Finding a compromise: 6 relevant steps + clear boundaries!

Content

Meaning: What is a compromise?
Finding compromise in antiquity
Finding a compromise: 6 steps
Making compromises does not necessarily lead to the optimum
Compromise example: The dispute over an orange
Win-win solution instead of compromise
Willingness to compromise needs clear boundaries
Saying no is also a compromise
Finding a compromise in the job: 3 tips
BATNA: The best possible alternative
What other readers have read about it

Anyone who stubbornly wants their head through the wall in conversations or negotiations only creates resistance. You have to compromise in life. They often lead to the goal faster. At work as well as in private relationships. Double advantage: The consensus satisfies everyone involved - and you can help shape it. But be careful: concessions need clear limits. Otherwise there is a risk of a “lazy” compromise. We'll show you how to find the perfect compromise and how to negotiate better in the future ...

Meaning: What is a compromise?

A compromise is an agreement that all parties agree to and ideally perceive as fair and just. This agreement is usually achieved through mutual concessions. To do this, each party to the dispute has to cut back on its previous positions and give up some of its demands.

A good compromise is characterized by the fact that ...

everyone involved feels good after the partial victory.
the alternative solution is perceived as fair.
the middle ground creates added value.

Otherwise one speaks of a "lazy compromise".

Finding compromise in antiquity

There were already compromises in the ancient Roman Empire. There they were considered the "third way" in the case law. For the Roman politician and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero, the “compromissum” meant a joint promise by the contending parties to submit to the independent arbitration award of a third party. This judgment was final. If a party resisted, it could be punished with a fine.

Finding a compromise: 6 steps

We often have to make compromises in everyday life. In politics they even form the essence of democracy. OK then! A consensus resolves conflicts and blockages. Then it goes on again. A win-win solution! Finding a compromise isn't even difficult. This often only takes six simple steps:

1. Openly communicate your position and expectations.
2. Listen carefully to what the other person wants.
3. Ask questions to understand the motive.
4. Show understanding of each other's demands.
5. Find alternative and attractive offers.
6. Find a solution that both of you will accept.

Making compromises does not necessarily lead to the optimum

Compromise is the opposite of endless discussion. They result from fair debates on an equal footing and clear agreements. In the end there is a middle ground that everyone can live with (well) ... Sounds easy. In practice, however, finding a compromise often turns out to be tough struggles, negotiations, pacts and tactics. After all, each side tries to get the most out of itself first. Stubbornness in negotiations can therefore have a strategic background.

In addition, a compromise (or “consensus”) does not necessarily lead to an optimum. Not even if he is in the middle of both positions. Think of the textbook example of the two sisters arguing.

Compromise example: The dispute over an orange

Both sisters want the one orange. In the end, they agree on a compromise: they split the orange in half. But the first sister then peeled half the orange, eats the pulp and throws the peel away. The other peeled the orange too, but threw away the pulp and used the peel for baking. That went stupid: If both sisters had not negotiated their demands (“I want the orange”), but rather their interests (“I want to eat it”, “I want to bake with it”), they would have come to a better result: One gets all of the pulp, the other gets the peel of the whole orange.

The example teaches two things:

Even those who compromise and make concessions can ultimately find a solution that everyone can live with - but one that makes everyone losers.
If you want to find a compromise, you should first ask: What do I really want? Then you have to find out: What is the main interest (motive) of my counterpart? Sometimes they are congruent, but often not.

Those who manage to meet the interests of their counterpart are more successful in negotiating.

Win-win solution instead of compromise

The textbook example originally comes from the context of the so-called Harvard concept or the "Harvard method". This was developed in 1981 at Harvard University by the legal scholar Roger Fisher. Today it is part of the standard repertoire of Harvard Law School. Bruce Patton later published a book of the same name with Fischer and Ury Wiliam, which became a bestseller. The idea behind it: A compromise is not always the best solution. In the end, nobody gets what they want. The aim is therefore a “win-win solution” in which everyone wins (hence also called a “double victory strategy”).

This is achieved through factual negotiation according to four principles:

1. People and problems are treated separately

Negotiations often fail because the factual level and the relationship level are mixed up. Those involved take the contradiction personally, the emotions boil over. Result: an escalation of conflict. So try not to take the debate personally and stay neutral and factual. Relationship problems are discussed separately.

