Thomas-Kilmann: spot your conflict style in your messages

Thomas-Kilmann: spot your conflict management style in your messages

You are arguing by text. Your partner fires off: "Are you still going over what I said on Saturday? Can't we just move on?" You answer: "No, it matters to me, we need to talk about it." He disappears from the chat for three hours.

That short exchange reveals far more than a difference of opinion. It sketches out a conflict management style — a habitual way of reacting to tension. And contrary to what you might think, this style is not hidden away in secret thoughts: it is written down. Message after message, it crystallises.

This is where the Thomas-Kilmann model becomes a powerful clinical tool for analysing your couple conversations in writing. Not to judge you, but so that you can finally see the pattern you had been living without naming.

What is the Thomas-Kilmann model?

The psychologists Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five conflict management styles, each combining two dimensions: assertiveness (how far you defend your own interests) and cooperativeness (how far you seek to satisfy the other person).

The five styles are:

• Competing: high assertiveness, low cooperativeness. You are trying to "win".
• Avoiding: low assertiveness, low cooperativeness. You withdraw from the conflict.
• Accommodating: low assertiveness, high cooperativeness. You give in to keep the peace.
• Compromising: moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness. You look for a balance.
• Collaborating: high assertiveness, high cooperativeness. You look for a solution that satisfies both.

What makes this model revolutionary for message analysis is that it is not abstract theory. Each style leaves identifiable textual traces, time-stamped, and above all repeatable. A single message can be interpreted any number of ways. A hundred messages sketch out a truth.

How the Thomas-Kilmann styles write themselves into your messages

#### Competing: "I'm right, you're wrong"

The competing style can be identified through messages that seek to convince, to prove, to impose a point of view. No listening to the other position, just a determination to prevail.

Concrete examples:

• "You started it, not me. Stop playing the victim."


• "I know what I'm talking about. Your arguments don't hold up."


• "You always do the same thing. I've explained it to you a hundred times."

What this reveals: a person in competing mode does not really listen to the answer. They state, they refute, they close the subject. If you reread your messages and see a series of monologues in which each of you digs in without ever saying "I understand that you feel...", you are probably in this mode.

Over time, this style erodes trust. As Gottman showed in his research on couples, systematic criticism (of which competing is a variant) is one of the four horsemen that predict a break-up.

#### Avoiding: radio silence

Avoiding means the absence of a reply, very short messages, changes of subject, non-answers to direct questions.

Concrete examples:

• You: "We need to talk about your reaction last night. It hurt me." Him: "OK. What are you up to this evening?"


• You: "Do you still love me?" Him: [no reply for 8 hours, then] "Sorry, I was busy."


• You: "I don't feel listened to." Him: "That's not true. Anyway, I have to go."

What this reveals: avoidance is not serenity. It is a form of conflict management in which the person would rather flee than face the issue. In the short term it eases the tension. In the long term it builds up frustration in the partner who feels ignored.

#### Accommodating: "Do whatever you want"

Accommodating is written in quick retreats, unconditional acceptance, even pre-emptive guilt.

Concrete examples:

• You: "I'm upset that you didn't call me yesterday." Him: "You're right, I'm a terrible boyfriend. I'm sorry."


• You: "I'd like us to spend more time together." Him: "Of course, we can do whatever you want." (but without really committing to anything)


• You: "Your friends spoke to me rudely." Him: "I'm so sorry. It's my fault."

What this reveals: someone who accommodates is trying to avoid conflict by submitting. They may seem "nice", but they are erasing themselves. This often creates a dynamic in which the partner feels guilty or, worse, starts taking advantage of that compliance.

#### Compromising: "Let's split the difference"

Compromising is written in proposals for balance, mutual concessions, a willingness to find the middle ground.

Concrete examples:

• You: "I want us to go out this weekend." Him: "I'm tired. What if we went out on Saturday afternoon only?"


• You: "You spend too much time with your friends." Him: "All right. I'll see them once a week instead of twice. Does that work for you?"


• You: "I don't agree with your decision." Him: "OK, let's talk about it again. Maybe we can find a middle ground."

What this reveals: compromise is often seen as the "mature" solution. But be careful: it can also mean that nobody is really satisfied. Each person gives up part of what matters to them. It works for small conflicts (which film to watch), but it is not enough for the deep issues (do you want children?).

#### Collaborating: "Let's look for it together"

Collaborating is written in mutual curiosity, active listening, a willingness to understand before reacting.

Concrete examples:

• You: "I get the feeling you're not listening to me." Him: "Tell me more. What did I say or do that gave you that impression?"


• You: "I'm stressed about our financial situation." Him: "I understand. Let's talk together about what really worries you and what we could do."


• You: "Your jokes hurt me yesterday." Him: "I didn't realise. I'm sorry. Help me understand why."

What this reveals: collaborating does not mean the absence of conflict. It means that the conflict is a problem to be solved together, not a match to be won. It is the hardest style to sustain, but it is also the one that nourishes trust in the long run.

Why writing makes visible what speech hides

A face-to-face argument dissolves into intonation, gestures, interruptions. We remember badly who said what. But a written message stays. It is time-stamped. It accumulates.

Rereading six months of messages with your partner is like watching a fast-forward video of your relationship. The patterns become obvious. You see:

• How many times did you avoid a subject?
• Who systematically accommodates?
• Are there moments when you genuinely collaborate?

Rather than asking yourself "do we communicate well?", you can finally answer: "this is exactly how we communicate. And this is what it produces."

That is why rereading hundreds of messages on your own to identify your patterns can be exhausting and incomplete. The psychological analysis offered by ScanMyLove brings these conflict management styles to light by grounding them in your real conversations. You are no longer interpreting — you are seeing.

Which style do you use? And, above all, does it work?

Here is the key question: no style is "bad" in itself. Each has its place.

• Avoiding can be useful if tension is running very high and the emotions need time to settle.
• Accommodating can be appropriate if the issue is minor and the other person really needs to be heard.
• Competing may be necessary to defend an important boundary.
• Compromising works well for practical decisions.
• Collaborating is ideal for deep issues and chronic conflicts.

The problem: many couples stay stuck in a single style. You always accommodate. He always avoids. And the relationship wears out.

How to use this awareness to change

Identify your dominant style: reread your last three significant conflicts. What is the pattern?

Identify your partner's: do they do the same thing every time?

Understand the impact: if you accommodate and they avoid, you build up frustration. If you are both competing, you never listen to each other.

Try out another style: next time a conflict arises, try collaborating. Ask a curious question instead of defending your point of view. Write: "I really want to understand your perspective. What matters to you in this situation?"

You will see how your partner responds. Often, when one person steps out of the usual pattern, the other follows.

The link with other communication models

As we explored in our article on non-violent communication applied to your messages, the Thomas-Kilmann model fits well with other approaches. While NVC helps you to express your needs without attacking, Thomas-Kilmann shows you how you handle conflict once it is there.

Likewise, if you recognise cognitive distortions in your messages ("You always do the same thing", "I know what you're thinking"), you are probably in competing mode. Identifying the style also helps you see the trapped thoughts that feed it.

When to seek help

If you notice that your relationship is stuck in a dysfunctional style (chronic avoidance, permanent competition, accommodation that drains you), couple therapy can help you break out of the pattern. A CBT psychotherapist can teach you to recognise the moment when you switch into your automatic style and to choose a more suitable response.

This is not manipulation. It is awareness. And it is transformative.

---

Gildas Garrec, CBT psychotherapist in Nantes

To explore your relational dynamic more deeply, visit psychologieetserenite.com.