Use Competing when speed or safety matters more than buy-in

Competing — high assertive, low cooperative — is appropriate when the decision is urgent, high-stakes, and not open for debate.

Why it works

Competing overrides others’ input to achieve an outcome quickly. This is destructive in most peer relationships but is the correct mode when a decision must be made without delay (safety emergency), when you have more information than the other party, or when the relationship can sustain the directness. Using Competing when Collaborating is available damages trust; avoiding Competing when it’s needed delays critical decisions at real cost.

How to do it

1. Before asserting a position, check: is this genuinely urgent or high-stakes, or does it just feel that way?
2. If Competing is warranted, be explicit about why: "I’m making this call because we have two hours and this can’t wait."
3. After the urgency passes, revisit the decision collaboratively if the situation allows — Competing is an emergency mode, not a governance style.

Evidence

Situational appropriateness of assertive influence is supported by leadership research showing that directive styles outperform consultative ones in genuine crises, while underperforming in stable, high-complexity environments. (observational)

Context dependency is well established; the TKI framework itself is normative (situational) rather than prescribing a universally best mode.

Common mistake

Defaulting to Competing in every disagreement — especially with subordinates — and calling it "decisiveness." Chronic Competing in non-urgent situations destroys psychological safety.