10 Pros and Cons of Compromising Conflict Style

In the landscape of conflict resolution, the compromising style emerges as a middle-ground approach, embodying a blend of assertiveness and cooperativeness. It’s often likened to a negotiation where each party concedes some demands to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. While this method can foster quick and fair resolutions, maintaining relationships in the short term, it’s not without its drawbacks.

What is compromising conflict style?

The compromising conflict style is one of the five conflict handling modes defined by Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann in their Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). This style is considered to be moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The goal of the compromising approach is to find a middle ground that partially satisfies everyone involved. It is seen as a give-and-take relationship that involves making concessions to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

Here’s a more detailed look at the compromising conflict style:

  • Assertiveness: Individuals using the compromising style are moderately assertive. They are willing to express their own needs and wants but are also prepared to listen to and consider the other person’s perspective.
  • Cooperativeness: This style is also moderately cooperative. It recognizes the importance of both parties’ goals and seeks a solution that will at least partially satisfy both sides.
  • Conflict Situation Application: Compromising is most effective when the conflict is at an impasse, and a quick, temporary, or moderately important solution is needed. It’s often used when parties have equal power and are committed to maintaining the relationship but have not been able to move forward through collaboration.
  • Outcome: The outcome is generally a split-the-difference solution that, while not perfect for anyone, is acceptable to all. It is seen as a practical approach when the stakes are moderate or when there is limited time to find a resolution.

Using a compromising style to handle conflicts can be a practical approach in certain situations, but like any conflict resolution style, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Here are some pros and cons of using a compromising approach to conflict resolution:

Сompromising conflict style Pros:

  1. Quick Resolution: Compromising can lead to faster solutions, which is particularly useful when time is of the essence and a prolonged conflict might cause more issues or missed opportunities.
  2. Fairness: It promotes the idea of fairness, as it often involves each party giving up something to reach a mutually acceptable solution.
  3. Maintaining Relationships: By avoiding a win/lose scenario, compromising can help maintain relationships as both parties feel heard and none are completely sidelined.
  4. Flexibility: This approach shows flexibility and adaptability, as the parties involved are willing to shift from their original positions and consider alternatives.
  5. Reduced Tension: Compromising can reduce tension and stress because it seeks an expedient, if not perfect, resolution that both parties can live with.

Сompromising conflict style Cons:

  1. Surface-Level Solutions: Compromising may result in solutions that only address the immediate issues without solving the underlying causes of the conflict, which can lead to repeated disputes in the future.
  2. Lack of Innovation: Since compromise involves meeting halfway, it may limit creative or innovative solutions that could have been discovered through a more collaborative approach.
  3. Possible Resentment: One or both parties may feel like they’ve had to give up too much, leading to feelings of resentment which can affect relationships negatively in the long run.
  4. Overuse: When used excessively, compromising can be seen as a lack of conviction or avoidance of tough decisions, leading others to question a leader’s or individual’s assertiveness and ability to stand their ground.
  5. Suboptimal Outcomes: The outcome of a compromise is often not the best possible solution for any party but merely an acceptable middle ground, which can result in a less than optimal performance or satisfaction.

The effectiveness of a compromising conflict style often depends on the situation and the individuals involved. It’s generally most effective when both parties have equal power and a vested interest in maintaining a positive relationship but may be less effective in situations where the underlying issues need to be fully addressed or when one party has significantly more power than the other.

Read more blogs from our experts