
Upholding Core Principles and Rights
Competing is also the appropriate style when you must protect your fundamental rights, ethical principles, or deeply held values that are non-negotiable. Compromising on these issues would mean sacrificing your integrity or allowing a wrong to persist. In such cases, a firm, assertive stance is necessary to draw a line in the sand.
Consider a situation where a colleague proposes an action that you know is unethical or illegal. Collaborating or accommodating might lead to complicity. Instead, a competing approach would involve directly stating your objection, explaining the ethical violation, and refusing to participate or allow the action to proceed. Another example is defending your legal rights, such as intellectual property or contractual agreements, where backing down could set a dangerous precedent or lead to significant loss. Here, the goal is not to find a middle ground, but to ensure that what is right, fair, or legally binding is upheld.
Countering Exploitation and Inaction
When you encounter individuals or groups who are genuinely trying to take advantage of you, or when others are consistently failing to meet their responsibilities and causing harm, the competing style can be highly effective. In these situations, a more cooperative approach might be perceived as weakness and lead to further exploitation or continued inaction.
Imagine a vendor attempting to significantly overcharge you for a service, or a team member consistently shirking their duties, forcing others to pick up their slack. Engaging in collaboration or accommodation might only prolong the problem. A competing approach would involve firmly stating your position, outlining the consequences of their actions (or inaction), and setting clear boundaries or demands. This might mean refusing to pay an unfair bill, or issuing a direct ultimatum to a non-performing team member, backed by the authority you hold. It's about asserting control and ensuring fairness when others are not acting in good faith or fulfilling their commitments.
Strategies for Effective Competition
When you determine that the competing style is necessary, it's important to execute it effectively and ethically to achieve your desired outcome without unnecessary collateral damage. First, be crystal clear about your objective and your non-negotiables. What exactly are you fighting for, and what are you absolutely unwilling to concede? This clarity prevents you from getting sidetracked or inadvertently compromising on core issues.
Second, communicate directly and unambiguously. State your position firmly, explain your reasoning concisely, and outline the consequences if your demands are not met. Avoid emotional language and focus on the facts and the necessary outcome. While you are asserting your position, try to focus on the problem or issue, rather than making it a personal attack. Finally, be prepared for resistance and potential damage to the relationship in the short term. The competing style inherently creates a winner and a loser, and it's vital to acknowledge this. Once the immediate crisis or need for competition has passed, be ready to transition to more collaborative or accommodating styles to repair relationships or address underlying issues that may have contributed to the conflict.