About the model
The negotiation self-assessment uses a familiar typology of five conflict-handling styles, but the way Neuro Group teaches it pulls in two further layers: the underlying dimensions that generate the styles, and the rider/elephant distinction that decides whether a style is showing up constructively or reactively. This page walks through all three layers.
Layer one
The diamond is built on the five conflict-handling modes introduced by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in 1974, formalising an earlier two-axis grid from Blake and Mouton’s managerial research. None of the five is a better negotiator than the others. Each is the right call in some contexts, the wrong call in others, and a habit worth examining when it is your default across all contexts.
Collaborative negotiators stand up for their own interests, needs and values while honouring those of others. They are results-oriented and sensitive to relational dynamics, creating value in non-obvious ways. Between competing and accommodating, and beyond compromise, lies this balance that leads to Win/Win.
Competitive negotiators focus exclusively on their own objectives. They are eager to win, even at others' expense, and attend only to short-term outcomes. Trust and long-term results may be jeopardised in pursuit of this Win/Lose outcome.
Negotiators who focus too heavily on relational dynamics avoid attending to their own needs and interests. They risk a Lose/Win outcome in which the other party wins at their expense.
This common approach searches for middle ground rather than pursuing solutions found in common interests. It results in getting some of what you want and some of what you don't. Compromise is the usual default but is less than a true Win/Win — a both-kinda-win/both-kinda-lose outcome.
Negotiators eager to avoid confrontation ignore problems, their own needs, the needs of the other party and the relational dynamics present. At best this results in a delay; at worst a Lose/Lose where both relationships and results are sacrificed.
Layer two
The five styles aren’t five separate things — they are the corners that emerge when you cross two independent tendencies. The first tells us who you are attending to. The second tells us how you got there. The Neuropower framework links each axis to a different slice of the nervous system.
Whose concerns is your attention tracking when the pressure rises?
A pull toward the Accommodate side of the diamond reflects a cooperative, affiliative instinct — you are attending to the other person, protecting the relationship, keeping the group intact. In Neuropower terms this is the P1 / relatedness circuit: the chemistry that rewards belonging, mutual care, and trust. A pull toward the Compete side reflects an agentic, self-directed instinct — you are advancing your own position, protecting your interests, pushing your agenda forward. This is the P2 / leading-the-pack circuit: the chemistry that rewards status, agency, and forward motion. Neither pole is healthier than the other — a functional negotiator moves between them as the situation demands. What the score points at is your default gravity.
Neuroscience — P1 and P2
P1 is the affiliative/relatedness circuit: oxytocin, endogenous opioids, the reward systems that fire when we feel connected, trusted, and included. P2 is the agency/assertion circuit: dopaminergic reward pathways that fire when we make progress, lead, or win. Everyone has both — the question is which one is more trigger-ready under pressure.
When a negotiation moment appears, does something in you step toward it or away from it?
The top of the diamond (Collaborate) is the strategic, chosen response — the 'rider' in Haidt's metaphor is in charge. You have taken a breath, read the situation, and picked a behaviour on purpose. The bottom (Avoid) is the reactive, fear-driven response — the 'elephant' has taken the wheel. The nervous system has tagged the situation as a threat without a viable path through, and withdrawal is the cheapest exit. A lean toward Avoid under pressure isn't a character flaw: it is a trained or trait-level default of the threat-detection system. A lean toward Collaborate isn't moral superiority either — it is a prefrontal-led willingness to stay in the discomfort long enough to find a bigger answer.
Neuroscience — rider and elephant
The 'rider' is shorthand for the prefrontal, deliberative, executive-function system — slow, effortful, growth-oriented, capable of choosing a response other than the first one that arrived. The 'elephant' is shorthand for the limbic, reactive, habit-driven system — fast, automatic, protective. Both are always on. Chronic overwhelm tips the balance toward the elephant; deliberate practice and psychological safety tip it toward the rider.
Layer three
The most useful reading of the diamond isn't that there are five styles, full stop. It's that three of the five — Accommodate, Compromise, Compete — can show up in two very different modes. A chosen, rider-driven version: you have weighed the situation and this is the move you want to make. And a reactive, elephant-driven version: the situation has triggered something in your nervous system and this is the move that happened to you. The behaviour on the outside can look identical. The cost, and the learning, are totally different. Collaborate sits close to a pure rider mode by definition — the growth-mindset choice to treat the other side's needs as real data. Avoid sits close to a pure elephant mode by definition — the overwhelm-driven withdrawal from a situation the system has tagged as threat without a path.
The dual-system picture, in one breath
Rider. Prefrontal, deliberative, slow, effortful. Capable of choosing a response other than the first one that arrived. Associated with growth mindset, strategic thinking and psychological safety.
