CDP Background

To a considerable degree, the Conflict Dynamics Profile® was developed in response to the approach taken by a number of existing measures. Such instruments as the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974), Negotiating Styles Profile (Glaser & Glaser, 1996), and Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories (Rahim, 1983) are all based on a model similar to or derived from that of Blake and Mouton's (1964, 1970) theoretical model, which argues that conflict style results from one's standing on two underlying dimensions: a desire to satisfy one's own needs, and a desire to satisfy the other person's needs. As a result, the constructs measured by those instruments (avoidance, accommodation, compromise, collaboration, and competition) are fundamentally defined in terms of ultimate goals such as avoiding conflict or winning a negotiation.

The Conflict Dynamics Profile®, on the other hand, is explicitly based on a behavioral orientation. That is, rather than try to identify conflict "styles" -- which represent a combination of behavior, personality, and motivation that can be difficult to change -- we made the decision to focus exclusively on the behaviors people typically display when faced with conflict. We made this choice for two reasons. First, focusing on specific sets of behaviors would allow detailed examination, and subsequently greater understanding, of how people typically respond to conflict. Second, an explicit behavioral approach, we believed, would provide especially useful information to individuals whose goal is to change.

Because we do not focus on personality and motivation, but only on how people act, we take the optimistic position that people can change their behavior for the better. That is, people can change the way they respond to conflict, and the more people know, the better equipped they will be to change. Specifically, the more they know about how they act before, during, and after conflict, what sets them off most easily, and what responses to conflict are especially harmful in their own organization, then the better equipped and (it is hoped) motivated they will be to change.