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.

A middle point, faster than collaborating

Within the dual concerns model, compromise sits at the center of the map: it doesn’t prioritize its own outcome above everything, doesn’t sacrifice it for the relationship, doesn’t avoid the negotiation, and doesn’t invest the time a deep collaboration demands. It looks, more directly and quickly, for an agreement where each side gives up something reasonable. It’s a pragmatic style: it prefers a workable agreement now over a perfect one that takes too long.

How it shows up day to day

• Proposes middle grounds fairly easily, without needing to dig much further.
• Gives up what seems reasonable in exchange for the other side giving something up too.
• Prioritizes moving forward and closing the deal over exploring every possible option.
• Feels comfortable in negotiations where both parties have similar power.

Their growth challenge

Quick compromise can leave value on the table: sometimes there’s a better solution for both sides that neither party ever explores because the middle-ground deal already seemed good enough. This style’s challenge is saving deeper collaboration for negotiations that truly deserve it, the highest-impact ones or long-term relationships, and using quick compromise where it fits best: in everyday matters.

Carnegie’s “yes, yes” technique

Dale Carnegie, in How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), recommends starting any difficult conversation by first finding several small points both sides already agree on, before touching the actual point of disagreement. His reasoning is almost psychological: it’s much harder for a person to turn around and say “no” halfway through a conversation where they’ve already said “yes” several times than to refuse from the start. Each small prior agreement makes the next one easier.

This technique fits almost perfectly with how this style naturally works: according to Carnegie, instead of stating the final middle ground directly, finding those small agreements first (where both sides already align, what both already accept) could pave the way for proposing the mutual concession that defines compromise afterward, though the outcome depends on each conversation and each specific relationship.

On the map of styles

It differs from the collaborative negotiator in how deep the process goes, and from the avoidant negotiator in that it actively enters the negotiation instead of dodging it.

Want to see your own style? Take the negotiation style quiz.