Man In A White Shirt In Between Two People Arguing

Conflict is something we all experience, whether at work, in school, or in personal relationships. When handled well, it can lead to growth and stronger bonds, but when mishandled, it can create long-lasting issues.

Among the different conflict management styles, the compromising conflict style stands out as a practical and balanced approach. While it’s not a no one-size-fits-all model, its focus on encouraging mutual concessions makes it effective in navigating disagreements and maintaining harmony.

This blog explores the compromising conflict style, its benefits, and how it compares to other conflict resolution styles.

Definition and Characteristics of the Compromising Conflict Style

The compromising conflict style is about finding a middle ground. This approach requires each party to give up some of their demands to achieve a mutually acceptable solution.

For instance, if two coworkers disagree over how to allocate a shared budget, they might each agree to take a smaller share, ensuring the budget is used efficiently for both their projects.

The compromising conflict style strikes a balance between assertiveness-ensuring one’s needs are voiced-and cooperativeness, where the other party’s needs are acknowledged. It works well in moderately important situations where time is limited or when parties involved have equal power. While it may not provide a perfect resolution, it is often seen as a practical approach to keeping things moving forward.

Key Characteristics

  1. Moderate Assertiveness: Unlike the competing style, which focuses solely on winning, compromising ensures both sides express their needs while remaining open to negotiation.
  2. Moderate Cooperativeness: This aspect fosters collaboration by considering the goals of all parties involved, even if they are only partially met.
  3. Practicality: It’s most effective in situations where an immediate solution is needed, such as settling workplace disputes or minor family disagreements.
  4. Temporary Solutions: Often, compromises address surface issues without resolving underlying causes, making them a stopgap rather than a lasting fix.

Benefits of the Compromising Approach in Conflict Management

The compromising style has several advantages, making it one of the most widely used conflict management strategies. It’s especially popular in workplaces, where maintaining relationships and efficiency is critical. A study from the Niagara Institute found that 24.4% of respondents preferred this approach when managing conflict, second only to collaboration.

  1. Speed: One of the biggest perks of the compromising style is its ability to deliver a quick resolution. In situations where time is of the essence, such as a project deadline, it helps minimize disruptions.
  2. Preservation of Relationships: Unlike the competing style, which can create tension and resentment, compromising focuses on maintaining goodwill. Both sides feel heard, even if the solution isn’t perfect.
  3. Fairness: This style emphasizes balance, ensuring that no one party dominates the resolution. While not everyone is fully satisfied, the perception of equity often reduces long-term resentment.
  4. Flexibility: The compromising conflict style encourages adaptability, teaching participants to adjust their original positions without entirely losing ground. This trait is especially crucial in managing conflict in diverse settings.
  5. Reduced Tension: By focusing on mutually acceptable solutions, this style helps reduce tension and foster a positive environment.

Comparison With Other Conflict Management Styles

Understanding how the compromising style fits into the broader landscape of conflict management styles can help clarify its strengths and limitations. Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann’s model identifies five approaches: accommodating, avoiding, competing, collaborating, and compromising.

  • Accommodating Style: This approach prioritizes the needs of the other party, often at the expense of one’s own needs. While it can be effective in resolving minor conflicts, it may lead to feelings of exploitation if overused. In contrast, the compromising style ensures both sides walk away with partial satisfaction.
  • Avoiding Style: The avoiding conflict style involves sidestepping the conflict altogether, which can be helpful for low-priority disputes. However, it risks letting underlying issues fester. Compromising, on the other hand, directly addresses the problem, even if only partially.
  • Competing Style: High in assertiveness but low in cooperation, the competing style often results in a win-lose outcome. While it works in high-stakes situations, it can damage relationships. By contrast, compromising seeks balance, ensuring that neither side feels entirely defeated.
  • Collaborating Style: Collaborating conflict style aims for a win-win solution where both sides achieve their goals fully. Though ideal, it requires significant time and resources. In comparison, the compromising style is more suited for situations requiring efficiency.

Two neighbors engaged in a heated argument outdoors. Neither one backing down due to pride, believing they are correct.

Examples of Situations Suitable for a Compromising Style

The compromising conflict style often comes into play in situations where finding a balanced resolution is more important than achieving a perfect outcome. It’s particularly effective in contexts where relationships, efficiency, and fairness are critical.

