What is your actual conflict style?
Most people default to one or two conflict modes without ever realising it. The question everyone asks after an argument is "was I the asshole?" The more useful question is: what pattern do you default to, and is it working? The Thomas-Kilmann model, used with over 7 million people worldwide, maps your conflict behaviour to five data-backed modes and shows how your style compares to the population.
What is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument?
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a psychological assessment developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the 1970s. It identifies five ways people handle conflict based on two dimensions: assertiveness (concern for your own needs) and cooperativeness (concern for the other person). The five modes are Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperation), Collaborating (high on both), Compromising (moderate on both), Avoiding (low on both), and Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperation). The TKI has been administered to over 7 million people worldwide.
What is the most common conflict style?
Avoiding is the most common primary conflict style at approximately 30% of the general population, meaning nearly 1 in 3 people defaults to sidestepping disagreement. Compromising follows at roughly 22%, Competing at 18%, Accommodating at 16%, and Collaborating at 14%. Collaborating is the most effective long-term mode per research, but also the least instinctive under pressure. It requires time, emotional energy, and genuine curiosity about the other person's perspective.
Frequently asked questions
Research consistently identifies Collaborating as the most effective style for producing durable outcomes and maintaining relationship quality. However, no single mode is appropriate for every situation. Competing is right in emergencies. Accommodating is appropriate when the issue matters far more to the other person. Avoiding is reasonable for trivial disagreements or when emotions are too high. Compromising works well under time pressure. Effective conflict handling means having access to all five modes and choosing the right one for the context. (Source: Thomas & Kilmann 1974; De Dreu & Weingart 2003)
When a person avoids raising an issue, the issue does not disappear. It accumulates. Small unresolved grievances compound until they surface as disproportionate emotional reactions to minor triggers. Gottman's longitudinal research on couples found that avoidance strongly predicts "stonewalling," one of the Four Horsemen behaviours associated with relationship breakdown. The Avoiding style also tends to leave the other person feeling dismissed, which can trigger Competing behaviour in response, creating a pursue-withdraw dynamic that is one of the most destructive patterns in romantic relationships. (Source: Gottman & Silver 1999; Rahim 2002)
Compromising means both parties give something up to reach a middle ground. Collaborating means both parties work together to find a solution where neither has to sacrifice their core need. The classic example: two people want an orange. A compromise splits it in half. Collaboration asks why each person wants the orange, discovers one wants the juice and the other wants the zest, so both can have 100% of what they need. Compromising is faster but trains both parties to expect partial satisfaction. Collaborating takes longer but produces durable outcomes. (Source: Thomas & Kilmann 1974)
Approximately 30% of the general population defaults to the Avoiding mode as their primary conflict style, making it the most common single style identified by the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Avoiding means sidestepping conflict entirely, either by withdrawing from situations or by postponing disagreements indefinitely. This style is not inherently problematic: avoiding a trivial argument is sensible. The cost accumulates when avoiding becomes the automatic response regardless of stakes, because unresolved issues build resentment and eventually surface in disproportionate ways. If this resonates, the people-pleasing quiz measures related patterns of conflict avoidance and approval dependency.
Only approximately 14% of the general population has Collaborating as their primary conflict mode, making it the least common default style despite being consistently identified in research as the most effective long-term approach. Collaborating requires both high assertiveness (standing firm on what you need) and high cooperativeness (genuine interest in what the other person needs), which demands significant emotional energy and time. Under pressure, most people revert to faster, less demanding modes such as Compromising or Avoiding. The finding that the best approach is the rarest instinct is one of the key insights from the TKI research. (Source: Holt & DeVore 2005)
Yes, with modest but consistent effects. Meta-analysis by Holt and DeVore (2005) found that men score slightly higher on Competing (22% vs 14% primary mode) while women score slightly higher on Compromising (24% vs 20%) and Avoiding (32% vs 28%). Effect sizes are small (d=0.08 to 0.28), meaning there is enormous overlap between genders and individual variation far exceeds the gender difference. Cultural context, organisational role, and the specific relationship both moderate and sometimes reverse these patterns entirely. The quiz accounts for gender in the population comparison if you choose to provide it.
Yes. The Thomas-Kilmann model treats conflict mode as situational behaviour, not fixed personality. Most people have a primary mode they default to under pressure, but with awareness and practice, they can learn to access other modes deliberately. Cognitive behavioural approaches help identify the automatic thoughts that trigger particular conflict responses. Couples therapy and workplace conflict coaching both focus on expanding the repertoire of conflict modes available. Research on personality change also shows that conscientiousness and agreeableness, the traits most closely linked to conflict behaviour, increase naturally with age and can be accelerated through targeted practice.
According to the CPP Global Human Capital Report (2008), 85% of employees deal with conflict at work, spending an average of 2.8 hours per week on it. 27% have seen conflict lead to personal attacks, 25% have called in sick to avoid conflict, and 18% have seen someone leave because of it. The estimated average cost of workplace conflict per employee per year in the US is $359 in direct costs, not including the harder-to-measure costs of disengagement, reduced creativity, and team dysfunction. The most conflict-intensive workplaces are those where one or two Competing-dominant individuals set the tone for how disagreement is handled.
- Thomas KW, Kilmann RH. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). CPP / The Myers-Briggs Company. 1974, revised 2007.
- Holt JL, DeVore CJ. Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2005;29(2):165-196.
- CPP. Global Human Capital Report: Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Thrive. 2008.
- De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(4):741-749.