Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Mar;2(1):118-25.
doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-09-00048.1.

The Associations Between Residents' Behavior and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument

Dotun Ogunyemi, Susie Fong, Geoff Elmore, Devra Korwin, Ricardo Azziz

The Associations Between Residents' Behavior and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument

Dotun Ogunyemi et al. J Grad Med Educ. 2010 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: To assess if the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument predicts residents' performance.

Study design: Nineteen residents were assessed on the Thomas-Kilmann conflict modes of competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding. Residents were classified as contributors (n = 6) if they had administrative duties or as concerning (n = 6) if they were on remediation for academic performance and/or professionalism. Data were compared to faculty evaluations on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies. P value of < .05 was considered significant.

Results: Contributors had significantly higher competing scores (58% versus 17%; P = .01), with lower accommodating (50% versus 81%; P 5 .01) and avoiding (32% versus 84%; P = .01) scores; while concerning residents had significantly lower collaborating scores (10% versus 31%; P = .01), with higher avoiding (90% versus 57%; P = .006) and accommodating (86% versus 65%; P = .03) scores. There were significant positive correlations between residents' collaborating scores with faculty ACGME competency evaluations of medical knowledge, communication skills, problem-based learning, system-based practice, and professionalism. There were also positive significant correlations between compromising scores and faculty evaluations of problem-based learning and professionalism with negative significant correlations between avoiding scores and faculty evaluations of problem-based learning, communication skills and professionalism.

Conclusions: Residents who successfully execute administrative duties are likely to have a Thomas-Kilmann profile high in collaborating and competing but low in avoiding and accommodating. Residents who have problems adjusting are likely to have the opposite profile. The profile seems to predict faculty evaluation on the ACGME competencies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The 5 Conflict Styles Graded on 2 Dimensions: Assertiveness and Cooperativeness. (Source: Figure adapted from Thomas [1976]).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean Percentiles of Residents on Conflict Styles (n  =  19)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Stevahn L., King J. A. Managing conflict constructively in program evaluation. Evaluation. 2005;11(4):415.
    1. Spector P. E. Introduction: conflict in organizations. J Organ Behav. 2008;29:3–4.
    1. Blake R. R., Mouton J. S. Solving Costly Organization Conflict. San Francisco, CA:: Jossey-Bass; 1964.
    1. Kilmann R. H., Thomas K. W. Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the “Mode” instrument. Educ Psychol Meas. 1977;37(2):309–325.
    1. Thomas K. W. Conflict and conflict management. In: Dunnette M. D., editor. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL:: Rand-McNally; 1976. pp. 889–935.

LinkOut - more resources