Rethinking Compromise In Relationships + Groups

Defining Compromise In Relationships

In any discussion about developing and maintaining healthy and satisfying relationships, the subject of compromise is sure to come up. But what constitutes compromise in relationships, and why is it so important? How does it impact autonomy and why does that matter?

Compromise is classically defined as the "settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions." It's the "mutual concessions" part that we're focusing on here as that is how most people understand compromise: settling for less to appease another party.

Bruce Tuckman proposed one popular model of how group dynamics developed in 1965. Known as Tuckman's Stages of Group Development, this model breaks down group development, something that impacts everything from how we work to how we date, into four distinct phases: 

1. Forming: This is where your group or dyad (a “couple”) first comes together and starts to learn about the challenges and obstacles facing it. This is typically where the highest degree of relationship autonomy is seen, where the group or dyad members are still acting independently.

“One of the most important things in a relationship is having your own autonomy – or getting to make decisions for yourself. If both or all partners get to be in charge of their own lives, then you have a great foundation for making room for each other and growing together.” - Gender Minorities Aotearoa

In this stage, group/dyad members can be very excited about working as a team but are generally uninformed about the team's strengths, weaknesses, needs, and objectives. People who have just started dating are experiencing the most laughter, lust and attraction (aka “new relationship energy”) at this point, which can last for weeks, months or, in some cases, years. They may also overlook “red” or “yellow” relationship flags.

During “forming,” everyone is on their best behavior and primarily focused on themselves as individuals. This is the "getting to know you" or "honeymoon" phase, where group or dyad members will start to define boundaries, test them, and figure out if they're up to the task of moving forward together. To move beyond this phase, team or dyad members will need to let their guards down, become vulnerable, and risk conflict with one another.

2. Storming: The second phase of group development isn't always as scary as it sounds. This is the phase where power dynamics and status are assigned. Trust can be gained or lost as group members or dyad members voice their opinions and reveal their communication and collaboration styles.

Some people will maintain an air of positivity and excitement, while others may become anxious or resentful. Relationships sometimes fall to pieces as individuals become acquainted with how they work together instead of acting independently. Any personality conflicts or differing values, approaches, and viewpoints must be resolved jointly to move on to the next phase.

3. Norming: By this time, the group or dyad has learned to resolve internal conflicts and focus their efforts on collaborative problem-solving and decision-making. They are aware of their differences and work to resolve any disputes that may arise while also accepting their other group members as they are. But it’s also possible in this phase for the group/dyad members to still avoid conflict, which can often lead to resentment.

4. Performing: Group or relationship dynamics are now fully established. Members retain their autonomy as individuals while also working with and around the strengths and weaknesses of their partners. Conflict is normal and acceptable within the boundaries defined by the team or dyad. It is normal for groups or dyads to cycle between earlier stages when unexpected events test their previously established roles or boundaries.

It's in the "storming" phase where the question of compromise is most likely to arise. When groups face internal conflicts regarding values, viewpoints, and roles, how do they seek to resolve these conflicts and move on to phases three and four? One common tactic is to compromise.

Asking The Question: Why Compromise?

Compromise in relationships is a time-tested tactic for settling a conflict. When two divergent sides can't reach a consensus, the two parties may reach an answer by reducing the demands of each side until both parties can agree on the outcome. Unfortunately, compromise (as it's commonly understood) is a reductive and limiting, rather than expansive, process; only a set number of options are presented (based on individual preferences) and compromise acts as a process of eliminating choices from this original limited list of desired outcomes. For any one side to have their needs met, they must agree to an unfavorable demand or diminish their need so that it fits into the group's culture at large.

There are many ways to handle compromise, from "splitting the difference" to "quid-pro-quo" to "try it my way and see." But all of these methods require one or both parties to assent to actions, behaviors, or practices that they would not otherwise have arrived at on their own.

The clear advantage to compromise is that it allows complex communities of individuals from different backgrounds and points of view to orient themselves in ways they wouldn’t choose to on their own. Furthermore, most objectives and obstacles are more easily approached and overcome as a collective. The more diverse and varied that collective is, the more flexible its options are when approaching a task.

The downside is that compromise can easily lead to resentment as an individual forgoing their own needs in service of the collective can lead to a diminished sense of relationship autonomy and a feeling of being trapped or restricted within the culture they've chosen to participate in.

Asking The Question: Is Compromise Good?

While compromise is widely considered one of the most prominent means by which groups can resolve internal conflict, it's certainly not the only way. As a result, a wide range of critical and therapeutic thought has risen in recent years, questioning the benefits of compromising. After all, if being part of a relationship or an in-group means sacrificing your own needs and values, then why are you compromising at all? Indeed, some might feel that preserving the self should naturally be the individual's highest priority since no one lives any life but their own.

The relatively inflexible conflict resolution style of prioritizing the individual over the group can undoubtedly have benefits when it comes to satisfying an individual’s needs. Still, the drawback in community-building is that the desire to forgo compromise can lead to homogenized "groupthink" that prioritizes values, viewpoints, and boundaries that everyone in the group already shares. The refusal to compromise can lead the group to ignore any interpersonal challenges during the "storming" phase of group formation instead of confronting those challenges head-on. If no one is willing to compromise, only groups of like-minded individuals will most likely form. This pattern of avoiding conflict and only including those with similar viewpoints may sometimes work for dyads but may prove problematic for groups.

Or worse: if only some are willing to compromise, then those more flexible individuals might give up too much and the group may end up in a "norming" phase that begets resentment. In the long-term, that could lead to a significant setback for the group. Moreover, having significant differences in the extent to which individuals are willing to compromise can lead to imbalanced power dynamics in dyadic relationships.

Asking The Question: Is There Another Way?

While the choice to compromise or not may seem like a binary one, there have been other alternatives proposed. Martha Kauppi, an author and relational therapy counselor who specializes in alternative family structures, has this to say:

"...a compromise is where I give up a whole bunch of stuff, and you give up a whole bunch of stuff in the hopes that we can meet in the middle of somewhere so that neither one of us is satisfied and we're both resentful. What could go wrong? Instead, I believe in a whole different process that's less linear, so we're not going to organize ourselves on a ‘your way or my way’ continuum, then try to find something in the middle. Instead, we're going to try to populate a vast field of possibility. The way we get there is through curiosity and creativity, and playfulness, and empathy, and validation and safety."

This potential "third way" reframes compromise as an additive process instead of a reductive one. Instead of individuals coming together and saying, "here is what each of us wants, now what can we give up to get there?" Which indeed seems paradoxical, Martha's framing asks those same individuals to come together as a community or dyad and ask, "What can we build together regardless of how we'd like things to be personally?" This challenges the group or dyad to develop new and innovative ways to reach their shared goals together.

This method, of course, requires a great deal of vulnerability. It asks individuals and communities to step out into a vast unknown and conceptualize desires and outcomes that they would never have considered on their own, while understanding that the genuine possibility of rejection is always on the table.

Whether you seek compromise, reject it, or look for a third way, the common thread is that vulnerability is always necessary to move from "conflict" to "resolution." Indeed, the very act of making yourself vulnerable breeds intimacy and connection itself. And ultimately, that's the key to successful community-building and relationship-building. Without vulnerability and the conflict it inevitably brings, individuals may find it hard to move beyond themselves and become strong, interdependent teams, no matter their relationship to compromise, itself.