  • Project Management: Delays and differing priorities are common in project management. For instance, a team facing a missed deadline may need to balance extending the timeline with preserving team morale. By using the compromising style, leaders can negotiate an extension while reducing the additional workload on their team members, achieving a balance that partially satisfies all stakeholders.
  • Workplace Disputes: Workplace dynamics can sometimes create friction between coworkers. In cases like disputes over shared responsibilities, the compromising conflict management style provides a way forward. Dividing tasks in a way that recognizes each individual’s workload ensures a resolution that maintains efficiency without breeding resentment.
  • Resource Allocation: In organizations with limited budgets or time-sensitive demands, conflicting departmental priorities are inevitable. For example, when two teams require the same resources, leadership may allocate them in proportions that allow each team to continue functioning while compromising on the full extent of their needs. This balanced approach helps maintain overall productivity and avoids unnecessary delays.

Steps to Effectively Implement the Compromising Style in Day-to-Day Conflicts

The compromising conflict style doesn’t just happen naturally. It requires a structured approach to ensure a resolution is both effective and fair. These steps can help make this process seamless in various conflict scenarios:

1. Identify Key Priorities

Before proposing any solutions, identify what truly matters to you and where you’re willing to make concessions. At the same time, seek to understand what’s critical for the other party. This clarity sets the foundation for a compromise that respects everyone’s core interests.

2. Communicate Clearly

Open communication is central to resolving conflict effectively. Each party must understand the stakes and desired outcomes. This includes articulating your own needs while actively listening to those of others. Clear communication not only speeds up the process but also ensures all voices are valued.

3. Propose Mutually Acceptable Solutions

Compromise works best when it addresses the concerns of everyone involved, even if only partially. For instance, a manager mediating between two employees might suggest adjusting work schedules to accommodate both individuals’ availability. While this doesn’t fully meet either person’s demands, it creates a fair middle-ground resolution.

4. Evaluate Outcomes

A compromise should be viewed critically to ensure it solves the immediate issue without causing future conflict. Ask yourself whether the resolution will meet short-term goals while leaving room for a better solution later. This evaluation can prevent dissatisfaction from resurfacing.

5. Treat It as Temporary

In many cases, a compromise is a stopgap measure rather than a permanent fix. For instance, allocating shared resources during a budget shortfall may stabilize the situation for now but should prompt a longer-term strategy to address underlying issues down the line.

How AllWin Prepares Participants for Using the Compromising Style in Professional Settings

At AllWin Conflict Resolution Training, we know conflict is a natural part of any workplace, and managing it well is a skill worth mastering. Our online conflict resolution training programs are designed to help professionals approach disagreements with confidence and clarity, especially using the compromising conflict style. Here’s how we do it:

  • Real-Life Scenarios: We provide participants with practical examples that mirror real-world conflicts. Whether it’s navigating departmental disagreements or addressing interpersonal disputes, our scenarios are designed to teach participants how to find a mutually acceptable solution.
  • Skill Development: Effective conflict management requires balancing assertiveness with cooperation. AllWin helps participants develop these skills through training activities so they can resolve disagreements efficiently while preserving relationships.
  • Role-Playing Exercises: Conflict resolution can be challenging, but practice makes perfect. Our role-playing exercises allow participants to simulate negotiations and apply strategies like the compromising style in a safe, controlled environment. This hands-on experience builds confidence and ensures participants are ready to use their skills in real situations.

At AllWin, we believe that conflict doesn’t have to divide people. It can create opportunities for growth when handled constructively. By mastering the compromising conflict style, professionals can tackle disagreements head-on while fostering collaboration and maintaining harmony. Contact us today to learn more about our training programs and how we can help your team thrive.

Jeremy Pollack Headshot

About the Author: Jeremy Pollack

Jeremy Pollack, Ph.D. is the founder of Defuse De-Escalation Training, a sister company of Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, the largest workplace conflict resolution training and consulting firm in North America. He actively participates in de-escalation training and consulting initiatives for a variety of industries, from Fortune 500 companies to well-known non-profits. Besides his Ph.D. in Psychology from Grand Canyon University, Jeremy holds a Master’s Degree in Negotiation, Conflict Resolution, and Peacebuilding (NCRP) from California State University, Dominguez Hills. He is also a member of several organizations focused on conflict resolution and peacebuilding, such as the Peaceful Leadership Institute, the Association for Conflict Resolution, and the Division 48 (Division of Peace Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. Jeremy also holds several certifications in the field of training and coaching: he is a Certified Organizational Development Coach (CODC™), a Certified Clinical Trauma Specialist-Individual (CCTS-I™), and an Associate Certified Coach (ACC) under the International Coaching Federation.

LinkedIn IconPollack Peacebuilding Systems Icon