People often ask me to clarify the difference between compromising and collaborating, especially since these two modes involve both people getting their needs met. In particular, people often use the word compromise to indicate that they have completely resolved the matter at hand: “We achieved a successful compromise!”
The key distinction, once again, concerns whose needs get met, and to what extent, as a result of using a particular conflict mode. Compromising means that each person gets partially satisfied but not completely satisfied. As noted in an earlier section, I think of compromising as a 50/50 split, in which each person gets a reasonable share of the available pie. But a compromise could also be a 75/25 split, where one person gets more than the other, but both people still get less than all their needs met. But notice that both a 50/50 and a 75/25 split still add up to 100—a zero-sum game along the distributive dimension. The more one gets, the less the other gets.
As defined by the TKI Conflict Model, however, collaborating means that both persons get all their needs met along the integrative dimension. How is this possible?
By using the collaborating mode under the right conditions—such as making the conflict more complex in order to expand the size of the pie available to both persons, maintaining trust among participants, speaking and listening with sensitivity and empathy, and so forth— it’s possible to achieve total need satisfaction for both of them. With synergy, coming up with a creative solution that uniquely satisfies everyone’s needs, we thus achieve a 100/100 resolution instead of a 50/50 split.
Here is a simple example to make a very important point. Let’s say that two managers are discussing when to get together for a work meeting. Bob wants to meet at 8:00 a.m. because he’s most alert at that time, while Eduardo wants to meet at 4:00 p.m., for the same reason. By compromising, they might split the difference and meet at noon. This solution, while workable, does not satisfy either person very well. Using the same example, let’s consider how the collaborating mode results in a very different outcome. Eduardo tells Bob that it’s most important for them to clarify the strategic goals of their business unit—a topic that Bob has put aside, with one excuse or another, for quite some time. Eduardo also suggests that they meet at his home in the late afternoon, since he would love to arrange a festive Mexican dinner as part of their meeting. Since Bob loves Mexican food and is eager to meet away from the stresses of the workplace, he’s happy to have the meeting at 4:00 p.m. at Eduardo’s place. In addition, Bob knows the topic of the meeting is something that must be addressed sooner or later. By discussing it outside the work environment, they might be able to develop a creative solution to their long-standing strategic conflict.
As a result of each person sharing more about his needs and wants (which makes the initial conflict more complex), the size of the pie has been greatly expanded, which makes a creative solution possible. The meeting does in fact take place at 4:00 p.m. as Eduardo initially preferred, but the timing of the meeting is now the least important aspect! Indeed, the late afternoon meeting at Eduardo’s allows both of them to relax and continue their discussion on a difficult subject over dinner, and also gives them the time and space to discuss their other differences. Collaborating is thus quite different from a quick attempt at giving both parties only something of what they really want.
All text and illustrations in this publication Copyright © 2009–2011 by Kilmann Diagnostics. All rights reserved. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are registered trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc. The TKI and CPP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of CPP, Inc.