2. Negotiating interests - not positions

Try to see what interests are behind the other demand. Anyone who wants to achieve an optimal result in the negotiation not only has to openly communicate their own interests, but also first understand the needs of others. This is the only way to find a "common" solution.

3. Find options that are mutually beneficial (win-win)

As soon as you know what motives your counterpart is pursuing, you can make offers and find solutions that satisfy those involved without weakening your own position. If the other person can choose between several alternatives, concessions are likely.

4. The result must be based on objective criteria

The win-win process only ends when both sides evaluate the result objectively and accept it as fair and neutral. Otherwise, both can correct the solution. The assessment criteria for this can be laws, moral values or social norms.

Willingness to compromise needs clear boundaries

Every relationship has to be compromised. It is no different in love than in work and business relationships. Sometimes you even have to bite the bullet and signal willingness to make sacrifices, motto: "Okay, this time I give in ..." Those who always want to assert their own point of view without loss are well on the way to loneliness and isolation.

To make compromises, however, presupposes that BOTH sides want to maintain and cultivate the relationship. But that's not always the case. Especially when knowledge and power are unevenly distributed. In this case, power relations and knowledge of rulership often lead one side to try to take advantage of the other. Anyone who shows willingness to compromise too early will be mercilessly ripped off. The willingness to compromise therefore always needs clear limits.

Saying no is also a compromise

Some limits arise on their own - through practical constraints, specifications, budget framework, freedom of choice and decision-making skills. Other limits are derived from your personal priorities and principles. Sustainable compromises are only possible if they adhere to the objective limits and do not violate your values.

Despite all possible concessions: Always keep in mind that you can also say no. Sometimes you even have to. The philosopher Immanuel Kant already recognized: "In all limits there is also something positive."

There are always two reasons for overreaching: the one who tries to pull someone else over the table - and the one who lets himself be done. Although compromises are indispensable, they only become sustainable through such limits.

Finding a compromise in the job: 3 tips

Of course, it is not enough just to know your own limits. You have to communicate this clearly. A constructive attitude is decisive here. Otherwise, borders can be misunderstood as refusal, egoism or uncompromising attitude. So that you can make good compromises with your colleagues, superiors and business partners and at the same time set clear boundaries, you will find three proven recommendations here:

Explain reasons without justifying yourself
Show clearly where you CANNOT go. Friendly in tone, but tough on the subject and undoubtedly in the undertone. Otherwise, this signals readiness to negotiate again. For a better understanding, you can also explain - without reproach - the reasons for your limit and decision. But be careful not to justify yourself. It's just a matter of clarifying the "why" of your limits. Whether these are legitimate is not an issue. You alone decide.
Giving nothing without making concessions
Negotiating means getting closer. It would not be wise if you reveal your maximum or minimum requirement right at the beginning. Therefore, if you just move towards each other TOGETHER, it only makes your boundaries more believable. In other words, if you ask you to move, you can ask the same. In the case of simple price negotiations, this usually comes down to the middle. In the case of more complex negotiations, however, it can also mean that you go down with the price, for example, but that your counterpart has to cut back on performance.
Show understanding and communicate empathically
Enforcing boundaries does not mean ignoring each other's needs and interests. Instead of arguing stubbornly, you should react empathically to the arguments of your counterpart and show that you are trying to take them into account. As far as it goes. You will not soften your boundaries, but you will approach your interlocutor as far as possible.

No question about it, that requires some diplomatic skill and instinct. But both can be learned, practiced and trained well.

BATNA: The best possible alternative

If you absolutely cannot come to an agreement, you can also try a temporary solution (a "temporary solution"). This is also a compromise - but it doesn't mean that, which is why some are more likely to get involved. Professionals, on the other hand, recommend a so-called BATNA solution.

"BATNA" is an acronym and means: "Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement" - in German: "The best alternative in the event of no agreement." You can even use the strategy to strengthen your own negotiating position. To do this, think about beforehand what alternatives you have if you cannot find a compromise. This “Plan B” immediately gives you more self-confidence, which you will also exude.

Compromising is good. Not having to compromise is better.