WHILE WE ARE KEEPING SOCIAL DISTANCE AND HAVE A LOT OF TIME ON OUR HANDS, LET’S DO SOME CONFLICT RESOLUTION…
I TEND TO USE THE COMPROMISING CONFLICT STYLE
Using the Compromising Conflict Resolution style
In mediation, facilitation and conflict coaching, we work to open up creativity in the conflict resolution process. That's in the upper right corner of the chart above. We help to develop a collaborative process where the result is a new creative problem solving outcome. These are win-win agreements. Conflict is diminished and communication and understanding is increased.
Compromising conflict style is...
We don't always have the time required to do creative conflict resolution. As conflicts arise, our prevalent conflict approach is usually what we use. If you tend toward the compromising style, located smack in the middle of the the chart, then that's likely your go-to approach.
Compromising can be a great method to come to a more fair outcome in comparison with the Avoid, Compete and Accommodate styles. Its a big improvement over these approaches which end up with Lose/Win, Win/Lose or Lose/Lose outcomes. In this context we can say that Compromise is Win/Lose -Win/Lose--a little bit of both for both people.
Imposed Compromise
Many are familiar with the orange story. Here's a quick review. Two sisters want the last orange. They fight. Frustrated mom comes, hears the argument and takes her knife and slices the orange into two halves, handing half each to her two daughters.
Compromise? Well sort of. In this case, its an imposed compromise. The girls didn't resolve it themselves, it was decided by another person--a powerful third party acting as the decider. Fair outcome? Whether its fair or not is up to the disputants, not the decider, so we don't really know. They each got half of what they wanted, it was resolved quickly, bingo bango. We don't really know, because the two disputants didn't get to figure it out with each other. This is important in any conflict resolution process. Someone else deciding is not optimal---though sometimes necessary in the interest of time.
Self determined compromise
If possible, though, allowing those in the dispute to decide what's fair would be better. Preserving their self-determination. Instead of imposing a solution, a neutral mediator would work to help the the two sisters to talk and listen to each other and to begin understand the other's perspective. Through mediation they might come up with an entirely different outcome--and decide it is a fair one that they like. Or they themselves might decide to cut the orange in half and even thought they only would end up with half of what they wanted, it would have been their own compromise, made together through discussion. A compromise determined in this way can help to preserve or build a relationship.
When is compromising style a wise choice?
There are many situations in which compromise might be the best method. For example:
When differences have been discussed and its time to move on.
When it is unrealistic to totally satisfy everyone.
When the goals of both parties have equal importance and merit.
When the situation requires a quick resolution, even if temporary.
When there's no time/energy available for collaboration.
When "splitting the difference" is the fair and best solution.
When the value of maintaining relationships is more important.
When the parties can agree to disagree and live with the decision.
Thoughtful Compromisers
Why do people tend to compromise? As per Dale Eilerman, in his article below: "These people are more likely to be objective in their assessment of differences and use factual information when weighing their options. Individuals with a thinking preference typically make pragmatic decisions based on deductive reasoning." Individuals who tend to compromise are aware of other's desires and are willing to engage in discussions to consider each other's ideas and interests. The idea of 'splitting the difference' appeals to their logical reasoning.
When is compromising not good?
Compromising is generally better than the other three styles mentioned previously. Talking it out and ending up with both individuals losing a little as well as winning a little sure seems like a pretty fair way to go. Right? Yet sometimes the material thing at the center of the dispute is not the real conflict--but a stand in for emotional or relational conflict. In this case the compromise may just delay the needed deeper discussion to get to the core of the conflict.
In the case of the sisters and the orange, a compromise was a quick but incomplete outcome. As those who know this classic story remember, the sisters wanted the orange for different purposes. One sister wanted to zest the peel for a baking project. With her half she had half the zest she needed and had to manage the baking with less. A win/lose. She threw the inner fruit away. Sister two had wanted to eat the orange fruit herself, and ended up eating half of what she wanted. A win/lose as well. Had the two sisters had the time and energy to talk the issue out, they would have learned this from each other. Both would have been able to collaborate and come up with a new outcome where both of them each got what they wanted. Having started each with the position, 'I want the whole orange!" they could have ended up with 'Both of us got exactly what we want." A Collaborative outcome--the conflict style that our organization tries to work toward when we mediate.
Do this:
Read this article about the compromising conflict style
If you tend to be an compromiser, look to see if you can push past the 'split the difference' quick fix. Can you collaborate on a new and creative way to resolve the conflict?
The compromise style in business, when it works and when it doesn't.
William Ury is looking for the 18th camel, looking for the win/win. Video here.