So why use compromising instead of problem solving? Here are three situations in which the Compromising conflict style is a good choice:

Scenario 1: Compromising is a good choice when either party is unable or unwilling to discuss openly their real, underlying interests. Sometimes trust has not been (or really can’t be) established or a lot of information cannot be disclosed in a public forum. In such situations, compromising can be valuable as it is efficient, it is mutual, and it shows goodwill without giving away confidential information.

Scenario 2: Compromising works well when you need a quick, sensible solution - maybe as a placeholder, or maybe because you need fast action on an urgent issue. In this case, compromising is a good alternative to problem-solving; it shows concern for both parties while saving time and energy.

Scenario 3: Compromising can also be a quick alternative to relying on the Forcing style, which we have discussed as a “last resort.” If you are a leader who tends to over-rely on forcing, you might want to consider experimenting with compromising. When you need to make time-urgent and important decisions and you have the expertise, Forcing gets you to an answer really quickly. Compromising has the same benefit of being quick, but it gives a bit more consideration to the other party’s expertise and interests.