Conflict Style Quiz

What are the five conflict styles?

Conflict styles describe what you tend to do when what you want clashes with what someone else wants. The best-known model comes from Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, who built on Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's 1964 book The Managerial Grid. Blake and Mouton mapped management styles on two axes, concern for production and concern for people. Thomas and Kilmann turned those into two questions you can ask about any disagreement: how hard are you trying to meet your own concerns (assertiveness), and how hard are you trying to meet the other person's (cooperativeness)?

Crossing the two gives five modes. Competing is assertive and uncooperative, and accommodating is the reverse. Avoiding is low on both, collaborating is high on both, and compromising sits in the middle. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument appeared in 1974, and the 1977 paper describing its development tackled a real problem: on earlier questionnaires, people tended to pick the collaborative-sounding answers simply because they sounded best. The TKI pairs statements of similar appeal to reduce that bias. Other researchers arrived at a closely related set of five. M. Afzalur Rahim's 1983 measure calls them integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising.

The core idea is that no style is best everywhere. Each one is a tool, and the right choice depends on how much the issue matters to you, how much it matters to the other person, and how much you value the relationship. Research supports this. In a field study of work teams dealing with personal friction, De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) found that avoiding those conflicts went with better teamwork and effectiveness than either collaborating or contending, apparently because it kept people focused on the work. In two studies of newlyweds, McNulty and Russell (2010) found that blunt behaviors like blaming and demanding change predicted falling satisfaction when a couple's problems were minor, but steadier satisfaction when the problems were serious, partly because those problems got smaller.

Two common myths follow from this. Collaborating is not automatically the mature choice. It's slow and needs a willing partner, so using it on every small issue wears people out. And avoiding and accommodating aren't signs of weakness: letting a minor thing go, or giving way when something matters more to the other person, is often the wisest move. Trouble starts when one style becomes the only one you use. Most people lean on one or two out of habit, and the real skill is noticing when a situation calls for a different one.

How this quiz works

You'll read 12 everyday disagreements set at work, with friends, partners, family, roommates and group projects. Each comes with five answers, one for each conflict style, shown in random order. Every answer you pick adds one point to its style, so each style can score up to 12. Your result is the style with the most points, and the bars show your full mix, which often says more than the top label. If two styles tie, the one you picked most recently wins, so read both descriptions. This is an original quiz inspired by the Thomas-Kilmann model. It isn't the official Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), and it hasn't been validated as a psychological test.

All 5 results

• Competing: The Direct Advocate

  You say what you need, clearly and early, and you're willing to hold the line.

  Competing means pursuing your own concerns firmly, even when the other person doesn't get what they want. In real conversations it sounds like “I need the file by noon,” “I can't sign off on this,” or “That joke crossed a line, please drop it.” You'd rather have a short, uncomfortable talk now than a long resentment later, and people rarely have to guess where they stand with you. The style often grows out of experience: you've learned that hints get ignored and that some things, like deadlines, safety and fairness, are worth defending. The cost shows up when everything gets treated like a deadline. Check your mix: if collaborating comes second, you probably push hard on the goal but stay open about how to get there.

• Collaborating: The Problem Solver

  You want the answer that works for both of you, not just a winner.

  Collaborating means being assertive and cooperative at the same time. You put your needs on the table, dig into the other person's, and look for an option that fully works for both. It sounds like “Help me understand what's behind that,” “What if we tried something neither of us has suggested?” or “Let's list everything that's bugging us and sort it out.” You treat a disagreement as a puzzle with more than two pieces. When it works, both people feel heard and the fix tends to last, because it was built from both sides. The catch is cost. Collaborating takes time, energy and a partner willing to do the same work. A low avoiding score can be a clue that you call for a full sit-down when a shrug would have done.

• Compromising: The Deal Maker

  You find a fair middle quickly so everyone can move on.

  Compromising sits in the middle of both dimensions. You give up something and ask the other person to do the same, aiming for a split that's fair enough and fast. It sounds like “How about half now, half next month?” “You pick the restaurant, I'll pick the movie,” or “Let's alternate holidays.” You're practical. Most disagreements don't need a perfect solution, and you'd rather settle on something workable than drag it out, so people tend to find you reasonable and easy to deal with. The tradeoff is that a quick split can leave both people a little short, and it can skip the question of what each person really needed. Look at your second style: paired with collaborating, you split only after a real look; paired with avoiding, you may split mainly to end the discomfort.

