I don't think of compromise as being necessarily a good thing to strive for, because when there's been a compromise, generally one side got screwed to some extent. Maybe compromise is the wrong word to use in some of the examples of history. In so many cases where two sides "compromised" on something, there's definite a clear winner and a clear loser, when the model should be that concessions be as equal as possible.

It's kind of like buying a used car from a used car salesman. If you feel comfortable that the salesman has your best interests in mind, you'll likely get screwed worse than a suspicious buyer would. Having less suspicion about any deals would translate to one being more susceptible to being the loser in a compromise. If such a person is a "leader" of anything, whatever it is they are leading probably suffers under their leadership.

It's one of the biggest and dumbest reasons for some of the worst decisions by leaders in history. But then it's changed and called "appeasement." Neville Chamberlain still comes to mind as likely the worst example of that in modern history, (that we know of), at least to this point.