Make the exchange clear, and keep essential conditions protected
Read four original self-reports about mutual concessions, middle ranges and temporary agreements. Work through the mean and compare an explicit compromise with yielding, a new option or an unsafe bargain.
All four numeric ratings are required. Sum 4–20, mean 1–5; all items are forward-scored and no overall score is made.
What a compromise exchanges
- This reading concerns offering a concession in return for an adjustment, accepting that each person keeps and gives up something, agreeing on a middle range, and making a temporary agreement under time pressure. The broad conflict-handling idea is often called compromising. The four original items describe your reported use of these particular actions; they do not determine whether a settlement was fair or measure your capacity to negotiate.
- A compromise need not be an equal numerical split. Someone may adjust a date while the other person changes the task scope. What matters here is that both make a concession rather than one simply withdrawing their preference. You can also agree temporarily without believing the underlying disagreement has disappeared. Making those terms explicit is more useful than treating every agreement as a finished resolution.
Read a frequency, not a fairness rating
- A larger mean indicates more frequent reports of exchanging concessions in the selected setting. A smaller one indicates fewer such reports. Neither proves fairness, maturity, generosity or a lack of conviction. The available options may make trade-offs easy, difficult or inappropriate. The questionnaire does not know the value of what each person gave up or whether both could freely decline.
- Look at which actions occurred. You might accept a middle range often but rarely need a temporary agreement. You might also decline a trade because an essential requirement would be lost. An unexperienced or unjudgeable situation can remain unscored. A small mean does not create a duty to offer more concessions, and a large one does not make the next proposed compromise acceptable.
Reproduce a mean of 2.8
- In the example order of offering an exchange, accepting mutual concessions, finding a middle range, and making a temporary agreement, consider responses of 2, 4, 3 and 2. They are all forward-scored. The sum is 11 and 11/4=2.75, displayed as 2.8. The original sum remains 11; the display does not imply that two people each received 28 percent of what they wanted.
- Responses of 1, 5, 4 and 1 have the same sum and displayed mean but describe a different pattern. Any one unscored item withholds this group’s personal sum and mean, rather than dividing the other three answers by three. Other complete groups stay available. Requiring all four numeric ratings is the website’s completeness policy, not a validated missing-data threshold or a reason to guess an answer.
An agreement on scope and timing
- Imagine one teammate wants a detailed review today while another needs more preparation time. They could agree to review the essential points today and the remaining points later. One gives up immediate detail; the other gives up some uninterrupted preparation. The exchange can be described clearly without assuming it is the only possible or best arrangement. There may be another option neither has yet considered.
- A useful temporary agreement states what is included, what remains unresolved and when the arrangement will be reviewed. “We will discuss it later” leaves different expectations possible. “We review two essential points today and confirm the remaining date tomorrow” is more specific. This example illustrates explicit terms, not evidence that a person with a particular mean will keep an agreement or produce better work.
Some matters should not be split down the middle
- Safety requirements, consent, privacy and basic protection from harm are not quotas to bargain away for a better compromise score. A middle point between an acceptable and an unsafe proposal may still be unsafe. The questionnaire cannot decide the rules of an actual workplace, a legal entitlement or the right response to coercion. Use the appropriate standards, responsible channels or support rather than treating this reflection as authority.
- Nor does equal wording prove equal cost. Agreeing that each person works “one extra hour” can affect them differently because of duties, access needs or existing workload. You do not need private details to acknowledge that costs may differ. Ask which conditions can actually change and whether a proposed exchange leaves essential needs unmet. A person should be able to decline a trade without being diagnosed as inflexible.
A settlement and a newly developed option
- Joint problem-solving explores whether another option could meet both sets of concerns differently. Trading concessions accepts some loss on both sides in the current arrangement. A discussion can include both, and time may limit the amount of exploration. Calling an arrangement collaborative does not show that no one lost anything; naming the actual concessions gives a clearer account.
- Yielding gives priority to the other person’s choice without requiring a matching concession. Pressing your own plan pursues your proposal, and stepping back leaves the issue for now. The five means do not form a ladder or an overall score. All guides remain available, including when values tie or a group lacks enough information. Small differences between means do not establish which behavior is psychologically dominant.
Write the proposed exchange in plain terms
- For a manageable shared task, you can privately write what you are offering to change, what adjustment you are asking for, and what must remain protected. If it is useful and safe to discuss, check whether the other person understands the same terms and can decline. Set a review point for a temporary arrangement. You can keep the note private; the website requests no event details.
- A counterexample is listing someone’s past favors as a debt that forces them to accept the next trade. Another is agreeing vaguely to stop the discomfort while knowing an essential term remains unclear. Pause when the conditions cannot be stated honestly. This exercise neither guarantees agreement nor asks you to retake the test, increase concessions or earn a more balanced-looking set of scores.
Original reflection, with a separate source framework
- FermatMind wrote these 20 frequency statements and the five complete guides. The broad five-mode idea is discussed in Thomas and Kilmann’s work and in the Kilmann Diagnostics overview linked from the test’s entry page. This edition does not reproduce the TKI’s thirty paired choices, scoring key, report or comparison norms. It is not the TKI, a validated short form, or an instrument endorsed by its authors. The five editorial groups are descriptive self-reports.
- Reliability, meaningful-change thresholds and equivalence between the two language versions have not been established for these original items. Memory, social desirability and which opportunities occurred can affect responses. The complete public guides are available before answering and when a group has insufficient information. Sharing copies only a public title and link, not personal answers or means. You may read another guide, return to all tests or finish here.