Compromise: Is it a Bad Word?

Image Source: Microsoft 365 Stock Photo

Many people hear the word compromise in a mediation and think it means they must ‘give in’ to the other party at their own expense.

In fact, it has such a negative connotation that I don’t use the word at all - simply because it is so misunderstood. Yet, it is a commonly used word in the legal profession.

Compromises in mediation are common and powerful – so let’s look at what the word means and how it works.

The verb compromise, according to Merriam-Webster, means to come to agreement by 𝗺𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. The phrase ‘mutual concession’ is important because it means both sides must consider giving up something in order to get what they 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱.

This is much closer to the meaning of compromise in disputes.

My experience of people in conflict is that they have opposing views on issues in common. If their differences in these issues are not resolved quickly, their positions often become entrenched over time and neither side wants to move, as both believe they are right.

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴. They are not about winning or losing.

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗗.

In most disputes, there are some things that each party needs to have addressed. It takes effort for people to really work out what these needs are, as distinct from wants. This effort is often the biggest obstacle.

𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹. 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀.

Case in point is the famous story of the two children who wanted the last remaining orange. The parent comes in to break up the argument and asks each child why they want the orange. Simply cutting the orange in half will not resolve the issue. It is only through questioning that it comes to light that one child wants to make orange juice, while the other wants the orange rind to add to the cake they are making. A needs-based solution presents in a way that wasn’t obvious at first.

𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 – untangling the needs from the wants. As mediators often say – the problem is not the problem. It is only the tip of the iceberg – it's what’s unseen that needs to be brought to the surface and discussed. This is the role of the mediator.

From the orange example above, having uncovered why each child wants the orange, the compromise is easy to see. Each child’s needs have been met.

In complex multiparty disputes it can take several hours or several days of discussions to reveal the depth of icebergs, identify needs, and search out where the tradeoffs and compromises might lie.

So, if you are preparing for a mediation, 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 “𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲” 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘂𝗽, 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀.

Lynette Edwards authored this article as part of Right Mediator’s professional practice series. You can find out more about Lynette’s mediation and conflict management coaching business at www.resolutionwise.com.au

Originally published on LinkedIn.