Compromise: The Easier but Suboptimal Path Most Often Taken in Conflict Resolution

Purpose: This article critically examines the role of compromise in conflict resolution by posing two fundamental questions: (1) Does compromise represent the most effective approach to conflict resolution, yielding optimal outcomes for the involved parties? (2) Are many negotiated outcomes ultimately unsustainable in the long term due to an excessive focus on compromise instead of pursuing more optimal and enduring resolution strategies? To address these inquiries, the article argues that compromise, despite its prevalence in public discourse, is often misapplied and overstated within the field of conflict resolution. Methodology: This article uses a theoretical framework approach. It uses established theories, models, and concepts as a roadmap to guide and structure the author's argument, thus providing a lens through which to examine the topic, draw connections, and understand its place and relationships within the broader network of existing theories and established ideas. The theoretical framework approach helps to narrow study focus, develop meaningful research questions, and ensure that a study builds upon existing knowledge in a logical and organized way. Using three standard and most frequently used conflict management self-assessment instruments by researchers and practitioners – Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid, Jay Hall's Conflict Management Survey, and Thomas-Kilmann's Conflict Mode Instrument, the paper attempts to answer three questions: (1) What aspects of compromise have afforded it a position of privilege, priority, popularity, and prominence among the various options and approaches to conflict resolution? (2) Is compromise the method of conflict resolution that yields the best possible outcomes for the parties? (3) Could many negotiated conflict outcomes be unsustainable in the long run because the parties involved primarily focus on, pursue, and adopt a compromise rather than a more optimal and enduring approach to conflict resolution? Findings: The findings suggest that compromise often constitutes an easier yet suboptimal choice in conflict resolution. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Drawing from its findings, the article advocates for an alternative, collaborative approach to conflict resolution, which may facilitate more sustainable and satisfactory outcomes for all parties involved. The temporary respite that compromise provides does not typically resolve the root causes of the conflict, which may lead to the reemergence of issues in the future.