Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) Test

People navigating recurring disagreement at work, in relationships, or everyday decisions may use the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) Test to examine how they balance personal goals with cooperation. This conflict mode assessment frames conflict as choices between asserting one’s interests, working with another person, yielding, compromising, or stepping back, giving readers a practical framework for considering their approach.

What This Assessment Explores

Conflict balances pursuing goals with cooperating. Thomas-Kilmann conflict styles describe tendencies, not fixed traits.

The displayed dimensions are:

• Competing (0-11) shows assertive pursuit of your goals at others’ expense; Low 0-3, Moderate 4-7, High 8-11.
• Collaborating (0-13) shows open dialogue toward a solution that fully satisfies both sides; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-9, High 10-13.
• Compromising (0-12) shows mutual concessions to reach agreement; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-8, High 9-12.
• Accommodating (0-12) shows yielding your interests to preserve the relationship or support the other side; Low 0-4, Moderate 5-8, High 9-12.
• Avoiding (0-12) shows low assertiveness, low cooperativeness, and little motivation to pursue personal goals or collaborate; Low avoidance 0-4, Moderate avoidance 5-8, High avoidance 9-12.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each item presents two statements about handling disagreement, and the respondent selects the one that better describes them. This forced-choice format compares alternatives rather than asking for separate ratings of every statement. The selections are grouped into five modes and summarized as displayed scores; the published ranges and bands do not show how many points an individual answer contributes.

The framework is conceptually consistent with the MODE instrument (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977), which organizes conflict behavior around assertiveness and cooperativeness. The Thomas-Kilmann manual and comparison research provide context for the five-mode model, while Konovsky, Jaster, and McDonald (1989) examined the survey’s construct validity. These sources describe the model and related evidence, but they do not establish identical reliability, norms, or standardization for this online form.

As a conflict management questionnaire, it is best interpreted descriptively: a higher band indicates a stronger tendency toward that conflict-handling strategy within this questionnaire, not a permanent characteristic. Self-report scores can shift with current circumstances, self-awareness, and the wish to present oneself favorably. The profile is useful when compared with real situations and used to plan responses.