How Your Conflict Style Shapes the Feedback You Give (and Receive)

Understanding the Thomas Kilmann Instrument: What Your Conflict Style Says About Feedback

Feedback doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens between people, in conversation, in tension, and often, in conflict. The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) helps us understand that space: how our instincts to lean in, hold back, or smooth things over reveal the ways we give and receive feedback.

Start With Self-Awareness

Most of us give feedback the same way we like to receive it. If you value directness, you probably offer feedback with blunt clarity. If you prize relationships, you might soften the message or delay it altogether, hoping to preserve harmony.

Neither approach is wrong. But both have limits.

For those familiar with DiSC, D’s and I’s tend to be comfortable with directness and fast-paced correction, while S’s and C’s might privilege stability, taking more time to prepare or soften their message. The mismatch between these preferences can create confusion: one person feels blindsided, another feels like the point got lost in all the cushioning.

The Thomas Kilmann Instrument

The Thomas Kilmann Instrument offers a simple, powerful lens for understanding how we respond to conflict and tension, two things that often accompany or necessitate feedback. Even positive feedback can spark discomfort. In high-accountability environments, being seen, even for something good, can feel exposing. The TKI framework helps us notice our instinctive stance when conflict or disagreement surfaces.

The Thomas Kilmann model outlines five common ways people respond to conflict and feedback. Each style has strengths and challenges, and understanding your default approach can help you give and receive feedback with more clarity, care, and impact.

It rests on two dimensions:

• Assertiveness – How much you try to get your own needs met

• Cooperativeness – How much you consider the needs of others

Image from Kilmann Diagnostic

From these two, five default “modes” (or styles) emerge:

Competing – “I push for what I need”

Competing is a high-assertiveness, low-cooperativeness style that emphasizes winning, standing firm, or making quick decisions when the stakes feel high. People who tend to compete may step in with strong opinions, challenge others directly, or move quickly toward what they believe is right.

In feedback conversations, this style often shows up as direct or blunt. They tend to value clarity and efficiency and may skip the small talk or emotional cushioning. While their feedback can be useful in surfacing tough issues, it may unintentionally shut people down if tone, timing, or consent aren’t considered.

Collaborating – “Let’s find a win-win”

Collaborating is both highly assertive and highly cooperative. It involves digging in to understand all perspectives and working toward solutions that meet everyone’s needs. People with a collaborative style tend to ask questions, listen deeply, and seek mutual understanding, even when it takes more time or energy.

In feedback, they’re likely to engage in dialogue rather than one-way delivery. They may say things like, “Let’s talk this through together,” or “How did that feel for you?” The strength here is building shared learning; the challenge is knowing when good-enough feedback is better than a perfect process.

Compromising – “Let’s split the difference”

Compromising reflects moderate assertiveness and cooperativeness. It’s about give-and-take, finding a middle ground quickly so things can move forward. People with a compromising style often value fairness and practicality in conflict.

In feedback, they may aim to be balanced and diplomatic, offering both positives and critiques in equal parts. They’re good at smoothing over tensions and finding what’s “good enough,” but might avoid digging deeper into the root of the issue. While their even-handedness is a strength, they sometimes water down their message or settle quickly to maintain harmony.

Avoiding – “Let’s take a step back”

Avoiding is low in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. It typically shows up as stepping away from conflict altogether, delaying, sidestepping, or choosing not to engage. People who avoid may do so to protect relationships, maintain peace, or because they’re unsure how to approach the situation.

When it comes to feedback, avoiders may delay conversations, soften their message until it’s unclear, or hope that the issue resolves itself. Their strength lies in creating space or cooling off heated dynamics, but they risk missing opportunities for clarity or allowing tension to linger beneath the surface.

Accommodating – “You go ahead, I’ll adjust”

Accommodating is low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness. It prioritizes relationships, harmony, and the needs of others, often at the expense of one’s own. People who accommodate in conflict may yield easily, support others’ decisions, or avoid expressing their own preferences.

In feedback situations, they often offer praise, hesitate to name hard truths, or filter their message to protect others’ feelings. Their generosity and warmth help build trust, but they may unintentionally enable recurring issues or feel unseen when their own concerns aren’t voiced.

Reading the Room and the Person

Understanding your natural style is hugely helpful, but understanding where the person you’re giving feedback to might fall on the Thomas Kilmann Instrument can help you deliver your message in a way that actually lands. 

If you’re naturally direct (Competing) and you’re giving feedback to someone who tends toward Accommodating, your bluntness might feel like an attack—even when you mean it as clarity. Conversely, if you’re Avoiding by nature and the person across from you operates in Competing mode, your carefully softened message might never register as feedback at all.

This doesn’t mean abandoning your style entirely. It means flexing enough to meet the other person where they are. Ask yourself: How does this person typically respond when things get tense? Do they withdraw, push back, or try to smooth things over? That awareness gives you a better starting point than assuming everyone receives feedback the way you do.

Reflecting on Your Style

No single mode is “best.” Each can be skillful in context. The invitation is to ask:

• What style feels most true to me? How does it serve or limit me and my team?

• How does your style tend to show up under stress or when you are feeling misunderstood?

• How might others misread my intention or tone because of this style?

• What happens when your style clashes with a different one?

• Which style is most frustrating to you? Why?

The goal isn’t to box ourselves in, but to expand our range, to build the awareness that lets us choose, rather than react.

Conclusion: Expanding Your Range

Understanding your TKI style is not about fixing who you are; it’s about seeing yourself clearly. Every feedback conversation carries traces of how you manage tension, risk, and relationships. Some moments call for collaboration, others for directness or patience. The skill is learning to flex, to know when to speak up, when to listen longer, and when to pause before reacting.

If we can meet feedback and conflict with curiosity instead of defensiveness, we not only grow our own range but create the kind of culture where growth feels possible for everyone.