The Management of Differences Inventory<\/strong> (MODI), developed by Herbert S. Kindler<\/a> in 1981, is an ipsative psychometric assessment designed to evaluate individual behavioral predispositions and strategic styles in managing interpersonal, operational, and organizational disagreements. Grounded in organizational psychology and managerial decision-making theory, the MODI provides a diagnostic typology of how individuals navigate situations where viewpoints diverge among interdependent stakeholders. Built upon empirical investigations involving over 200 practicing managers, the inventory identifies two foundational psychometric dimensions: viewpoint flexibility<\/em> (the degree to which an actor treats their own position as malleable versus fixed, reflecting openness to new data and learning) and interaction intensity<\/em> (the degree of personal engagement, emotional investment, and relational energy deployed in resolving the divergence). By cross-referencing these two axes, Kindler conceptualized a nine-strategy conflict landscape encompassing: Maintain<\/em>, Smooth<\/em>, Dominate<\/em>, Decide by Rule<\/em>, Coexist<\/em>, Bargain<\/em>, Yield<\/em>, Release<\/em>, and Collaborate<\/em>. The instrument comprises 36 paired-statement items presented in a forced-distribution (ipsative) allocation format, where respondents divide three points between two behavioral alternatives to indicate relative behavioral frequency. Psychometric evaluations of the MODI demonstrate adequate construct validity, meaningful convergence with established dual-concern instruments such as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument<\/a> (TKI) and the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II), and acceptable test-retest reliability across organizational cohorts. This article provides a comprehensive academic overview of the instrument’s structural dimensions, theoretical foundations, psychometric profile, scoring mechanisms, and operational applications in executive coaching, team optimization, and managerial research.<\/p>\n Management of Differences Inventory, MODI, conflict management, viewpoint flexibility, interaction intensity, conflict resolution styles, organizational behavior, managerial decision-making, ipsative measurement, psychometrics<\/p>\n The Management of Differences Inventory was authored by Herbert S. Kindler, Ph.D.<\/strong>, an organizational psychologist, management consultant, and former Director of the Center for Management Effectiveness located in Pacific Palisades, California. Kindler served as an executive and scholar focused on strategic conflict processing, interpersonal dynamics, and systemic organizational change. His research concentrated on expanding conventional five-style conflict paradigms into nuanced behavioral frameworks applicable to managerial contexts. During his career, Kindler authored several influential management development instruments and monographs exploring dispute resolution, emotional modulation in professional negotiation, and systemic problem-solving. Correspondence regarding historical archival materials has traditionally been directed through the Center for Management Effectiveness or academic research repositories tracking late 20th-century psychometric instrumentation.<\/p>\n The primary objective of the Management of Differences Inventory (MODI) is to diagnose, profile, and elevate self-awareness regarding an individual’s behavioral repertoire when confronted with interpersonal disagreement and organizational conflict. Differences in values, objectives, informational interpretations, and procedural preferences are endemic to modern organizations. While classical conflict theories frequently framed divergence as inherently dysfunctional or restricted dispute resolution to reductive win-lose binaries, modern organizational behavior recognizes that differences serve as the raw material for innovation, critical risk mitigation, and systemic organizational learning when managed constructively.<\/p>\n The MODI was constructed to address specific diagnostic and developmental needs within organizational settings:<\/p>\n By moving beyond the traditional five-mode conflict framework popularized by Blake and Mouton or Thomas and Kilmann, the MODI’s theoretical rationale posits that nine distinct strategies are necessary to capture tactical nuances commonly practiced in management\u2014such as rule-based governance, systemic coexistence, and purposeful release of control.<\/p>\n The construct underlying the MODI is operationalized as the systematic behavioral and cognitive orientation an individual adopts when their objectives, values, or methods clash with those of another interdependent party. Rather than conceptualizing conflict management as a single personality trait, Kindler conceptualized it as a multidimensional behavioral space defined by two orthogonal axes:<\/p>\n Viewpoint flexibility reflects the psychological malleability of an individual’s cognitive schema regarding a given dispute. It captures an individual’s willingness to modify, adjust, or abandon their initial perspective based upon the introduction of new empirical evidence, stakeholder rationale, or collaborative synthesis. High viewpoint flexibility indicates low dogmatism, epistemic humility, and high openness to cognitive restructuring; low viewpoint flexibility indicates ideological firmness, adherence to predetermined solutions, and resistance to altering one’s stance.<\/p>\n Interaction intensity reflects the behavioral energy, emotional involvement, and interpersonal engagement directed toward addressing the divergence. High interaction intensity is marked by direct, proactive, and potentially demanding communication, comprehensive emotional expression, and deep interpersonal involvement. Low interaction intensity is characterized by psychological distancing, procedural detachment, emotional containment, deliberate non-engagement, or tactical patience.