Compromise can lead to resentments and unresolved conflicts

Over the next three weeks we will consider an updated assessment of compromise in our conflicts, be they professional or personal.

An unfortunate and probably unplanned collaboration between our childhood educators, outdated conflict strategies and pulp self-help books has conspired to teach us the received truth that conflict can, and should, be resolved by way of compromise.

We even have a handy list of cliches to illustrate our willingness to do so. We share and share alike, we meet each other in the middle, we give and we take, we must give some to get some, and so on.

To compromise, so we are told, is a sign of fairness, of being reasonable.

Conflicts, including that modern battlefield, the sales negotiation, are resolved by setting up two or more opposing goals, and the haggling towards a real or perceived middle ground, where both parties can politely claim victory and where commissions can be earned.

We split the difference, right?

But everything from modern conflict research to everyday conflict experience tells us that there is something wrong with this picture, with this age-old wisdom.

A wonderful definition that I work with in explaining this idea of compromise is that compromise is when you give away something that you would have preferred to keep.

In that simple little aphorism we already see the problem — we are expected to give something away that may have value to us.

And to really raise suspicions that all is not well with this approach, we find that research also shows quite clearly that compromise solutions, such as they are, often lead to much resentment among conflicting parties, and it is a major cause of unresolved and even cyclical conflicts.

Compromise solutions are easy to sell.

They have so much going for them — they are relatively quick, they seem cost-effective, the nagging and shouting can stop, the guns are silenced, peace returns and we can get on with our real work.

Or so we tell ourselves. Patched solutions, quick fixes, hurried promises and naive assurances that “it will work out better this time” all just make things worse.

Next week we continue with our assessment of compromise, its place and the alternatives in our conflicts.

● Contact Andre Vlok at