Do I Speak Up or Keep the Peace?
Thomas-Kilmann Inventory (TKI): A Tool That Reframes Conflict
Most of us walk into conflict carrying an incorrect assumption in our heads:
“Do I speak up or let it go? Do I stand my ground or just keep the peace?”
It sounds reasonable, but it quietly traps us in a false choice:
Either I protect the relationship by staying quiet, or
I protect myself or the issue by pushing hard and risking the relationship.
As an organizational ombuds, and in my own life, one of the tools I reach for almost daily to get out of that trap is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). It’s one of the most essential tools in my field because it gives people a way to think about conflict that is practical, flexible, and human.
Instead of asking, “Should I be nice or take a stand?” the TKI helps you ask two better questions:
How important is this issue?
How important is this relationship?
From there, it gives you five different conflict styles—five ways of responding—that you can choose from on purpose, instead of defaulting to an approach based on a false dichotomy or going on auto-pilot.
Five Ways to Approach Conflict
The TKI is built on two simple ideas:
Assertiveness – how much you push for your own concerns (importance of the issue)
Cooperativeness – how much you support the other person’s concerns (importance of the relationship)
Combine those and you get five conflict styles.
1. Competing – “This really can’t be dropped.”
The issue is very important.
The relationship is less central in this moment.
You take a firm stand and push for what you believe needs to happen.
You might use competing when safety, ethics, or legal obligations are at stake, or when your role requires a clear boundary.
When competing is overused, people often stop putting their ideas and opinions on the table. They assume their input won’t matter, so they stop sharing.
2. Collaborating – “We both really need this to work.”
The issue is very important.
The relationship is also very important.
You invest time to find a solution that works well for everyone.
You might use collaborating when you’re solving a complex, long-term problem with people you’ll keep working with, and you need their buy-in to implement the solution.
When collaboration is overused, every decision becomes a long process. People experience “meeting fatigue” and just want someone to “make a decision already.”
3. Compromising – “Let’s meet in the middle—for now.”
The issue is moderately important.
The relationship is moderately important.
You look for a quick, fair middle ground.
Compromising works well when you need a quick, workable solution and both sides can give up something tangible.
When compromise is overused, people start to hide what matters most, because they assume it could get traded away.
4. Avoiding – “Not this. Not now.”
The issue is lower priority right now, or you truly don’t have capacity.
The relationship feels low priority, unclear, or too fragile to handle conflict — use caution here.
You delay the discussion/decision/addressing the issue temporarily.
Avoiding is not always cowardly. It can make sense when you don’t have enough information yet, or when emotions are too high to have a constructive conversation and a pause would help.
When avoiding is overused, small problems quietly grow into bigger ones. Organizational charts and roles splinter in ways that are hard to explain or justify — outside of the conflicts they are designed to avoid.
5. Accommodating – “This matters more to you than to me.”
The issue is less important to you.
The relationship is important.
You let the other person’s preference win.
You might use accommodating when the issue truly is low stakes for you, or when preserving goodwill matters more than this specific decision.
When accommodating is overused, resentment builds. You can end up feeling unseen or taken for granted because your needs rarely make it into the conversation.
The Dangers of Default Approaches
Most of us have one or two styles we slide into without thinking. That’s shaped by personality, family patterns, culture, and workplace norms.
The problem is not that you have a default. The problem occurs when:
You use the same style for every conflict, or
You overuse a style in ways that create predictable problems
If you always accommodate, you will eventually feel invisible and disengage.
If you always compete, people will eventually stop speaking honestly around you.
If you always avoid, issues will continue to blow up.
The goal is to choose your style on purpose with a full understanding of why you’re choosing to use it.
How to Choose a Conflict Style
Before you take action (or inaction) in response to a situation that involves conflict, pause and ask two questions.
First: How important is this issue?
You might ask:
If nothing changed, what would be the impact in six months?
Does this touch my ethics, my responsibilities, or something core to our work?
Is this just a preference, or does it affect something more important like safety, fairness, or trust?
Second: How important is this relationship?
You might ask:
Will I keep working closely with this person or group?
What could it cost our trust and collaboration if I say nothing?
Could addressing this actually strengthen our working relationship?
Your honest answers will usually point toward one or two styles that make more sense than the others.
Choosing a Style: Real-World Situations
Example 1: A serious concern, limited time
You learn your team is being pushed to skip a key safety step to hit a deadline.
The issue is very important.
The relationship still matters, but you cannot trade away safety.
Here, competing makes sense, possibly with a collaborative tone. You can be clear and firm: “I’m not comfortable skipping this step, and here’s why,” while still inviting problem-solving about how to meet the goal safely.
Example 2: A low-stakes disagreement with someone you value
A colleague has strong preferences about the order of slides in a joint presentation. You don’t.
The issue is low importance.
The relationship is medium to high importance.
Here, accommodating is a wise, low-friction choice: “This matters more to you than to me; let’s use your order.” No scorekeeping. Just a conscious decision.
But Isn’t Collaboration the Best Choice?
Collaboration sounds like the gold standard, but it isn’t automatically superior.
When a leader overuses collaboration:
Every decision turns into a long, intensive conversation.
People feel obligated to weigh in on things they don’t care much about.
Urgent issues get stuck in process.
Collaboration is powerful when the issue is important, the relationship is important, and you actually have the time and energy to do it well. It is not the top rung of a ladder; it is one option among five.
How Committed Should You Stay to Your Choice?
One more important nuance: you’re not choosing a conflict style once and then living with it forever. As situations evolve and dynamics change, the “right” style can change too.
You might avoid briefly to gather more information, then move into collaboration once people are calmer and clearer. You might accommodate on smaller pieces while competing firmly around a specific line that you can’t cross.
If your approach to a conflict is leaving you stuck, frustrated, or quietly resentful, a good place to start is simply to ask:
What style am I using right now—and is it actually the best fit for this issue and this relationship?
The Thomas-Kilmann tool gives you language and options so you’re not trapped in “speak up or keep the peace.” You have five different ways to engage, and you can choose them with greater intentionality, feeling confident that your approach is consistent with what’s most important to you in the short-term and long-term.