Free Conflict Resolution
Style Test
Discover how you naturally handle conflict. Assess your approach across 5 conflict styles: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. Based on the Thomas-Kilmann model. 30 research-backed questions. Instant results.
Start the Test — FreeCore concept
Conflict resolution styles are characteristic patterns in how you respond to disagreement or opposition. Psychologists Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five fundamental approaches that people use when facing conflict, each reflecting different balances of assertiveness (pursuing your own concerns) and cooperativeness (attending to others’ concerns). Your conflict style is not fixed — it varies by context, relationship and stakes. However, you typically favour certain patterns. Understanding your primary style helps explain your relationship dynamics, workplace effectiveness and why certain conflicts feel particularly challenging. More importantly, recognising your style opens the door to flexibility — learning to use different approaches in different situations.
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKMI), developed in 1974, has become the gold standard for assessing conflict styles. It is used extensively in organisational development, management training, coaching and mediation. Decades of research have validated the model across cultures and contexts. The five styles represent a continuum of human responses to conflict — no style is inherently good or bad. Each has advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation. Effectiveness in conflict comes not from having one dominant style, but from flexibility — knowing which approach serves the situation best.
Competing
Assertive, uncooperative. Pursuing your own concerns at the expense of others. Win-lose orientation.
Collaborating
Assertive, cooperative. Working to find solutions that satisfy everyone. Win-win orientation.
Compromising
Moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperation. Each party gives up something. No-win, no-lose.
Avoiding
Unassertive, uncooperative. Withdrawing or postponing. Does not address the conflict.
Accommodating
Unassertive, cooperative. Yielding to others’ concerns. Others-first orientation.
Competing means asserting your position strongly while showing little concern for the other person’s needs. You pursue your goals directly, stand firm on your values and are willing to win at others’ expense. Competing is effective in emergencies, when speed is critical, or when you have expert knowledge others lack. However, overuse damages relationships and creates resentment. Competitors often win individual battles but lose the war of long-term relationships.
Collaborating means working actively to find solutions that satisfy everyone. You assert your needs while remaining deeply concerned with others’ needs. This requires open communication, creative problem-solving and time. Collaborating produces the strongest long-term relationships and most durable solutions, but requires trust, willingness from all parties and adequate time. It is the most difficult style to execute but the most rewarding.
Compromising means both parties give up something to reach middle ground. It is the classic “split the difference” approach. Compromising works when time is limited, when parties have equal power, or when a quick decision is needed. However, compromise often leaves everyone partially dissatisfied, and no one gets what they truly need. It is better than avoiding but inferior to true collaboration when stakes are high.
Avoiding means withdrawing from conflict, changing the subject or postponing discussion. You neither assert your concerns nor show concern for others. Avoiding is appropriate when stakes are low, when emotions are too high for productive discussion, or when you need time to gather information. However, chronic avoiding allows problems to fester, builds resentment and often signals disengagement. Some conflicts require direct addressing.
Accommodating means prioritising others’ needs over your own. You are cooperative but not assertive. Accommodating builds goodwill and harmony in the moment, but often leaves your legitimate needs unmet. Over time, accommodating can breed resentment and undermine self-respect. It is appropriate when the issue matters more to the other person, when you are wrong, or when maintaining the relationship is more important than the specific outcome.
Rate each statement on a 5-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. Think about your typical response to disagreement or conflict.
What your scores mean
Dominant style (highest score): This is your default response to conflict. It reflects your habitual approach and what feels most natural under stress.
Secondary styles: You may show meaningful levels of other styles depending on context, relationship and stakes. This flexibility is valuable.
Underdeveloped styles: Lower scores suggest you rarely use these approaches. Developing greater range in these areas can increase your effectiveness.
The most important insight from your results is this: there is no universally “best” conflict style. Effectiveness depends on context. A leader needs to compete in emergencies, collaborate on strategic decisions, compromise on resource allocation, accommodate loyal team members and sometimes avoid low-stakes disagreements. The goal is not to have one dominant style but to develop flexibility — the ability to choose the right approach for each situation.