Use Compromising — but know its hidden cost

Compromise splits the difference; it’s fast, but both parties lose something and neither is fully satisfied.

Why it works

Compromise finds a middle position that neither party fully wants. It’s faster than Collaborating and less damaging than Competing, but it’s not the same as an integrative solution — both parties give up something real. Over time, teams that rely on compromise for every conflict accumulate a backlog of half-measures, and no one feels their actual needs were heard. Compromising is most effective when time is limited, goals are only moderately important, and the relationship is more important than the outcome.

How to do it

1. Before defaulting to compromise, check: is there an integrative solution we haven’t found yet? Compromise too early forecloses Collaborating.
2. When compromising, name the loss explicitly: "I’m giving up X, and you’re giving up Y. We’re both accepting a cost here."
3. Don’t use "splitting the difference" as a justice principle — it treats arbitrary starting positions as morally equivalent.

Evidence

Negotiation research distinguishes integrative agreements (expand the pie) from distributive agreements (split the pie). Compromising is a distributive solution; both parties leave value on the table that Collaborating could have captured. (observational)

Compromise is often the realistic best option when time or trust is limited; the critique is of using it as a default rather than as a considered choice.

Sources

• Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press.

Common mistake

Treating "splitting the difference" as inherently fair and mature — it’s neither, when one party’s opening position was more extreme or more justified.