In my classes and trainings, I often ask people what skills are necessary for effective conflict resolution. One of the most common responses I get is “compromise.”
When people say this, I ask them a follow-up question: How does compromise make you feel?
Before you read any further, I encourage you to take a moment to sit with that question yourself.
The meaning (and feel) of compromise—and why it matters
When I ask people this question, most say that, if they are honest, the idea of compromise doesn’t feel inspiring; it doesn’t make them excited. Instead, they say, it feels deflating or dispiriting because they feel like they are going to have to give up something important or lose a little in order to reach an agreement.
It makes perfect sense that many people feel this way, since the word compromise comes from the Proto-Indo-European roots per- (which means “forward, in front of, before”) and mittere (which means “to release, let go; send, throw”); in other words, at its root, compromise is all about releasing or letting go of something in front of or before others.
In line with the roots of the word, Merriam-Webster defines compromise as “to come to agreement by mutual concession,” and Britannica defines compromise as “to give up something that you want in order to reach an agreement.”
Notably, the word compromise also means “to cause the impairment of” (Merriam-Webster) or “a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason” (Britannica). So not only does compromise involve giving up something you don’t want to give up, it also has the vibe of making something less good.
No wonder many people don’t feel compromise is inspiring and uplifting!
The problem with compromise
This is the problem with compromise: People often promote compromise as a virtuous thing and something we should aim for. However, the reality is we don’t want to give up something that matters to us. So while we are told we should be better at compromising, this doesn’t feel good to us and, thus, we don’t really want to compromise!
Further adding to the problem: If we try to resolve our differences by compromising, we are likely to get to an agreement that doesn’t work well for anyone involved. Since people don’t want a dissatisfying solution, they are inclined to instead avoid the conflict situation or come in swinging in an attempt to “win,” or to at least minimize their losses. All of these options—compromising, avoiding, and coming in swinging—typically lead to poor outcomes. When people get bad outcomes from conflict situations, they are more likely to see conflict as a threat and something to be avoided. And, as I have explained in prior blogs, this feeds into the downward spiral of destructive conflict.
For all of these reasons, compromise isn’t a great way of resolving our differences, and therefore it isn’t something we should aim for—or tell others they should aim for—when dealing with conflict.
Focus on co-creating mutual gains outcomes rather than compromising
The good news is that compromise isn’t the only option for working through our differences. Instead, as I’ve explained in prior blogs, through being conflict-competent, we can productively work through conflict to co-create solutions that work for all parties and don’t require sacrificing things that we hold dear.
In my blog “Want to make conflict productive? Focus on what really matters,” I give a simple but realistic example of how compromise differs from true collaboration and co-creation through telling the story of the orange. In the story, two kids are fighting over the last orange in the kitchen when their mom comes home. The mom, frustrated with her kids’ fighting, grabs the orange, cuts it in half, and gives each kid a half. As I explain, giving each of the kids a half of the orange is a compromise solution; it doesn’t well address the interests of either kid. It is therefore not surprising that each of the kids is dissatisfied with the outcome.
If the kids had instead approached the situation in a conflict-competent way, they could have figured out that the son needs the juice of the orange to make a marinade and the daughter needs the rind of the orange to make muffins. They also could have discovered that both kids are ultimately aiming to cook something nice for their mom. If they had figured this out, they could have easily found a solution that enabled each of them to make their recipe—and they could have worked together in other ways to celebrate their mom.
That simple but realistic example perfectly demonstrates how compromise tends to result in everyone losing a little (or a lot), whereas approaching conflict skillfully enables us to collaborate in co-creating mutual gains and a truly good outcome.
We need to promote co-creation, not compromise
That is why I cringe when I hear people say we need to be “better at compromising” or that the reason we can’t reach agreement is because people “have forgotten how to compromise.” The problem isn’t that we don’t know how to compromise; the problem is that the only way we know how to resolve our differences is to either try to win or to compromise, and no one really wants to compromise (for all of the reasons I explained above).
I therefore feel strongly that, instead of promoting compromise, we need to teach people how to be conflict-competent so they can truly collaborate and co-create mutual gains solutions that solve problems and address people’s core needs and concerns. As I’ve explained in prior blogs, being conflict competent requires focusing on what really matters to us—our fundamental needs and concerns (interests)—rather than on particular solutions or strategies (positions). It also requires that we counteract our common tendency to see the world and conflict as zero-sum so we can instead embrace opportunities to create value and “expand the pie” by addressing each other’s interests.
When I teach people how to do this, they consistently say it is inspiring, empowering, and liberating. This is in large part because they realize that working through conflict doesn’t require giving up something that really matters to them; it only requires giving up their positions and moving away from a focus on “being right” and “winning” so they can instead focus on problem solving.
The next time you find yourself in a situation where you feel like the only way forward is to compromise, I encourage you to take a step back. Take a little time to clarify what really matters to you and the other parties involved in the conflict, and make sure you do so with a calm state of being, curiosity, and compassion. Once you are clear on all parties’ interests, tap into your creativity to explore innovative solutions that address all parties’ core needs. You might be surprised by what is possible when we stop aiming for compromise and instead focus on resolving our differences in conflict-competent ways!
Danya Rumore, Ph.D., is the director of the Environmental Dispute Resolution program in the Wallace Stegner Center at the University of Utah. She is a research professor in the S.J. Quinney College of Law and a clinical associate professor in the city and metropolitan planning department at the University of Utah. She teaches about, practices, and conducts research on conflict, negotiation, dispute resolution, leadership, and collaborative problem solving. She is also the founder and a co-director of the Gateway and Natural Amenity Region (GNAR) Initiative.
About the EDR blog: Hosted by the Wallace Stegner Center’s Environmental Dispute Resolution (EDR) program, the EDR blog shares ideas, tools, and resources to cultivate a culture of collaboration and help readers be more skillful in working through conflict. Read additional blog posts at edrblog.org.