The Competing Conflict Style: Prioritizing the Outcome

The competing style prioritizes the outcome over the relationship: it wins the argument, though it doesn’t always win the bond.

This quiz is part of an informational series on conflict management, based on a classic academic model from social psychology. It’s meant for informational purposes and doesn’t replace guidance from a professional.

A two-dimensional model

The academic model behind this quiz, developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in 1974, describes interpersonal conflict along two independent dimensions: how much you care about defending your own position (assertiveness) and how much you care about maintaining cooperation with the other person. The competing style combines high assertiveness with low cooperation: it prioritizes getting the outcome you consider correct, even if that means the other person has to give in.

When it works

Firmness isn’t a flaw in itself. This style is genuinely useful in urgent decisions where there’s no time for a long process, on high-stakes topics where the wrong solution has real consequences, or when you’re right about something important and giving in just to keep the peace would cost dearly. The nuance isn’t whether competing is good or bad, it’s when it gets applied.

How it shows up

• You defend your position to the end when you believe it’s right, without giving in just to avoid discomfort.
• You’d rather win the argument than settle for a half-solution.
• You don’t give in easily even when the other person insists, if you think your argument is solid.
• You act decisively when a clear, fast decision is called for.

The cost of competing too much

Used systematically, even on low-stakes topics, this style can wear down relationships that didn’t need a winner and a loser. Arguing over choosing a restaurant with the same intensity as an important decision turns every disagreement into a test of strength, and that has a cumulative cost to the trust and comfort of the bond.

Your growth edge

Before diving fully into an argument, asking yourself “is this worth competing over?” helps you reserve this style for what really matters. If the answer is that the topic is minor, another style (collaborating, compromising, even giving in) will probably preserve the relationship better without you losing anything essential.

The risk of falling into “hard” negotiation

Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, of the Harvard Negotiation Project, in Getting to Yes, distinguish two classic traps in any negotiation: being “soft” (giving in to avoid conflict, ending up feeling taken advantage of) or being “hard” (clinging to an extreme position, attacking the other side’s, damaging the relationship in the process). The competing style, taken to the extreme, is exactly that second trap. The authors propose a third way: being “hard on the merits of the problem and soft on the people,” defending your position firmly without turning the discussion into a personal attack. They also describe what they call “negotiation jiu-jitsu”: when the other side attacks or clings to their position, the effective response isn’t to strike back or dig in further, but to sidestep the attack by redirecting it toward the problem and toward exploring what each side actually needs. Applying that firmness without turning it into confrontation is what separates an effective competitor from one who wins the battle and loses the relationship.

Do you recognize yourself in this style? Find out with the conflict management style quiz.