Pruitt’s (1983) dual-concern model (concern for self and concern for others) suggests that there are four styles of handling conflict: yielding, problem solving, inaction, and contending. He did not recognize compromising as a distinct style. Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated the styles of handling conflict on two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The first dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and the second explains the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy the concerns of the other party.

Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated their five styles of handling interpersonal conflict on two dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. Compared with the model proposed by Thomas (1976), Rahim and Bonoma use integrating as collaborating, obliging instead of accommodating, and dominating as competing. They labelled the two dimensions cooperativeness and assertiveness and concern for self and for others.

Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated the styles of handling conflict on two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The first dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns. The second dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy the concerns of the other party.

Thomas (1976) described conflict management in terms of five modes, commonly rendered as competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. In later work, these modes are often compared with Rahim and Bonoma’s five-style framework, which is built on concern for self and concern for others.

In the paper, the five modes are set into a two-dimensional grid representing the individual’s degree of cooperativeness (concern for the other’s outcomes) and assertiveness (concern for his own outcomes). Competing is high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness. Collaborating is high in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Avoiding is low in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Accommodating is low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness.

Rahim’s systematic approach to conflict management identifies five styles of handling conflict (integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising). Classifying conflicts as intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, or intergroup, Rahim explains how to diagnose conflict, how to intervene effectively, and how to handle all the different types of conflict that typically arise in organizations.

There is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead, or manage conflict. Rahim created a meta-model of conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others. Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.

Managing Conflict in Organizations introduces the origins, forms, benefits, and consequences of organizational conflict to students and practitioners… Rahim, M.A. (2023). Managing Conflict in Organizations (5th ed.). Routledge. The book discusses the five styles of handling conflict based on concern for self and concern for others and elaborates Rahim’s theory of managing organizational conflict.

The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and intervention in affective and substantive conflicts at the interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup levels and the styles (strategies) used to handle these conflicts. A diagnosis should indicate whether there is need for an intervention and the type of intervention needed… Organizational learning and effectiveness can be enhanced through an appropriate diagnosis of and process and structural interventions in conflict.

One of the most cited researchers in the field of conflict-styles is Afzalur Rahim. In 1983, he published "A measure of styles for handling interpersonal conflict." His work uncovers five primary styles that correlate to two overall dimensions, concern for self and concern for others. The five styles are integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Like Rahim’s notions of conflict-styles, the TKI assesses five conflict-styles across the dimension of assertiveness and cooperation. Assertiveness refers to the willingness of a person to satisfy their own needs while cooperation is the willingness to consider the needs of others.

The Dual Concerns Model, a substantive theory, focused on the relationship between concern for people and concern for production (R.R. Blake & Mouton, 1964). Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid uses two dimensions—concern for production and concern for people—to describe leadership styles. Later dual concern models of conflict management (e.g., Rahim & Bonoma, Thomas, Pruitt) adapted this two-dimensional structure to concerns for self vs. others in conflict situations.

Dual Concern Model assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on both their concern for self (assertiveness) and for others (empathy). There are five styles: avoidance, yielding, competitive, co-operative and conciliatory.

Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e. cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style. Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, Rahim created a meta-model for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others.

In 1974, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann studied workers and their routine conflicts in the workplace. Over time, they observed a pattern of ways in which people resolved conflict; these five options formed the basis of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. The model has two approaches, also known as dimensions: assertiveness and cooperation.

Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. M Afzalur Rahim. International journal of conflict management 13 (3), 206-235, 2002. Managing conflict in organizations. M Afzalur Rahim. 2001. Styles of managing organizational conflict: A critical review and synthesis of theory and research. These works are widely cited in academic literature on conflict management and are associated with Rahim’s dual concern-based model of conflict styles.

Dual-concern models suggest that “concern about self” and “concern about other” motivate individuals to choose conflict-handling strategies. The dual-concern conflict model argues that choice of conflict strategies are based on two concerns: concern for interests or goals of self and other. Sternberg and his co-workers developed a new taxonomy of conflict management styles that ignores an earlier, related model proposed by Blake and Mouton, Thomas, and Rahim.

Dual-concern models suggest that concern about self and concern about other motivate individuals to choose conflict-handling strategies.

This presentation on managing conflicts in organizations explains that contemporary conflict-handling models, such as those of Thomas and Rahim, are based on dual concern dimensions. Thomas’s model is described as using assertiveness (concern for self) and cooperativeness (concern for others) to classify five conflict-handling modes. Rahim and Bonoma’s model is similarly said to use concern for self and concern for others to differentiate five styles: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising.

In Managing Conflict in Organizations, Rahim reviews major approaches to conflict, including the dual concern model. He credits Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid for introducing the two-dimensional concern-for-people vs. concern-for-production framework and discusses how later models by Thomas, Pruitt, and Rahim & Bonoma adapted dual concern dimensions for conflict management. Rahim presents his own instrument for measuring styles of handling interpersonal conflict based on concern for self and concern for others.

Consistent with Dual Concern Theory, however, we expect that the individual's conflict management strategies at work are relatively stable over time due to their basis in enduring motivational orientations. The dual concern theory proposes that conflict strategies are chosen based on two underlying motives: concern for one's own outcomes and concern for the outcomes of the other party.

Report From M. Afzalur Rahim. Formation of CMG. A word of thanks goes to Dr. Rahim for a very well-done and useful publication. Rahim’s work on measuring styles for handling interpersonal conflict and his model based on concern for self and concern for others are highlighted as foundational contributions to the emerging field of conflict management research.

This article in the International Journal of Conflict Management notes that contemporary models of conflict handling, including those of Thomas, Pruitt, and Rahim & Bonoma, share a common dual concern structure. Thomas’s two-dimensional framework (assertiveness vs. cooperativeness) and Rahim & Bonoma’s concern-for-self vs. concern-for-others framework are described as dual concern theories of conflict management, derived in part from Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid.

The Dual Concern Model of Conflict Styles and Tactics explains that conflicts involve two concerns: concern for one’s own outcomes and concern for the outcomes of others. These two dimensions create conflict styles and tactics such as cooperation and competition.