Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training

Many negotiation courses and executive training programs cover the subject of bargaining styles. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a commonly used psychological assessment tool that helps students and teachers probe this topic. The TKI measures the five conflict management facets proposed by the Dual Concerns Model: competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding. The author has used the TKI extensively in teaching executives about bargaining styles, and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of it as a teaching aid. He also presents research on the frequency with which various TKI scores are reported in business programs. Finally, he provides thumbnail sketches of typical bargaining behavior exhibited by people with very strong and very weak predispositions for each of the five conflict modes. Some implications of these behaviors for specific professional audiences are explored.     

The illicit arms trade: Cold War and Post-Cold War

This article considers the principal changes that haveoccurred in the illicit arms trade across the Cold Warand post-Cold War periods. It discusses the changednature of demand and the sources and means ofillicitly supplying arms to areas of conflict. Througha number of case studies it highlights the declininguse of illicit arms supply as a foreign policy tool,and the extent to which involvement in the trade isnow determined more by profit than policyconsiderations, with all the implications thesechanges have for control initiatives.     

Distributional impact assessments and the record of the Coalition Government: the tyranny of numbers without interpretation

This paper reflects upon the gross discrepancies between the reassurances given in 2010 by the 2010-2015 UK Coalition Government that their budget and welfare cuts would fall ‘fairly’ across the income spectrum, and the reality of what had happened by the end of that government. It asks how the ‘distributional impact assessment’ provided with the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review could have been so wrong. In seeking to answer this question, types of systematic bias are considered along with a discussion of ‘marginality’ in assessments of impact. Drawing upon the role of ‘power’ in impact assessment, it traces the ways in which methodological assumptions can eclipse the real life effects of policies behind ‘the average’ as well as by the unfair selection of the ‘unit-of-analysis’.