Situation: The nurse is a staff nurse on an inpatient psychiatric unit. The unit team of psychiatrist, nurses, psychologist, social worker and occupational therapist meets weekly to review care plans and to settle disagreements about unit routines. Two nurses disagree about whether a client with mania should join the 1-hour afternoon group session. One wants him to attend the full hour; the other wants him kept out. They settle on his attending the first 20 minutes and then spending time in a low-stimulation area. Neither nurse is fully satisfied, but both accept the plan. How is this approach classified?

Each nurse gives up part of the original position to reach a middle ground that neither fully wanted, which is compromising: moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperation, a partial win for each. Collaborating would require working through both nurses' underlying interests to a new solution that fully satisfies both.

Conflict Management Style Classification

The scenario describes two nurses holding opposing positions about a client with mania attending a group session. One nurse wants full-hour attendance; the other wants complete exclusion. The final plan—attending the first 20 minutes followed by time in a low-stimulation area—represents a middle ground. Neither nurse achieved their original goal fully, yet both accepted the solution. This is the defining feature of compromising.

Compromising reflects moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperation, where each party gives up part of their original position to reach a mutually acceptable, though not fully satisfying, outcome. In nursing practice, this style is frequently used when time is limited, the issue is moderately important, or both parties hold equal power and temporary resolution is needed. The integrative review by Labrague and colleagues notes that compromising is one of the commonly identified conflict management styles among nursing professionals, often selected when maintaining relationships matters but a quick, workable solution is also required ^[1].

Key point! The critical distinction from collaborating is that collaboration seeks a new solution that fully satisfies both parties by exploring underlying interests and generating creative options. Here, no new solution was created; each nurse simply conceded part of their stance. The systematic review by Nikitara et al. reinforces that collaborating demands higher time investment and open communication, whereas compromising is a faster partial-win approach ^[3].

From a clinical standpoint, the compromise itself is clinically sound for a client with mania. Limiting group exposure to 20 minutes and then transitioning to a low-stimulation environment aligns with reducing sensory overload, a core nursing intervention for manic episodes. However, the question asks about the conflict resolution process, not the clinical appropriateness. The nurses did not fully explore why one favored full attendance or why the other favored exclusion; they simply split the difference.

Watch out! Accommodating would involve one nurse yielding entirely to the other’s position. Avoiding would mean postponing or sidestepping the disagreement altogether. Neither occurred here—both nurses actively adjusted their positions and accepted a partial solution. Losa Iglesias and Becerro de Bengoa Vallejo emphasize that conflict resolution styles in nursing are influenced by workplace context and interpersonal dynamics, and compromising often emerges when neither party wants prolonged friction .

The scenario’s outcome—neither nurse fully satisfied but both accepting the plan—is the hallmark of compromising. It trades full satisfaction for expediency and partial goal attainment, which is appropriate when the stakes are moderate and time or resources are constrained. Principled negotiation training, as described by Pham and colleagues, would instead encourage separating people from the problem and focusing on interests to generate mutual-gain options—an approach closer to collaborating than compromising .