<\/p>\n By interacting these two continua, the MODI establishes nine distinct behavioral styles for managing differences:<\/p>\n The MODI is situated at the nexus of several foundational paradigms in organizational psychology<\/a> and sociological conflict theory. Its conceptual lineage is linked to three major theoretical traditions:<\/p>\n The direct intellectual progenitor of the MODI is the classic work by Schmidt and Tannenbaum (1960)<\/a>, titled “Management of Differences”<\/em>. Schmidt and Tannenbaum argued that disagreement is a natural byproduct of organizational life that can either deteriorate into destructive conflict or be leveraged into dynamic problem-solving. They asserted that managers require diagnostic insight to evaluate when differences stem from informational gaps, cognitive interpretations, goal conflicts, or underlying value incongruities, adjusting their leadership behaviors accordingly.<\/p>\n The inventory integrates the episodic organizational conflict framework formulated by Pondy (1967)<\/a>. Pondy posited that conflict is a dynamic process consisting of latent conditions, perceived conflict, felt emotional tension, manifest behavior, and conflict aftermath. Kindler\u2019s MODI captures the transition from felt tension to manifest behavior, offering diagnostic clarity on how an actor channels cognitive discrepancies into operational choices.<\/p>\n The modern study of conflict styles has long been dominated by the Dual-Concern Model, rooted in the Managerial Grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964)<\/a>, and refined by Thomas and Kilmann (1974)<\/a> and Rahim (1983)<\/a>. The traditional dual-concern framework maps conflict handling along two vectors: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (cooperativeness), producing five classic modes: Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, and Accommodating.<\/p>\n Kindler, drawing also on Filley’s (1978)<\/a> normative critiques of conflict resolution, recognized that the classical five-style taxonomy, while parsimonious, collapsed diverse behavioral mechanics into overgeneralized categories. For instance, the classic “Avoiding” mode conflated cognitive delay (waiting for information), procedural rule reliance (letting policy dictate the outcome), and structural independence (agreeing to coexist). By re-anchoring the dimensions in viewpoint flexibility<\/em> and interaction intensity<\/em>, Kindler generated a 3 \u00d7 3 matrix that expanded the taxonomy to nine distinct, actionable managerial behaviors.<\/p>\n Psychometric validation of the Management of Differences Inventory has encompassed construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related analyses across managerial and professional cohorts.<\/p>\n Initial construct development was grounded in qualitative and quantitative data collected from over 200 practicing managers who were asked to describe their concrete behavioral preparations when confronting high-stakes workplace disagreements. Systematic thematic coding and item-generation procedures supported the structural distinctiveness of viewpoint flexibility and interaction intensity. Exploratory analyses have confirmed that items load consistently onto the theoretical behavioral descriptions designed to reflect high, moderate, and low manifestations of both core axes.<\/p>\n Correlational research linking the MODI to established psychometric measures provides evidence of convergent validity:<\/p>\n In applied organizational research, MODI style profiles have exhibited predictive utility regarding group problem-solving efficacy, executive decision-making speed, and self-reported team psychological safety. Managers demonstrating higher tactical flexibility (i.e., the capacity to mobilize diverse approaches beyond their primary default style depending on contextual urgency) consistently achieve superior 360-degree leadership effectiveness ratings compared to managers who rely rigidly on unilateral domination or passive maintenance.<\/p>\n Evaluating the reliability of ipsative, forced-distribution instruments presents distinct statistical considerations compared to standard Likert-scale inventories. Because respondents allocate a constant sum (three points) across pairs of statements, item scores are interdependent, which tends to artificially depress traditional internal consistency metrics such as raw Cronbach’s alpha.<\/p>\n Empirical evaluations of the MODI report the following reliability parameters:<\/p>\n The latent structure of the MODI reflects Kindler\u2019s hypothesized two-dimensional orthogonal model. Factor analyses of ipsative instruments require specialized psychometric methodologies, such as factoring ipsative covariance matrices via compositional data analysis or Thurstonian IRT modeling, to prevent mathematical artifacts stemming from negative item intercorrelations.<\/p>\n Empirical analyses of the MODI structure reveal:<\/p>\n Permissible allocations per pair:<\/em> (3-0), (2-1), (1-2), or (0-3). The sum of points allocated to Option A and Option B for any single item pair must always equal 3.<\/li>\n The Management of Differences Inventory was originally published and copyrighted in 1981<\/strong> by Dr. Herbert S. Kindler through the Center for Management Effectiveness<\/em> (Pacific Palisades, California). The instrument was distributed commercially as a diagnostic booklet accompanied by self-scoring sheets, visual profile grids, and interpretive development guides. Commercial rights, organizational training packages, and licensing agreements have historically been administered by the publisher or designated leadership consulting distributors. For non-commercial academic research, psychometric validation, and educational study, researchers must obtain formal permission from the copyright holder or cite historical archival sources in accordance with fair-use and professional ethical guidelines for psychological testing.<\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Viewpoint Flexibility<\/h3>\n
2. Interaction Intensity<\/h3>\n
\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
1. The Management of Differences Paradigm<\/h3>\n
2. Structural Models of Conflict Episodics<\/h3>\n
3. The Expansion of Dual-Concern Theory<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Factorial Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n