Disagreement and Negotiation Approach Profile for Work and Personal ConversationsFive ways to disagree, and you lean on one of them more than you think.
Forty-four exercises place you across five legitimate approaches to disagreeing: stating the case, splitting the difference, pausing and returning, enlarging the question, and giving ground now. None of the five is the good one, and the report prints the cost of each beside what it gets you. Twenty statements and ten two-sided situations carry the profile, half of them worded the other way round. Ten forced-choice blocks then make you name one approach as most like you and one as least, which no amount of agreeing can move. Your five numbers are measured against your own average, so there is no total, and the page says why in the largest type on it.
A disagreement profile with no better end, no total, and a printed cost on every approach
The Disagreement and Negotiation Approach Profile is a twenty-five-minute self-insight profile that records which of five legitimate approaches a person reports leaning on when they disagree with somebody, across forty-four exercises in one sitting. It does not measure how well anybody handles disagreement, and every one of the five approaches is defensible.
Almost every profile of this kind hands you levels on several named types and leaves you to conclude that more of each is better. This one cannot do that, and the arithmetic is the reason. Each of your five numbers is measured against your own average across the five, so they add up to zero for you and for every other person who sits it. You cannot be high on all five: if one rises, another falls. The report prints that sentence rather than hiding it, and it prints two opposite profiles whose unweighted means are identical in the place a total would have gone, so a reader who wanted one number can see for themselves why there is not one.
The measurement problem with any self-report profile is the person who presses the same button all the way down the form. Half of these items are worded at the unwanted end on purpose, which means one press, worded two ways, arrives at the scoring as a shape with a peak and a trough in it. That shape would be entirely our own choice of which items to word backwards. So the test for variation runs on the buttons you actually pressed, before any of our wording is applied, and a sitting with no variation in it is refused a profile rather than flattered with one. The refusal says so in plain words: one press worded two ways is still one press.
Two strands read the same shape, and no single habit moves both. The statements can be answered by agreeing with things, and removing your own average takes that part out. The ten forced-choice blocks cannot be answered that way at all, because naming one approach as most like you means naming another as least. Nor does marking the same position every time: each approach sits in each of the four display positions the same number of times across the ten blocks, so that pattern comes out at exactly zero on all five and is refused rather than ranked. The two orders are printed side by side, and where they disagree the report says what the gap usually means.
Six items per approach is a placement, never a number and never a percentile. An approach is called leading when it sits six points or more above your own average and trailing when it sits six points or more below, that cut is about one standard error wide, and the cut is printed on the page because it is a decision rather than a discovery. Every bar carries both its two-in-three and its nineteen-in-twenty span, and a placement sitting within one standard error of the cut says so on its own row.
The writing is the product. Each of the five approaches is set out twice, as what it gets you and as what it costs when it runs unchecked, because a description with no cost in it is a horoscope. Giving ground buys goodwill and, done often enough, becomes what people expect of you. Pausing lets heat drop and, with no date on it, quietly becomes the answer. Stating your case gets your reason heard and closes a question the other person had not finished asking. No published instrument, author or scale vocabulary is named or implied anywhere, and the report says plainly what it did not measure.
What you walk away with
One horizontal bar per approach between two named ends, your own average marked in the centre, the middle zone shaded, and the two-in-three and nineteen-in-twenty spans drawn as a filled and an outlined block. Rows are ordered by the size of the departure from your own average in standard errors, so the approach at the top is the one the sitting has most to say about, whether it leads or trails.
There is no composite and there never will be, because the five values sum to zero by construction and a total would be the same number for everybody. The refusal sits at the top of the page in the largest type on it, with two opposite profiles whose means are identical printed underneath as the demonstration.
Saying what you want and why, and staying with it. What it gets you: nobody has to guess, and a disagreement in the open can be settled. What it costs: a position stated plainly is easy to argue with, and said early it can close a question the other person had not finished asking.
Trading something for something so both sides move, and stepping out of a conversation to pick it up at a named time. Both are priced: a split can settle a disagreement whose real answer was on one side, and a pause with no date on it is read by the other person as the answer.
Opening up what the disagreement is actually about, and letting the other side have it so you can spend the goodwill elsewhere. Both are priced: not every disagreement has a larger one behind it, and the same generous move made often enough becomes the expectation.
