How do you handle conflict?
Do you see conflict as an opportunity for learning and growth, or something to avoid at all costs?
We often explore how teams thrive when they experience intellectual friction without social friction. Conflict can be healthy when people feel safe, included, and empowered to contribute and disagree.
This quick assessment adapts the Thomas–Kilmann approach and takes about three minutes. You’ll see results instantly.
The Breathe Australia Conflict Management Assessment is a simple but powerful way to uncover how you instinctively handle tension, disagreement, or competing priorities at work. You’ll be presented with a series of sometimes competing statements and asked to choose the response that feels most like you. Your results will show which conflict management strategies you rely on most, and in part two you’ll compare these findings with how you actually behave in real-world situations.
Before you begin
Think about situations where your goals or desires clash with someone else’s. How do you typically respond?
Your Conflict Management Profile
Your results are based on five conflict management strategies in the model. For each strategy, we’ve benchmarked your responses against a large group of other participants to show how frequently you tend to use that approach compared to others. Each area is rated as low, medium, or high, giving you a clear picture of which strategies are your natural strengths and which you may use less often in real-world conflict situations.
Compared to other people
Your tension map
See where your assertiveness and cooperativeness intersect.
What are the Conflict Management Styles?
Competing
A direct, assertive approach focused on achieving a clear outcome, best used when a fast, decisive response is required, such as during safety-critical situations or under urgent deadlines. It is less appropriate in contexts that call for collaboration, or where preserving relationships and team trust is a priority.
Collaborating
A cooperative approach that aims for a win–win outcome for everyone involved, best suited to situations where the issue is significant and a durable, long-term resolution is needed, such as resolving ongoing team tension. It is less appropriate when time is limited or when the issue is relatively minor and does not justify extensive discussion.
Compromising
A balanced approach in which each side gives up something to reach a fair agreement, most effective when both perspectives are equally valid and a practical middle ground offers the best path forward. It is less appropriate when a deeper solution is required, or when compromise would result in outcomes that fail to meet key needs.
Avoiding
A strategy that involves delaying or stepping away from conflict rather than addressing it immediately, best used when emotions are high, the issue is low priority, or additional time is needed to respond thoughtfully. It is less appropriate when the issue is important or ongoing, as avoidance may allow tensions to build over time.
Accommodating
A supportive approach that places the other person’s needs above your own, most appropriate when maintaining harmony matters more than the specific issue, particularly in small or low-stakes situations. It is less appropriate when your needs are consistently overlooked, or when it prevents honest and constructive conversations.
Next steps
Ready to go deeper? The next assessment, Real Conflict Styles, puts you into live workplace scenarios where you record quick verbal responses. It reveals how you show up when the pressure is on.