What the heck is compromise anyway?
A little while ago I wrote an article on LinkedIn about the “Nuances of Compromise in Negotiation” and what are good and bad uses of the concept (you can find it here if you are interested) I learned a lot from putting that article out there.
The more negotiations I engage in, and trainings I conduct with a broad array of people, I invariably explain that I am not a fan of compromise in negotiation. I believe it is an inefficient way to negotiate for a number of reasons I elaborate upon below. But I also have come to learn that is a very ‘Western’ perspective. When I share my views most people’s reactions are confusion and dismayal -- some even get angry because for them compromise lies at the heart of their negotiation approach. Further, compromise is a sign of maturity and recognizing the constraints found in real life negotiations. For others, like me, compromise is giving in too easily or not exploring all the possible options at your disposal. So, all these conversations have made me want to explore this further…AND there is a lot more to this story!
So the first thing I think we need to do is to put out a few definitions of compromise so we can see the range of what we are discussing. To do that, I did what most people do these days…I asked ChatGPT. Let me share what the algorithm provided:
The first classic definition is “Compromise is a mutual agreement reached when each party makes concessions—giving up part of what they want to gain a solution acceptable to all.” This one seems relatively straight forward. Negotiators give up something to reach an agreement. Got it. I would add this about that definition; this feels like a race to the bottom, or at least a scenario where it is almost predetermined that people have to each give up something of (significant?) value in order to reach agreement. This is the reason why I struggle with the concept. Like many, I really prefer not to give up something very important to me in order to reach agreement. I may have to do it from time to time, but it is definitely not my starting point or my desired end goal.
The second definition, according to our AI friend, is from the negotiation theory realm, “In negotiation, compromise is a distributive strategy where parties split the difference rather than fully satisfying either side’s interests. It often represents a middle-ground or win-some, lose-some outcome.” That is also clear. Again, this is one that I don’t fully embrace because it focuses primarily on seeking a middle ground. That means negotiators are trying to find a mutually acceptable agreement based on concessions – taking a particularly positional approach to the negotiation. This stance often involves "splitting the difference." Again, sometimes that is needed but if we go in with this mindset…guess where we end up (yes you are correct, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). Put differently, we never explore all the possible options before splitting the difference because we are not thinking from that vantage point.
As I made my way through other definitions, I encountered some other interesting tidbits to keep in mind. A practical definition, as it was called, is that compromise means an act of good faith—a willingness to prioritize the relationship or future cooperation over short-term gain. Not a bad premise. Then there was this notion from the psychological realm -- compromise involves cognitive flexibility— balancing competing needs and accepting partial satisfaction rather than perfection. It is a negotiation between one’s ideal outcome and ‘reality’ as people define it. In other contexts, another interpretation of compromise is a form of capitulation—a loss of principle.
In general, so far, none of these quite hits the mark on what troubles me about compromise. But maybe there is hope with a last definition I came across, which is “From an interest-based negotiation perspective (à la Getting to Yes) compromise is seen as less optimal than collaboration. It is positional—focused on dividing the pie rather than inventing options that meet underlying interests. Put differently, a compromise splits positions; a principled negotiation reconciles interests.” Ah ha! This is what I am getting at when I am talking about compromise.
OK, so what does this look like in practice? Here is an example. There was a Project Manager (PM) who was overseeing a design effort. Before the project began to run into trouble she approved her lead programmers request for a month vacation. But circumstances had changed and she was stuck. She did not want to go back on her word to the programmer – this was a critical interest for her as a leader. When she approached her boss to discuss the matter, she quickly learned his position was the project must get done on time. An extension was not possible. The PM’s desire for an extension was at odds with her Boss’s perspective. What might a compromise solution look like? A two week extension? That would not meet either sides goals. Everyone would walk away unhappy. However, if we move past compromise there is a different way to look at the problem. From an interest based vantage point, the lead programmer really wanted to show her team she advocated for them and did not go back on her word. For the boss, the project needed to be done on time because there were other parts of the project that were contingent on the completion of this element. A delay here was a delay more broadly and a significant loss of revenue. So, what to do? Well, when the problem was posed to the parties from this interest based perspective, they began to notice a viable solution that had nothing to do with compromise. The boss gave the PM the ability to move personnel around from one project to another, bringing over another designer to complete the work. The boss could also provide the funds to do that because there was money in the budget. In the end, the PM kept her word – her programmer could still go on vacation – and they would be replaced with someone else so that the project could keep moving forward and not be delayed. Everyone got what they needed without a compromise.
