A Compromise Can Be Unfair to Both Sides -

If one person wants £100 and another offers £40, splitting the difference at £70 sounds reasonable. It is also possible that £70 is a terrible outcome for both of them.

The problem with compromise is that it can look fair without being thoughtful. A midpoint is easy to calculate, easy to explain and often easy to mistake for justice. Yet the two starting positions may be based on different assumptions, different information or different needs.

Imagine a small business selling a piece of equipment. The buyer offers £40 because they expect to spend another £30 repairing it. The seller wants £100 because they believe it is in working order. If they simply split the difference, the buyer may overpay for a faulty machine and the seller may lose a customer who later feels cheated. The sensible next step is not arithmetic. It is to establish the facts.

A recent real-world example shows why negotiation is rarely just about meeting in the middle. In October 2026, Volkswagen de México and the union at its Puebla assembly plant reached a 12-month agreement after workers had rejected an earlier, longer-term offer. The revised package included an overall compensation increase of 8.24%, combining a direct wage rise with other payments and savings provisions. The earlier offer had a different structure and duration. The reported outcome illustrates that the shape of an offer can matter as much as its headline figure. The agreement was still due to a union vote, so it was not yet the final word.

That is a useful lesson for everyday deals. Salary is not only salary. A job offer may also involve flexibility, security, leave, training, commute time and future progression. A contractor’s fee may be linked to the scope of work, payment schedule, revision limits and delivery dates. Two offers with the same headline number can have very different value.

There is a danger on the other side, of course. Searching for creative options can become an excuse to avoid a clear decision. Sometimes there is only so much money available, and the parties really do have to decide how it is divided. A negotiation cannot make every conflict disappear.

The point is to avoid treating the midpoint as a moral law. Before splitting the difference, ask what each side values, what assumptions need checking and whether the package can be changed in a way that better meets the underlying needs.

I explore this kind of thinking in *Marta Skarbek’s This is Negotiation*: better outcomes often begin when we stop treating the first offer as the whole problem.

When two people disagree, is meeting halfway genuinely fair—or is it sometimes just the easiest way to finish the conversation?

#Negotiation, #Compromise, #Fairness, #SalaryNegotiation, #Business, #DecisionMaking, #ProblemSolving, #Workplace, #Communication, #MartaSkarbek