“In academic literature on conflict management, Dual Concern Theory is attributed to M. Afzalur Rahim and Kenneth W. Thomas.”

This investigation examines key assumptions underlying the dual concerns model (DCM): that one’s conflict style is jointly determined by 1) the degree to which one values attaining one’s own goals, and 2) the degree to which one values attaining the other party’s goals. According to the logic of the DCM, someone high on a concern for both self- and other-outcomes will adopt an integrative, problem-solving style of handling conflict, because that style will satisfy both concerns; someone high on a concern for self-outcome, but low on a concern for other-outcome, will likely adopt a more contentious, dominating style.

The entry on Dual Concern Theory describes it as a theoretical framework in social and organizational psychology stating that individuals’ behavior in conflict situations is a function of their concern for their own outcomes and concern for the other party’s outcomes. The entry traces its intellectual roots to early managerial grid work and negotiation research and notes that it was systematically formalized in the bargaining literature in the late 1970s and 1980s. The authors do not credit M. Afzalur Rahim and Kenneth W. Thomas jointly as originators of Dual Concern Theory; instead, they treat dual-concern as an approach developed across multiple lines of research.

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 concern. The second dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy the concern of others.

This paper advocates for the reframing of the ubiquitous “dual concerns” model (Blake & Mouton, 1970) as a useful perspective for understanding the unique, interdependent operations of communication networks and systems in the context of conflict. Rather than manifesting two distinct and opposing dynamics, the model can show how concern for other IS concern for self.

The abstract states: "Dual-concern models suggest that 'concern about self' and 'concern about other' motivate individuals to choose conflict-handling strategies." It continues: "The dual-concern model of conflict management assumes that people in conflict are motivated by self-concern (the desire to satisfy one's own concerns) and other-concern (the desire to satisfy the other party's concerns)." In its literature review, the paper cites several contributors to such models, including Pruitt (1983) and Rahim (1983), but does not attribute 'Dual Concern Theory' specifically or jointly to M. Afzalur Rahim and Kenneth W. Thomas.

The Rahim’s five styles of conflict handling model was based on both the grid of managerial styles proposed by Blake and Mouton, as well as the Thomas’s five modes model. Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated their five styles of handling interpersonal conflict on two dimensions: 1) concern for self (the degree – high or low – to which a person attempts to satisfy one's own concerns), and concern for others (the degree – high or low – to which a person attempts to satisfy the concern of others). As pointed out by Rahim (2011) these dimensions portray the motivational orientations individuals [have] during conflict.

The article states: "Developed by psychologists Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in the early 1970s, the model identifies five primary ‘modes’ of dealing with conflict, distinguished by two dimensions: Assertiveness (the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy their own concerns), and cooperativeness (the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy the concerns of the other person)." It adds: "These five options formed the basis of the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Model Instrument and the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Resolution Model." The article never refers to this as 'Dual Concern Theory' nor attributes dual concern theory jointly to Rahim and Thomas; instead, it credits Thomas and Kilmann with the two-dimensional TKI model.

The blog explains: "In 1974, a pair of researchers – the eponymous Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann – studied workers and their routine conflicts in the workplace." It notes that they distilled "five core methods" which "formed the basis of the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument" and describes that "the model has two approaches, also known as 'dimensions': assertiveness and cooperation." While this reflects the same two dimensions as dual concern models (self vs other), the article attributes this specific framework to Thomas and Kilmann, and does not state that Dual Concern Theory as a general theory is attributed in academic literature to M. Afzalur Rahim and Kenneth W. Thomas together.

In its theoretical background, the article notes: "The Managerial Grid posits that leadership styles can be delineated based on a dual focus: concern for people and concern for production. This model inherently reflects a dual-concern perspective similar to later conflict management models such as the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument and Rahim’s model of conflict-handling styles." The paper situates dual-concern perspectives as emerging from Blake and Mouton’s grid and influencing later models by Thomas & Kilmann and Rahim, but it does not credit Dual Concern Theory as a formal construct to Rahim and Thomas jointly.

In the conflict management literature, Kenneth W. Thomas is best known for co-developing (with Ralph H. Kilmann) the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) and for articulating five conflict-handling modes (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating) based on the dimensions of assertiveness and cooperativeness. These works do not describe Thomas as the originator of the broader "dual concern theory" label; rather, later authors (e.g., Pruitt and Rubin, 1986) formalized Dual Concern Theory as a general account of conflict behavior.

Dual Concern Theory suggests that conflict requires balancing the concern of meeting one’s own goals and the concern for other people and maintaining healthy relationships (Langton et al., 2013). Individuals may vary on the scale between these two concerns, where employees will usually use one or more of the following fundamental approaches to conflict management (Sadri, 2013): competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating and compromising.

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. Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.