But alas, it is not that simple, is it?
What I am also noticing in my conversations about compromise is that a significant challenge we have to grapple with is how cultures around the world view compromise (and yes, I will inevitably have to generalize here so please take that into consideration). The short answer is REALLY differently. As I work with many people from unique places around the world – rooted in their distinct cultures -- this issue requires a lot of analysis and, hopefully, clarity. Having learned through experience and this deeper dive, there are many ways of understanding and thinking about compromise. These perspectives are useful to dissect because this often adds an unspoken dimension to the conversation.
Let me start where I live – in the United States. Typically compromise means a pragmatic or fair solution where each side gives something up to reach agreement. The notion of meeting halfway is often seen as positive and reasonable. This approach is also expedient and will keep a process moving, particularly important when time is of the essence. A downside to this approach is that people can prematurely compromise when there might be a better solution (i.e. leaving value on the table). This approach is transactional in nature as was discussed above.
Moving over to Asian cultures, such as Japan, China and South Korea, we find a very different view compromise. From their collective perspective, compromise is seen as trying to preserve harmony in the relationship. This desire to preserve connects with the all-important notions of respect and face-saving/face-giving.
Zooming over to the Middle East (also known as Southwest Asia), the general sentiment about compromise is that it is an acceptable approach – particularly if it honors relationships and preserves reputations. The notion of reciprocal compromise is important to build the relationship that underpins the negotiations. Any ‘business action’ that is taken early on before a relationship is built can be seen as disrespectful.
Moving up on a map from the Middle East to Northern Europe, to places like Germany and the Scandinavian countries, there is yet another view of compromise. This vantage point is focused more on rationality and acting principally. Compromise is typically equated with fairness and transparency and is rooted in logical reasoning and data driven analysis.
A relatively short trip from there to the African continent provides yet another vantage point. Compromise is most commonly associated with consensus and reconciliation -- given the collectivist nature of the countries. For example, in many traditional cultural practices to deal with conflicts and to negotiate solutions, elders and others seek to restore a social balance and preserve long term harmony through compromise.
Finally, our last shift takes us to Latin America, where compromise is attached to personal relationships. Compromise is seen as something to be cultivated and developed to grow the relationship. The idea here is connected to warmth and flexibility so business can get done.
Well, that was quite a trip! I am kind of exhausted to be honest, but it was worth it for me. As I step back, I ask myself, what did this little jaunt around the globe teach us about compromise and negotiation? Well, there are a few important takeaways from my perspective (you certainly may have others – please do share!).
First, it is imperative to define what we mean by compromise. There are so many ways of thinking about the concept, and what it means across the world, that clarity is essential. Otherwise, negotiators are likely to be using different definitions about compromise and will be talking past each other. Confusion is the most likely outcome.
Second, much of this discussion gets at the purpose of compromise. Is the goal to split the difference from an expediency point of view or is it social harmony? Is it a form of respect or a short sighted solution to relieve the anxiety many feel?
Third and finally, we always have to ask, compromise compared to what? For many years I have seen the difference between compromise and creative problem solving. To me the latter is far more effective in negotiation, but that is only because of where I sit and how I have seen compromise solutions come back to haunt those that have chosen that route. That is my western lens and I see how others can be confused by what I am getting at.
I suppose what I am trying to say is this -- whatever one’s perspective, all the various notions of compromise are here to stay. Which one do you ascribe to and why? And is it helping you in your negotiations or hindering you? Only you can answer that question.
