Conflict Navigation & ResolutionSplitting the difference feels fair and ends the argument. The research says it usually wastes it.
Thirty items — ten conflict situations, three evidence questions, a multi-select and 16 behavioural statements — measure how you choose an approach, surface real interests, separate impact from intent and stay composed when flooded. Five banded competencies, a 60% pass mark and a growth plan follow.
Every option is something a reasonable person would do
The ten situations avoid the cartoon conflicts. Two team members disagree about an approach where both sets of concerns matter and you have time, and someone suggests splitting the difference. A colleague did something that hurt your work and you are sure it was deliberate; you need to raise it. In a heated meeting both of you are flooded, voices raised, nobody listening, and the issue still needs resolving. A conflict has crossed into behaviour that may breach policy and is affecting people's safety. The stretch items add subtle, high-emotion cases where the tempting move is quiet avoidance.
Options are weighted against public conflict and negotiation research: the contingency view that no conflict mode is always right, interests versus positions, task versus relationship conflict, early intervention before escalation, separating intent from impact, de-escalation under emotional flooding, trust repair and effective apology, avoiding triangulation and proportional escalation to formal channels. Each weight has a written rationale. The bank is original AssessAll work using generic mode labels; no trademarked conflict-mode instrument is used or referenced. The 16 behavioural statements ask what you do when a disagreement gets personal, with reverse-keyed items to catch the peacemaker self-portrait.
The report bands Conflict Navigation, Difficult Conversations, People Acumen, Resilience & Composure and Stakeholder Influence beneath a 0–100 score shown against the 60% pass mark, each with a coaching interpretation for the next difficult meeting. A narrative generated from your own responses says which competency carries you in conflict and which fails first when emotions rise. The growth plan is built from the lowest two, and the item review explains every weight, so the manager who split the difference can read what both parties lost.
What you walk away with
Conflict Navigation, Difficult Conversations, People Acumen, Resilience & Composure and Stakeholder Influence each come back banded, with the overall score shown against the 60% mark. The bars make the pattern clear — the composed manager who never surfaces the real interest, the direct one who escalates too early.
Each band carries a coaching paragraph about what it does in practice: how Developing on Resilience & Composure behaves when flooded, how Strong on Difficult Conversations opens a conversation about something that felt deliberate without accusing.
Built from your lowest competencies, the plan proposes specific moves — a pause protocol for when both parties are flooded, an interest-first opening line, a threshold for when to stop mediating and escalate — each small enough to try in the next week.
The item review shows your choice, the evidence-favoured option and the published rationale behind the weight. Where you chose to let it lie, the explanation shows how the escalation research treats delay, which is rarely as kindly as the moment felt.
What comes back
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
One number, one band, and a two-sentence summary of what the band means for you — then the breakdown that explains it.
Band edges at 40, 60 and 80. Each band carries its own coaching interpretation for that competency.
Built for
- Team leads and managers who mediate between reports or between their team and another
- HR business partners and people-operations staff who handle grievances before they become formal
- Project and product managers whose stakeholders disagree with each other more than with them
- Anyone who avoids conflict until it is large and wants to know exactly which habit that is
The disagreement is coming either way. Learn which habit you will bring to it.
Thirty items in about 30 minutes, then five banded competencies, a pass-mark result and a growth plan the moment you submit.
₹899 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
How well you handle disagreement at work: choosing an approach that fits the situation, surfacing real interests rather than positions, separating what someone meant from what it did, keeping disagreement productive and holding composure when things get heated. Five competencies are measured across ten conflict situations, three evidence questions, a multi-select and 16 behavioural statements. It suits managers, HR partners, project leads and anyone whose work depends on other people agreeing.
There is no right style, which is the point. Each option is weighted against the contingency evidence — the mode that fits when both sets of concerns matter and there is time differs from the one that fits when safety is at stake — with a written rationale for every weight. Compromise, avoidance and forcing each score well somewhere and badly elsewhere. Reverse-keyed behavioural statements make a uniformly calm self-report read as inconsistent rather than strong. The overall score is shown against a 60% pass mark.
About 22 to 30 minutes within a 30-minute window. You receive a 0–100 score against the pass mark, five banded competencies with coaching interpretations, a radar, a narrative generated from your own responses, a strengths-and-development summary, a growth plan built from your lowest competencies and a full review of all 30 items with the evidence behind each weight. Everything is included; there is nothing further to unlock.
HR teams use it to select and develop people who handle grievances and mediations, and hiring managers use the bands to structure interview questions for roles that manage across teams. Individually, the growth plan is the agenda; retake after six months and compare the bands. It is a competency battery with a banded profile, so it works as evidence in a conversation rather than as a final judgement on anyone.
Yes. The situations are workplace-generic — a project disagreement, a colleague who seemed to undermine you, a heated meeting, a policy breach — and the research base is international. Conflict norms differ by culture, and the interpretations note where a band may read differently in a more indirect setting. Professionals in India, the Gulf, Europe and North America sit identical items. It is priced in INR and USD, and the price shown is the whole price.
Each battery takes one management capability — delegation, coaching, conflict, influence, decision-making, change — and measures it through situational judgement scored against published evidence, with a competency profile, coaching interpretations and a prioritised growth plan. For the level-by-level readiness verdicts, see Leadership & Management Premium.
See the leadership catalogue →Methodology: Original AssessAll scenarios and items operationalising public, well-established conflict and negotiation constructs: the public two-dimensional model of conflict behaviour (assertiveness x cooperativeness) and its five generic modes used in a contingency framework where the appropriate mode depends on context; interest-based / principled negotiation, positions versus interests, and BATNA (Fisher & Ury, Getting to Yes); task versus relationship conflict (De Dreu & Weingart meta-analysis); the conflict-escalation spiral and the value of early intervention (Glasl); separating intent from impact in difficult conversations (Stone, Patton & Heen); de-escalation under emotional flooding and the amygdala hijack (Gottman; Goleman); trust repair and the structure of effective apologies (Lewicki & Polin; Kim et al.); avoiding triangulation (Bowen); and proportional escalation to formal channels. Situational-judgement scoring is literature-keyed with a documented per-option rationale citing the evidence for each weight. The assessment uses only the public academic construct and generic mode labels; it does not use, reproduce, or reference any trademarked conflict-mode instrument by name, and no items are copied or paraphrased from any branded assessment. Flagship items are tagged for optional human SME validation.