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 article 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. It’s a reworking of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton’s managerial grid (1964), which called this style forcing.

The competing style combines high assertiveness with low cooperation: it prioritizes getting the outcome you consider right, even if that means the other person has to give in.

It’s different from the compromising style, which also defends its position but is willing to give up part of it in exchange for settling the disagreement sooner.

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 issues where a wrong solution has real consequences, or when you’re right about something important and giving in just to keep the peace would be costly. The nuance isn’t whether competing is good or bad, but when it’s 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 halfway solution.
• You don’t give in easily even if the other person insists, if you consider your argument solid.
• You act decisively when a clear, quick stance is needed.

What the research separates: firmness and hostility

In Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin’s dual concern model (1986), imposing yourself (contending) is the expected strategy when you care a lot about your own outcome and little about the other person’s. The meta-analysis by Carsten De Dreu, Laurie Weingart and Seungwoo Kwon (2000), covering 28 studies, clarifies which part of that mix is useful: resisting concessions improved joint agreements when it came with a prosocial motive, while with a purely selfish motive negotiations became more contentious.

Put another way, the competitor’s firmness isn’t what wears things down; what wears things down is applying it without any interest in what the other person needs.

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 which restaurant to pick with the same intensity as an important decision turns every disagreement into a test of strength, and that has a cumulative cost in the trust and comfort of the bond.

Choosing which battles to fight

Before jumping fully into an argument, the question “is this worth competing over?” helps reserve this style for what really matters.

If the issue is minor, another style (collaborating, finding a middle ground, even giving in) tends to preserve the relationship better without 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: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, identify two classic traps in any negotiation: being “soft” (giving in to avoid conflict and ending up feeling taken advantage of) or being “hard” (clinging to an extreme position and attacking the other’s, damaging the relationship in the process). The competing style, taken to the extreme, is that second trap.

The authors propose a third way: being “hard on the merits, soft on the people,” defending your position firmly without turning the discussion into a personal attack.

They also describe what they call “negotiation jujitsu”: when the other side attacks or digs into their position, the effective response isn’t to hit back or harden your own stance, but to sidestep the attack by redirecting it toward the problem and toward exploring what each side really 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.

Sources

• Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing.
• De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R. and Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889-905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889
• Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Pruitt, D. G. and Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. Random House.
• Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.