A single if-then aimed at the approach you reach for least, naming a situation you can notice happening rather than a quality to develop. Beneath it, the movement a re-sitting would have to exceed before it counts as anything, and the plain statement that this measurement threshold is not the size of change that would actually matter to you.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
| Two opposite profiles | Stating | Giving ground | Pausing | Splitting | Enlarging | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Says it, keeps it | +14 | +4 | -3 | -2 | -13 | 0 |
| Lets it go, comes back | -14 | -4 | +3 | +2 | +13 | 0 |
Each number is measured against your own average across the five, so the five add to zero for you and for everybody else. Those two profiles are opposites in every approach and their means are identical. That is why being high on everything is arithmetically impossible here.
| Approach | Placement | From average | 68% span | 95% span | Departure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stating the case: putting your position and its reason into the conversation | ▲ Leads your profile | +16.4 | 10.2 to 22.6 | 4.3 to 28.5 | 2.6 SE |
| Giving ground now: letting the other side have it and moving on | ▼ Trails your profile | -13.1 | -19.3 to -6.9 | -25.2 to -1 | 2.1 SE |
| Pausing and returning: stepping out of the conversation and picking it up later | ▼ Trails your profile | -7.8 | -14 to -1.6 | -19.9 to 4.3 | 1.3 SE |
| Splitting the difference: trading something for something so both sides move | ▬ Sits in the middle | +4.1 | -2.1 to 10.3 | -8 to 16.2 | 0.7 SE |
| Enlarging the question: opening up what the disagreement is actually about | ▬ Sits in the middle | +0.4 | -5.8 to 6.6 | -11.7 to 12.5 | 0.1 SE |
▲ leads · ▬ middle · ▼ trails · □ not read. Every state carries a word as well as a mark, so the board survives a black-and-white print. None of the five is the good one, and each carries its own cost on the report.
| Approach | Statements | Forced choices | Most minus least | Ordinary respondent | Departure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stating the case | 1 | 1 | +5 | +0.9 | +4.1 |
| Splitting the difference | 2 | 3 | +1 | +1.4 | -0.4 |
| Enlarging the question | 3 | 4 | -1 | +0.5 | -1.5 |
| Pausing and returning | 4 | 2 | -1 | -1.1 | +0.1 |
| Giving ground now | 5 | 5 | -4 | -1.7 | -2.3 |
The ordinary-respondent column is the sum of the two authored marginals for each block: the share expected to name an option as most like them, and the separately authored share expected to name it least. Zero means answering the way people typically answer. Marking the same position in every block gives exactly zero on all five, and is refused rather than ranked. Two readings that disagree is information, not an error, and this is never printed as a validity coefficient.
Built for
- Anyone who keeps having the same kind of disagreement and suspects their own habit is part of it, at work or at home
- Managers and team leads who want a language for how their team handles disagreement that does not rank anybody
- People about to go into a negotiation, a review or a difficult family conversation, who want to know which approach they default to under pressure
- Coaches, facilitators and trainers who need a profile with a printed cost beside every strength and a refusal block they can hand to a client
Find out which of the five you reach for, and what it costs you
44 exercises across four formats · about 25 minutes · five approaches as placements between named ends, both spans drawn, no total and the page says why, and a printed cost beside every strength.
Take free · full report ₹249 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
No, and the instrument is built so that it cannot say one is. Each of the five is something a sensible person does, each has a setting where it fits best, and each has a cost printed beside it on the report. There is no ranking of the five anywhere on the page, no better end of any bar, and no total. A profile that leads on stating the case is not a better person in a disagreement than one that leads on giving ground now; it is a person whose costs fall somewhere else.
Because it would be zero for everybody. Each of your five numbers is measured against your own average across the five, which is what makes how emphatically you use a scale drop out of the result. That construction means the five add up to zero for you and for everyone else, so a total would be the same number for every person who ever sits this and would say nothing at all. Instead of asserting that, the report prints two opposite profiles whose unweighted means are identical in the place a total would have gone, so you can see why. The same construction is why being high on all five is arithmetically impossible.
No, and the second one is refused rather than scored. Removing your own average takes out the part of agreeing with everything that is elevation. The ten forced-choice blocks cannot be answered that way at all, because naming one approach as most like you means naming another as least, and marking the same position in every block lands on each approach equally often and comes out at exactly zero on all five. As for one press repeated: half these items are worded the other way round, so one press would otherwise arrive at the scoring as a shape that came entirely from our wording. The variation test therefore runs on the buttons you actually pressed, before any reverse wording is applied, and a sitting with no variation in it is refused a profile.
Six items per approach cannot support a number, and no norm group exists. Each approach carries a placement of leading, middle or trailing, with the cut printed on the page: six points or more from your own average, which is about one standard error wide. Every bar carries both its two-in-three span and its nineteen-in-twenty span, and a placement that sits within one standard error of the cut says so on its own row, because that is a placement this length of form cannot separate from the one next to it. No percentile appears anywhere, because a percentile needs a real norm group with a stated size and composition.