• Avoiding: The Battle Picker

  You save your energy for the fights that are worth it.

  Avoiding means not pursuing the conflict, at least for now. You might let a comment pass, wait for a calmer moment, or decide an issue will sort itself out. It sounds like “Let's talk about it tomorrow,” “It's not worth it,” or a quiet change of subject. Often you're reading the situation well: tempers are high, the timing is wrong, or the issue is too small to spend goodwill on. Plenty of friction really does fade without a showdown, and you spare yourself and others a lot of drama. The risk comes when important issues go in the “later” pile and stay there. Problems can grow in the meantime, and the other person may not even know something's wrong. If accommodating is your second style, you may be putting other people's comfort ahead of your own needs more often than you realize.

• Accommodating: The Goodwill Builder

  When it matters more to them, you give way gracefully.

  Accommodating means setting your own concerns aside so the other person gets what they need. It sounds like “Sure, let's do it your way,” “No worries, we'll reschedule,” or “Go ahead, this matters more to you.” You notice what people care about and you're willing to give when an issue weighs more for them than for you. That makes you easy to live and work with, and it quietly builds goodwill. It's also the smart move when you realize you're wrong, or when the relationship matters more than the outcome. The cost appears when giving way becomes automatic. Needs you never voice don't disappear; they tend to come back later as resentment or exhaustion. If competing sits near the bottom of your mix, practicing small, clear requests may be your biggest growth area.

Frequently asked questions

What are the five conflict management styles?

Competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. They come from crossing two dimensions: assertiveness, or how much you push for your own concerns, and cooperativeness, or how much you try to meet the other person's. Competing is high on the first and low on the second, accommodating is the reverse, avoiding is low on both, collaborating is high on both, and compromising sits in the middle.

Is this the Thomas-Kilmann (TKI) test?

No. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is a copyrighted, paid assessment built from 30 pairs of statements. This quiz uses the same five-mode model, but its scenarios are original and written around everyday life. It's meant for reflection and conversation. If your workplace needs a validated assessment for training, use the official instrument through an authorized provider.

What is the best conflict style?

There isn't one. Competing suits emergencies and ethical lines. Collaborating suits high-stakes decisions you'll both live with. Compromising suits time pressure between equals. Avoiding suits trivial issues and heated moments, and accommodating suits issues that matter more to the other person. The useful skill is switching styles on purpose instead of by habit.

Is avoiding conflict always bad?

No. Letting small issues pass, or waiting until everyone has calmed down, is often the smartest choice. In one field study of work teams, avoiding personal friction went with better teamwork than hashing it out. Avoiding becomes a problem when important issues sit in the “later” pile for months, or when the other person can't fix something they don't know about.

What's the difference between compromising and collaborating?

Compromising splits the difference: each person gives something up and you meet in the middle, usually fast. Collaborating looks for an option that gives both people what they really need, which means digging into why each of you wants what you want. Collaborating can produce a better result, but it takes more time and a willing partner. When you're short on both, compromising is the practical choice.

Can your conflict style change?

Yes. Your result reflects your habits and the situations you're in right now, not a fixed trait. Ralph Kilmann, who co-created the TKI, stresses that everyone is capable of using all five modes, and many people use different styles at work and at home. Retaking this quiz with one specific person in mind, like your boss or your partner, can show you where you shift.

Sources and further reading

1. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid: Key Orientations for Achieving Production through People. Gulf Publishing.
2. Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 309–325.
3. Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.
4. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328.
5. McNulty, J. K., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects of problem-solving behaviors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 587–604.
6. Kilmann, R. H. An Overview of the TKI Assessment Tool. Kilmann Diagnostics.

This quiz is for self-reflection, not a validated assessment or a diagnosis. The styles assume a disagreement between people who are safe with each other; if someone threatens, controls or hurts you, your safety comes first, and a local support service or counselor can help.