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
- Before asserting a position, check: is this genuinely urgent or high-stakes, or does it just feel that way?
- If Competing is warranted, be explicit about why: "I’m making this call because we have two hours and this can’t wait."
- 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.
Practice this with IX Coach
7 days free, then $40/month (~$1.30/day).
More practices for The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)
- Identify your default conflict mode
Before you can choose a mode, you have to know which one you use automatically.
- Use Collaborating when the relationship and the solution both matter
Collaborating — high assertive, high cooperative — finds a solution that genuinely works for both parties, but it takes time.
- Use Avoiding strategically, not reflexively
Avoiding has a real place — but only when the issue is trivial, the timing is wrong, or cooling down is necessary.
- Use Compromising — but know its hidden cost
Compromise splits the difference; it’s fast, but both parties lose something and neither is fully satisfied.
- Accommodate relationships — but not at the cost of important interests
Accommodating is appropriate when you were wrong, the issue is trivial, or preserving the relationship outweighs your stake in the outcome.
- Recognize when to shift modes mid-conflict
The mode that’s right at the start of a conversation may not be right ten minutes in.
Related concepts
- Crucial Conversations, Made Practical
Safety, mutual purpose, STATE, and the stories that drive us
- Difficult Conversations, Made Practical
The three conversations, the learning stance, and an honest read on the evidence
- Nonviolent Communication (NVC), Made Practical
The four components, the mechanisms behind them, and an honest read on the evidence