About twenty-five minutes for forty-four exercises across four formats: twenty agreement statements, ten two-sided situations, ten forced-choice blocks and four questions about your own last month. The sitting is free to take; the report is the product, priced at ₹249 in India, inclusive of GST, or US$2.99 elsewhere, one time. An unanswered exercise leaves the denominator rather than counting as a low answer. Fewer than fifteen of the thirty profile exercises answered and the board is withheld altogether, with the reason printed in the place the board would have taken, because a shape drawn from a handful of answers would be mostly our arithmetic.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Forty-four original exercises across four formats: twenty balanced-keyed agreement statements, ten two-sided position items with a legitimate approach at each end and no midpoint, ten forced-choice blocks in which one option is named most like the respondent and one least, and four self-report questions about the respondent's own last month. Construct statement: it measures the RELATIVE strength of five legitimate approaches a person reports leaning on when they disagree with somebody - stating the case, splitting the difference, pausing and returning, enlarging the question, and giving ground now - and it does NOT measure how well anybody handles disagreement, how reasonable or difficult they are, their personality, their negotiating skill, or how any particular argument will go. It is not a selection instrument and no employer should use it as one. Declared response instruction, one for the whole instrument: BEHAVIOURAL TENDENCY. Every exercise asks what the respondent actually does, never what should be done, and there is no knowledge item anywhere on the form. Scoring is a within-person centred style profile. Each approach is scored on its own balanced-keyed items as a percentage of that approach's scale range; the respondent's own mean across the five is then subtracted, so the five centred values sum to zero by construction. Elevation and acquiescence drop out for free, and the same construction makes being high on everything arithmetically impossible - if one rises another falls - which the report states in the largest type on the page rather than hiding in a note. Six items per approach is a PLACEMENT and never a number and never a percentile: an approach is called leading when it sits six points or more above the respondent's own average and trailing when it sits six points or more below, that cut is about one standard error, and the cut is printed because it is a decision rather than a discovery. The ten forced-choice blocks are scored separately as a net count of most picks minus least picks, read against the sum of the two declared marginals for each block, so zero on that strand means answering the way people typically answer rather than guessing at random. Each block carries TWO authored marginals, because the share expected to name an option as most like them is not the complement of the share expected to name it least. Refusal rules. The flatness test runs on the RAW PRESSED VALUES, never on the centred or reverse-keyed ones: half of these items are worded at the unwanted end, so a respondent pressing the same point forty-four times would otherwise arrive at the scorer as a vector with variance and be handed a shape that came entirely from our wording. A sitting whose raw presses vary less than the declared floor, or whose single most common press covers eighty-five per cent or more of the answered scale items, is refused a profile, and the refusal says in the reader's own words that one press worded two ways is still one press. A sitting with fewer than fifteen of the thirty profile items answered is refused as well, and the refusal occupies the place the board would have occupied rather than sitting beside it. An unanswered exercise leaves the denominator rather than scoring zero. There is no composite, ever: the report prints the refusal and two opposite authored profiles whose unweighted means are identical, in the place a total would have gone. Omega is reported rather than alpha, estimated from the item count and an assumed average inter-item correlation of .26 and stated as an assumption because no live sample exists; no percentile appears anywhere because no norm group exists with a stated size and composition. The four self-report questions about the last month carry no credit on any figure; the side marked on each is the modal answer under its declared prior and never a right answer. Construct definitions and keying draw on the convergent evidence rather than one framework: Deutsch on cooperative and adversarial orientations in conflict; Walton and McKersie on the distributive and integrative structure of bargaining; Pruitt and Rubin on the dual concern for one's own and the other's outcomes; Rahim's two-dimensional account of handling interpersonal disagreement; Fisher, Ury and Patton on interests behind positions and on the reservation point; Follett's early account of integration as distinct from splitting a difference; Rubin, Pruitt and Kim on escalation and withdrawal; Gottman's observational work on withdrawal in couple conflict; Van de Vliert and Euwema on the de-escalating and escalating components of conflict behaviour; De Dreu and Weingart's meta-analysis on task and relationship conflict and team outcomes; Thompson on the fixed-pie perception; Galinsky and Mussweiler on anchoring and first offers; Baumgartner and Steenkamp on response styles and balanced keying; and Cheung and Rensvold on the ipsative removal of elevation from a profile. All items are original works written for this instrument. No commercial instrument's items, scale vocabulary, author names or product name are used, reproduced or implied anywhere, and no affiliation with any publisher of a conflict, negotiation, team-role or interpersonal-style instrument is claimed or exists.