Compromising Negotiator: Looking for a Reasonable Middle Ground
The compromising negotiator style looks for a reasonable middle ground for both sides: it gives up something in exchange for the other side giving something up too. It’s the “split the difference” style, and the one most often used in everyday negotiations.
A note on vocabulary: “compromising” here means reaching a compromise, in the sense of mutual concession, not the other meaning of the word, as in a compromising photo or position.
A middle point, faster than collaborating
On the five-style map popularized by Thomas and Kilmann (1974), which Rahim (1983) turned into a widely used questionnaire, compromise sits in the center: it neither puts its own outcome above everything, nor sacrifices it for the relationship, nor avoids the negotiation, nor invests the time that thorough collaboration demands.
Interestingly, not every model gives it a place of its own. Pruitt and Rubin’s dual concern theory (1986) has only four strategies (contending, yielding, problem solving, and inaction), and compromise doesn’t appear as a strategy in its own right: it’s understood instead as problem solving that stops halfway. The Dutch questionnaire by De Dreu and colleagues (2001) treats it as an optional style: the short version measures four strategies, and the extended version adds compromising as a fifth.
How it looks in practice
- Proposes middle points fairly readily, without digging much further.
- Gives up what seems reasonable in exchange for the other side giving something up too.
- Prioritizes closing the deal over exploring every option.
- Feels comfortable when both sides have similar power.
It’s a pragmatic style: it prefers a workable agreement now to a perfect one that takes too long. In many situations, like meeting halfway on a restaurant for dinner or splitting the cost of a gift, it’s the most efficient option.
The value left on the table
The limit of compromise shows up when there are several issues and each side values them differently. In that case, splitting each issue down the middle is usually worse for both than trading concessions.
An example: a candidate is negotiating a job offer. The company offers €34,000 and she asks for €40,000; on top of that, she cares a lot about two days of remote work, which cost the company little. Splitting the difference puts the salary at €37,000 and leaves remote work untouched. If both issues are discussed together, she might accept €35,500 with the two remote days, which she values more than the salary difference, and the company saves money. That trade is called logrolling, and it is the basis of the integrative agreements studied by Pruitt and Lewis (1975).
The meta-analysis by De Dreu, Weingart, and Kwon (2000) shows why the shortcut is tempting: the best joint agreements appear when concern for the other side comes with a degree of resistance to yielding. Conceding early and in equal parts is comfortable, but it cuts short the search for those solutions.
That’s why the hallmark of an effective compromiser is telling simple issues, where the midpoint is perfect, apart from negotiations with several moving parts, where it’s worth asking first what matters most to each side. We explain this in more detail in the profile of the collaborative negotiator.
Preparing the ground with small agreements
Dale Carnegie, in How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), a popular classic, suggests opening difficult conversations with the points on which both sides already agree: his “yes, yes” technique. It fits this style because it makes the common ground explicit before proposing mutual concessions, although Carnegie presents it as a persuasion technique, not as a research finding.
On the map of styles
It differs from the collaborative negotiator in the depth of the process, and from the avoidant negotiator in that it actively engages in the negotiation instead of sidestepping it.
Want to see your own style? Take the negotiation style quiz.
Sources
- Carnegie, D. (1936). How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon & Schuster.
- De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E., and Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645-668. doi:10.1002/job.107
- De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., and Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 889-905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889
- Pruitt, D. G., and Lewis, S. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 621-633. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.31.4.621
- 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. doi:10.2307/255985
- Thomas, K. W., and Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom.
Want to know more about yourself?
Discover your result with one of our related tests.
Frequently asked questions
Is compromising the same as collaborating?
They're similar but not the same: collaboration seeks to deeply understand both sides' interests; compromise seeks a faster middle ground, with each side giving up something without exploring the underlying issue as much.
When does this style work best?
When time is limited and both parties have similar negotiating power: it lets things move forward without the wear of a long negotiation.
Does 'compromising' mean the same here as in 'a compromising situation'?
No. Here the word comes from reaching a compromise, a mutual concession, not from the other sense of 'compromising,' which means exposing someone to risk or embarrassment. The style is about meeting halfway, nothing more.
