TOPIC: COMPROMISE - is it lose-lose technique

Dear All,

Is COMPROMISE - conflict resolution technique is a lose-lose technique? I read in one article that it is lose-lose situation but another book says it is neither a lose or a win situation.

Please share your comments what should we choose if we get a question on this?

Thanks, R.

That is a great question! Let me give you my personal opinion on the conflict resolution techniques:

None of the conflict resolution technique is a lose-lose technique. To me, any conflict resolution technique, that ends up resolving the conflict, cannot be a lose-lose technique. Lose-lose will be the situation if the conflict is not addressed and not resolved.

Many people believe that confronting is the best conflict resolution technique. Theoretically this seems to be true, but practically one needs to choose the best technique for the situation. For example, in some situations it would be better to withdraw rather than confront a situation. Imagine one of my colleagues is having a really bad day and has just received a real hard time from his manager. If this colleague starts an argument with me today, I would rather withdraw from the conflict rather than trying to confront. Perhaps, I would try to confront the problem the very next day. Or maybe he’ll be back to normal the very next day. What do you think?

According to PMBOK, “each one (of the techniques) has its place and use”.

Do let me know what do you think.

Regards,

Khurram Hussain, PMP, CSSBB

Dear Khurram,

Thank you for sharing your comments and a response to my post.

I completely agree with your views, if a technique is a conflict resolution, it can't be a lose-lose situation. Putting in other words, if it is lose-lose situation it cannot be a conflict resolution (as you said).

I also got little surprised when I read that compromise is a lose-lose situation in one of the book. That's the reason I posted this.

Interesting to see, what a big asset such discussions are in the PMP exam preparation. Thanks again.

Regards, R.

In social psychology studies of groups, compromise is considered lose-lose in a zero sum equation. Both parties want 100%, but they both have to give something up to appease the other party. As a result, neither party really gets all of what they want. Typically it results in resentment and not really being happy. Also, it can hurt productivity if obtaining buy-in of all parties involved (e.g lose-lose).

Social psychology indicates groups should work towards collaboration. Concept is more in depth problem solving and fact finding to understand all parties positions on importance and working to try include. This approach deals with creativity and innovation. Members present lots of ideas and work through them to try and select an approach that meets most members concerns. This tends to result in better decisions since ideas should be well vetted and result in higher buy-in from members.

According to Rita Mulcahy, Compromise is a lose-lose situation. Neither party get's what they want. Rather both parties have to surrender partly what they were looking for. The win-win technique is collaboration.

According to PMBok 6th edition, Compromise/reconcile is the searching for solutions that bring some degree of satisfaction to all parties in order to temporarily or partially resolve the conflict. This approach occasionally results in a lose-lose situation.

Hello project-management-prepcast.com admin, You always provide useful links and resources.

Great question. The classification of compromise as a conflict resolution technique can vary based on interpretation, but the best response aligns with PMI's perspective and exam best practices. This is how I approach it. From the PMBOK 6 Perspective: Compromise or Reconciliation is typically considered a lose-lose technique because both parties must give up something to reach an agreement.
A compromise does not fully satisfy either party, making it not an ideal long-term solution, but it is valuable when a quick resolution is needed. The alternative Interpretation or the neutral approach suggests or argues that compromise is neither win nor lose because both parties gain something, even if both parties sacrifice something. This makes it a balanced approach rather than strictly negative.
When I took the exam, I used this approach for the questions: If the question explicitly asked about PMI’s classification, I chose "lose-lose," as both parties make concessions. When the question was general, I considered the text and viewed it as neutral, depending on the framework. If the question compares multiple techniques, I choose collaboration / problem-solving as the best approach (win-win), because neither party gets their full desired outcome.