This test measures your style in a negotiation or disagreement: how much you prioritize your own outcome over the other person's, and how you combine both.
That's 16 statements (4 minutes). Answer based on how you usually act, not one specific negotiation.
All possible results
Competing Negotiator
You prioritize your own outcome: you defend your position firmly, even at the cost of some tension.
People with this profile (speculative attribution):
- John McEnroe
See the detail
“Prioritizes your own outcome, even if that means some tension.”
High concern for yourself, low for the other side
According to the dual concern model of negotiation, this style combines high concern for your own outcomes with low concern for the other side's. It isn't gratuitous aggression: it's a negotiating style focused on not giving up more than necessary.
How to spot it
- You defend your position firmly, even if it creates some tension.
- It's hard for you to settle for an outcome that isn't the one you were after.
- You prioritize winning over an evenly split result.
The cost of always winning
This style works well in one-off negotiations, but it can wear down relationships that need to last. Weighing whether the bond with the other party matters in the long run is a factor Thomas and Kilmann (1974) tie to knowing when to compete and when to give some ground, though every situation differs.
Collaborative Negotiator
You look for solutions that benefit both sides: you understand the other side's interests before proposing anything.
People with this profile (speculative attribution):
- Nelson Mandela
See the detail
“Looks for a solution where the other side wins too, not just you.”
High concern for both sides at once
This style combines high concern for your own outcomes with high concern for the other side's: instead of splitting what's on the table, you look to grow what's on the table so both sides come out ahead of expectations.
How it shows up
- You actively look for a solution that benefits both sides, even if it takes longer.
- You'd rather understand the other side's interests before proposing anything.
- You put in the time to find a creative solution that satisfies everyone.
When the other side doesn't play the same way
Collaboration takes time and good faith from both sides: in one-off negotiations or with someone who isn't very cooperative, this style can end up at a disadvantage. Recognizing when the other side isn't playing by the same rules is something Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1981) associate with adjusting your approach in time, though it depends on the situation.
Accommodating Negotiator
You prioritize the relationship over the outcome: you give in easily to keep things harmonious with the other side.
People with this profile (speculative attribution):
- Fred Rogers
See the detail
“Prioritizes the relationship over the specific outcome.”
The bond matters more than winning
This style combines low concern for your own outcomes with high concern for the other side's: the bond matters more than winning the negotiation itself, and you're willing to give in to keep it intact.
How it shows up in practice
- You tend to give in to keep the relationship on good terms, even if it's not what suits you most.
- You'd rather let the other person get their way than create conflict.
- You prioritize the bond over the specific outcome.
The imbalance that builds up
Consistently giving in can create an imbalance that, over time, weighs on you or on the relationship itself. Voicing disagreement on what truly matters doesn't always put the bond at risk, and Dale Carnegie even links it to strengthening it, though the outcome depends a lot on the specific relationship and context.
Avoidant Negotiator
You'd rather sidestep conflict: you postpone or avoid the negotiation instead of tackling it head-on.
People with this profile (speculative attribution):
- Sun Tzu
See the detail
“Would rather postpone than face conflict head-on.”
Low concern for both sides
This style combines low concern for your own outcomes with low concern for the other side's: it isn't about giving in or competing, it's about withdrawing from the situation whenever possible.
Common signs
- You'd rather postpone or dodge a negotiation than tackle it head-on.
- You avoid conflict whenever you can, even if something is left unresolved.
- You sometimes let an important issue slide just to avoid the discomfort of negotiating it.
What comes back with more weight
Avoidance makes sense when the issue is minor or things need to cool down, but if it's the default every time, the unresolved matter usually comes back, and with more weight. Consciously telling those moments apart from the ones worth facing is a distinction Thomas and Kilmann (1974) find useful, though it depends on the situation.
Compromising Negotiator
You look for a reasonable middle ground for both sides: you give up something in exchange for the other side giving up something too.
People with this profile (speculative attribution):
- Abraham Lincoln
See the detail
“Would rather have a reasonable, quick deal than an ideal, slow one.”
The middle ground as the goal
This style sits at a middle level of concern for both sides: you don't win everything or give up everything, you look for a balanced split that resolves the situation without dragging it out longer than necessary.
How it plays out in practice
- You'd rather reach a quick middle ground than drag out the negotiation.
- You're willing to give up something if the other side gives up something too.
- You prioritize closing with an acceptable deal over chasing the optimal one.
The better solution left unexplored
Reaching a middle ground quickly sometimes leaves a better, more creative solution on the table, one neither side got around to exploring. In important negotiations, spending a bit more time before settling for the first reasonable middle ground is something Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1981) find useful for exploring better options.
Indicative result. It describes tendencies based on what you answered today, not a fixed trait or a closed label. It is not a diagnosis.
How this test was built
This test measures your habitual style in a disagreement or negotiation, based on how much you prioritize your own outcome versus the other person's: competing, collaborating, accommodating, avoiding, and compromising.
This result is not a psychological diagnosis nor an assessment of your negotiation skills.
This is a self-administered, popular-science version, not a clinically validated instrument.
See the full methodology
What it measures
This test measures your habitual style in a disagreement or negotiation, based on how much you prioritize your own outcome versus the other person's: competing, collaborating, accommodating, avoiding, and compromising.
What model it uses
It's based on the dual concern model from conflict and negotiation research, which crosses two independent axes. In the five-style version this test uses, they are:
- Competing: high concern for one's own outcome, low for the other's.
- Collaborating: high concern for both sides at once.
- Accommodating: low concern for one's own outcome, high for the other's.
- Avoiding: low concern for both sides.
- Compromising: a middle point between both axes.
Where that model comes from
The idea of crossing concern for one's own outcomes with concern for the other side's comes from Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid (1964). Building on it, Thomas and Kilmann (1974) created their instrument with five modes of handling conflict: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. Later, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) set out dual concern theory in negotiation research with four strategies (contending, yielding, problem solving and inaction), without compromise as a strategy of its own. This test uses the five-style structure.
How the result is calculated
There are 16 statements: three each for the competing, collaborating, accommodating, and avoiding profiles, and four for compromising, with a five-point Likert-type answer scale. Each profile's score is the sum of its statements; the result shown is the profile with the highest total score.
What your result means
The result describes your habitual pattern in a disagreement or negotiation, not how you'd act in one specific, particular situation. No style is better than another in absolute terms: each one has advantages and risks depending on the context.
What it does NOT mean
This result is not a psychological diagnosis nor an assessment of your negotiation skills. It does not replace the judgment of a qualified professional in a conflict or negotiation with significant legal, work, or financial implications.
Limitations
This is a self-administered, popular-science version, not a clinically validated instrument. Like any self-report, it's subject to social desirability bias and describes a general tendency, not your exact behavior in each real negotiation.
Academic references
- Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing.
- Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. Random House.
- Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.
Frequently asked questions
How long does the test take?
About 4 minutes: 16 statements with five response options each.
Is one negotiation style better than another?
Not in absolute terms: each style has advantages and risks depending on context. The useful part is recognizing your usual pattern and adjusting it when needed.
What is this test based on?
The dual concern model from conflict and negotiation research (Pruitt and Rubin), which crosses concern for your own outcomes with concern for the other side's.
Can I have traits from several styles?
Yes, that's common. The results chart shows how close you are to all five styles, not a single closed label.
Is it free?
Yes, it's completely free: no sign-up or payment needed to take the test and see your result.
