Compromising (moderate on both)

Split the difference when a fast, fair, good-enough solution beats holding out for the perfect one.

Why it works

Compromising sits in the middle of both axes — each side gives something to reach a workable middle. It works because it needs far less than collaboration does: no shared diagnosis of the problem, no disclosure of what either side actually cares about underneath, and no trust that such disclosure will not be used against you. Both parties can stay behind their stated positions and still reach an agreement, which is why compromise closes when collaboration would stall or expose someone. Its limitation is the same fact seen from the other side: because it operates on positions rather than on the interests behind them, it can only divide the value already on the table — it cannot discover that the two sides wanted different things and could both have been fully satisfied. Splitting the difference leaves both sides partly unsatisfied and skips the mutual-gains solution real collaboration might have found.

How to do it

1. Use it when time or stakes don’t justify full collaboration but the relationship still matters.
2. Make sure both sides genuinely give, so it’s a fair trade rather than a lopsided concession.
3. Don’t reach for it so fast that you skip a possible win-win that collaboration could find.

Evidence

Part of the TKI typology; also echoed in negotiation research distinguishing positional compromise from interest-based solutions. The style label is from the self-report model, so mechanistic. (mechanistic)

Compromise is often confused with collaboration; it’s a faster, shallower mode that trades optimality for speed.

Common mistake

Jumping to "let’s just split it" as a reflex, settling for a mediocre middle when a bit more effort could have produced a solution that actually met both sets of needs.