Elephant. Limbic, automatic, fast, protective. Fires before you have finished noticing what is going on. Associated with threat detection, habit, and the older defensive playbooks (fight, flight, freeze, fawn).
Both are always running. The question a negotiator can usefully ask is not “which one am I?” but “which one was in charge of the last decision I made?”.
Putting it together
The practical payoff of adding the Neuropower layer is that three of the five styles — Accommodate, Compromise, Compete — can arrive in two quite different modes. A chosen, rider-driven version, and a reactive, elephant-driven version. The behaviour on the outside can look identical. The cost, the learning, and the path to change are totally different. Collaborate is close to a pure rider mode by definition; Avoid is close to a pure elephant mode.
Underlying drive. Rider-led, drawing on both P1 and P2 — curious about the other side's needs AND clear about your own.
Rider — Growth mode
You are treating the other side's needs as real data, tolerating the ambiguity of not-yet-solved, and looking for an answer bigger than the one that was on the table at the start. This is the prefrontal, deliberate mode.
Elephant — —
Collaborate sits close to a pure rider mode by definition: if the nervous system is running the show, the behaviour you get is rarely Collaborate. A 'reactive Collaborate' usually turns out to be Compromise or Accommodate wearing the language of collaboration.
Reflection cue: Are you staying in the discomfort of not-yet-solved, or reaching for a shortcut?
Underlying drive. Primary P2. The rider version expresses P2 deliberately; the elephant version is P2 hijacked by threat.
Rider — Assertive advocacy
You are holding a clear line on something that matters — advocating strongly, defending a boundary, moving a decision forward when speed is what the situation actually needs.
Elephant — Ego-threat reaction
The interaction has triggered an ego or status threat. Winning has quietly become more important than what you are winning. The P2 agency circuit is running without the rider checking it.
Reflection cue: Are you advancing the outcome, or defending your standing?
Underlying drive. Primary P1. The rider version expresses P1 deliberately; the elephant version is P1 overweighted by conflict threat.
Rider — Chosen generosity
You have decided the relationship, or the other person's stake in the outcome, matters more to you here than winning this particular point. You are investing relational capital on purpose.
Elephant — Conflict-avoidant fawn
Disagreement itself feels unsafe, so the cheapest exit is to concede. The yes arrives before the internal cost has been accounted for. Resentment or quiet withdrawal often follow.
Reflection cue: Did you choose to give, or did you give to stop the discomfort?
Underlying drive. Balanced P1/P2. The rider version is deliberate pragmatism; the elephant version is discomfort-relief dressed up as compromise.
Rider — Pragmatic trade
You are splitting the difference on purpose because time, energy, or relationship capital matter more than maximising this specific outcome. You know what you traded and why.
Elephant — Premature settle
The discomfort of the open question is louder than the cost of the deal. The settlement is a relief rather than a judgement. The more creative Win/Win conversation never gets had.
Reflection cue: Did you choose the middle, or did you grab it?
Underlying drive. Strongly elephant-weighted by default. Avoid is the shape the five styles take when the threat-detection system can't see a viable response.
Rider — Chosen avoidance
You have decided that this particular moment isn't the right one — the information isn't there yet, the heat is too high, or the issue genuinely isn't worth the conversation. You plan to come back to it.
Elephant — Overwhelm withdrawal
The situation has tripped a threat response and the nervous system has chosen the cheapest exit: disengage, get small, make it stop. The issue gets buried rather than deferred.
Reflection cue: Did you choose to step back, or did you find yourself already stepping back?
Further reading
The diamond is Thomas & Kilmann’s, sitting on top of Blake & Mouton’s two-axis grid. The P1/P2 circuit vocabulary and the rider/elephant framing as applied to conflict behaviour come from the Neuropower framework used in Neuro Group’s workshops. The wider psychological literature the framework draws on is worth going to source on:
Neuropower framework — P1 / P2 circuits
Neuropower's account of relatedness (P1) and leading-the-pack (P2) as distinct reward systems. Replace with the definitive Neuro Group source link.
Neuropower framework — rider and elephant
Neuropower's adaptation of the dual-system metaphor for leadership and conflict behaviour. Replace with the definitive Neuro Group source link.
Haidt, J. (2006). The Happiness Hypothesis
Original popular statement of the rider/elephant metaphor.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset
Growth vs fixed mindset — the psychology underneath the rider's willingness to stay in ambiguity.
Thomas, K. W. & Kilmann, R. H. (1974)
The five conflict-handling modes framework the diamond is built on.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid
The two-axis (concern for self / concern for others) structure that Thomas–Kilmann formalises.
The self-assessment takes about seven minutes. You’ll need a passcode from your facilitator.
The Neuropower framing (P1/P2 circuits, rider/elephant modes) is a useful interpretive lens used in Neuro Group’s workshops, not a mechanistic brain model. Treat it as a vocabulary for noticing patterns, not a diagnosis.