When two people have competing ideas (let’s call them idea A and idea B), it’s common to compromise somewhere between idea A and idea B (let’s call that idea C). The problem is neither person thought idea C would work to begin with otherwise they would have argued for it. Worse, both sides will harbor some resentment that idea C doesn’t work. Compromise leads to the worst outcome—a third idea that doesn’t work and resentment from both people.
See also:
- Compromise leads to more tech debt since tech debt tends to be how teams and managers compromise
- Vaguely right is better than exactly wrong, the compromise option is likely exactly wrong if neither person argued it
Links to this note
-
Making two offers with different tradeoffs sets the framing of the negotiation and reduces the amount of back and forth. For example, making two job offers to the same candidate—one high salary but lower equity and one lower salary but higher equity—and asking them to pick—eliminates a lot of the need to negotiate (which most people don’t like to do). Using this strategy makes it more transparent to the other party how to model the deal and empowers them to decide.