The dual concern model was introduced by Blake & Mouton (1964) and later refined by Thomas & Kilmann into 5 styles, Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding and Accommodating, today one of the most widely used frameworks by HR, mediation and coaching professionals worldwide.
The quiz presents 15 realistic workplace conflict scenarios, each with 5 possible responses (one per style). The style you pick most often across the 15 scenarios is your result.
The model measures 2 dimensions, assertiveness (how much you pursue your own interest) and cooperation (how much you pursue the other side's interest), which combine into the 5 styles. Instead of matching by distance between vectors (like the DISC quiz), this quiz counts which style you picked most often across the 15 scenarios, and that becomes your result.
Unlike the DISC or Big Five quizzes, all 15 scenarios are always shown here (only the order of questions and answer choices is shuffled each attempt), a forced-choice questionnaire needs the full set for the style tally to be meaningful.
There is no single "best" style, each of the 5 is the right answer in some context (avoiding a trivial debate is just as valid as collaborating on a major decision). This quiz is our own implementation based on the open academic literature behind the dual concern model, it is not the registered commercial "Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument®".
High assertiveness, low cooperation: facing conflict, you prioritize defending your position and pushing for the outcome you believe is right, even if it means not yielding to what the other side wants. It's the most effective style when a fast, unpopular decision is unavoidable (an emergency, a non-negotiable boundary), but overused, it tends to wear down relationships and makes people stop bringing disagreements to you openly.
High assertiveness, high cooperation: you look for solutions that genuinely serve everyone's interests, even if it takes more time and conversation than a quick agreement. It's the style with the best long-term outcome for important relationships and complex problems, but its cost is time and energy, which makes it impractical for trivial decisions or real emergencies.
Moderate assertiveness and cooperation: you look for a practical middle ground where each side gives up something, prioritizing unblocking the situation over finding the perfect solution. It's the most efficient style when both sides have equal power and time is short, but used as a default for everything, it can settle for "good enough" deals when a genuinely better collaborative solution was within reach.
Low assertiveness, low cooperation: facing conflict, your first instinct is to postpone it, sidestep it, or simply not engage with the topic. It's a smart choice when the issue is too trivial to spend energy on, or when cooling off before discussing will lead to a better conversation, but used as a default, it lets real problems grow unresolved and can read to others as disengagement.
Low assertiveness, high cooperation: you prioritize the other side's interest and the relationship's harmony over your own position in the conflict. It's valuable when the issue matters far more to the other side than to you, or when preserving the relationship is worth more than "winning" that specific point, but used systematically, it tends to make your own needs invisible, and people may stop factoring in your opinion because they know you'll almost always give in.
No. Each style has contexts where it's the right call and risks when overused, competing is useful for an urgent decision but wears down relationships if it's your default for everything; avoiding is wise for trivial issues but lets real problems grow if it becomes a habit.