Americans appear more willing to ask for compromise than to expect it from their own side. An October 2025 Pew Research Center report found that 78 percent of Democrats considered it very important for Republican officials to compromise, while 46 percent expected that of Democratic officials.
Among Republicans, the corresponding figures were 71 percent and 39 percent.
Those findings concern politics, but they raise a question worth carrying into our homes, workplaces, and communities. When we ask someone else to become more reasonable, are we prepared to examine what resolution might require of us?
Winning Can Blind Us To Compromise
I believe our difficulty extends beyond disagreement itself. Too often, we approach conflict with the aim of winning, then wonder why better communication produces little progress. The missing ingredient may be a willingness to pursue an outcome that considers more than our own position.
I call that willingness a spirit of resolution. It means entering a difficult conversation prepared to listen, examine our contribution, and consider change. Without it, even a carefully worded response can become another way to defend ourselves.
Discover the Spirit of Resolution
The spirit of resolution is something that I’m constantly asked to define which prompted me to write a book on the subject, as so many people are seeking resolution but don’t understand how to go about it.
This spirit is vital across all levels of disagreement in order for all those involved to reach the best possible outcome. This approach to emotional intelligence can be applied across different types of conflict, from custody disputes and relationship disagreements to challenges in the workplace.
In each setting, the goal is to understand the perspectives involved and identify a constructive path forward.
People may understand what another person is requesting yet remain unwilling to consider it. In my experience, that human behavior gap deserves as much attention as the words we choose.
My experience working with families navigating custody disputes over the past 15 years has made this particularly meaningful to me. A parent may focus on securing the time they want with a child. I believe the more useful starting point is to consider what arrangement would best serve the child’s needs.
Those aims may overlap, but I would not assume they always do. When defeating the other parent becomes the priority, I worry that the child’s experience can receive less attention. Resolution requires adults to consider what happens after the dispute, when decisions must become part of a child’s daily life.
I have also seen how testimony about a child’s needs can be welcomed or challenged according to whether it supports a party’s position. That experience has sharpened my concern about the gap between mental health perspectives and adversarial proceedings. I would like greater attention to whether the adults’ proposed outcomes address the child’s needs, beyond strengthening either side’s argument.
Recognizing Our Reactions and Considering Others' Experience
The same distinction can help us think about less formal disputes. A manager may secure agreement without understanding an employee’s concern. A partner may end an argument while leaving the underlying issue untouched. I would hesitate to call either outcome a resolution simply because the other person stopped objecting.
This is where I see a practical role for emotional intelligence. By that, I mean recognizing our reactions, managing how we express them, and considering another person’s experience. The challenge is to remain curious when disagreement begins to feel personal.
Communication skills can support that effort. One practice I use is to summarize what I have heard and let the other person confirm whether I understood. But attitude matters too. If I listen only to prepare a stronger rebuttal, I have changed the technique without changing the purpose.
...
No Need To Surrender Boundaries
I often use doubles tennis as an analogy. Two people can play a perfectly polite game from opposite sides of the net and still be opponents. In a relationship, I would rather see them approach the problem from the same side. The question becomes what they can address together.
That approach has limits. I do not believe resolution requires surrendering a boundary, excusing harmful conduct, or continuing a relationship at any cost. Nor can one person supply another’s willingness. The aim is a workable outcome that respects those involved, including when continued closeness is not possible
Before your next difficult conversation, take three concrete steps: ask the other person what outcome they need, identify one part of the situation you can take responsibility for, and agree on a specific action each of you will take next.
If you cannot agree, identify what remains unresolved and set a time to revisit it. The goal is not to avoid disagreement or concede every point, but to move from competing positions toward a workable outcome.
The next time conflict arises, measure success not by whether you win the argument, but by whether you have made a meaningful step toward resolving the problem.
Lee McHatton is a psychotherapist and communication consultant and the author of the forthcoming The Spirit of Resolution. All opinions are the author’s own.
The views expressed are the author's own.