The Compromising Conflict Style: A Quick Middle Ground

The compromising style doesn’t look for the perfect solution; it looks for a reasonable, quick one.

This article is part of an informational series on conflict management, based on a classic academic model from social psychology. It’s meant for informational purposes and doesn’t replace guidance from a professional.

A middle ground between assertiveness and cooperation

In Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann’s model (1974), the compromising style sits at the midpoint between the two dimensions of conflict: not as assertive as the competing style, not as cooperative as the collaborating one.

It looks for a reasonable solution, where each side gives something up, without investing the time it would take to explore every possible option.

It’s different from the avoiding style, which neither defends its own position nor looks for that middle ground: it simply postpones the disagreement.

A style not every model recognizes

It’s the most debated of the five. Blake and Mouton (1964) already included it in their managerial grid, and Afzalur Rahim (1983) keeps it in his questionnaire. Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin’s dual concern model (1986), on the other hand, works with four strategies (contending, yielding, problem solving and inaction) and doesn’t treat compromise as a separate strategy: it sees it as the result of underdeveloped problem solving or of simultaneous concessions by both sides.

That debate sheds light on its strength and its weakness at once: it reaches an agreement quickly, but tends to settle for the first acceptable solution instead of looking for the best one.

When it works

It’s especially useful when time is tight or the topic doesn’t justify a long negotiation: a middle ground both sides can accept is usually better than needlessly prolonging the disagreement.

In everyday life, most small disagreements (which show to watch, how to split a chore) are better settled this way than through an exhaustive collaborative process.

How it shows up

• You’d rather each person give a little than drag the discussion out longer than necessary.
• You look for a quick middle ground on topics that aren’t crucial to you.
• It seems reasonable to give up part of what you want if the other person does the same.
• You value settling the disagreement quickly over finding the “perfect” solution.

The risk of always using it

The problem shows up when this style becomes your only resource, even for important topics.

A quick middle ground on a decision that really matters can leave both sides with a mediocre solution (neither what one wanted nor what the other wanted) instead of investing the time needed to find something better.

Fisher, Ury and Patton tell the classic example: two sisters quarrel over an orange and end up cutting it in half. One eats the fruit of her half and throws away the peel; the other throws away the fruit and uses the peel to bake a cake. Splitting it equally seemed fair, but asking what each of them wanted the orange for would have given both of them twice as much.

When it’s worth going beyond the middle ground

Saving collaboration for what really matters, and quick compromise for everything else, tends to be the most effective combination. Before settling a disagreement with an automatic middle ground, the useful question is whether the topic is one that resolves well that way, or whether this time it’s worth investing a little more time.

Compromising well means negotiating with objective criteria

Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, of the Harvard Negotiation Project, in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, point out that insisting on objective criteria (a market price, the opinion of an expert on the subject, a custom already established between both sides) makes it easier to reach a sensible agreement, because the discussion shifts from “I want this” to “what does the objective standard say here?”

That’s what separates a well-made compromise from simply “splitting the difference” at random. Each side giving a little works better, and feels fairer to both, when that middle ground is anchored to something external and verifiable rather than to who insisted more or who got tired of arguing first.

Do you recognize yourself in this style? Find out with the conflict management style quiz.

Sources

• Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Pruitt, D. G. and Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. Random House.
• Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/255985
• Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.