Why is an arbitrator's decision likely to be a compromise?

What will be an ideal response?

An arbitrator's decision is more likely to be a compromise than a decision handed down by a court for a number of reasons. First, the arbitrator is not as constrained by precedent as are judges. An arbitrator is interested in resolving a factual dispute, not in establishing or strictly applying a rule of law. Second, the arbitrator may be more interested than a judge in preserving an ongoing relationship with the parties. A compromise is much more likely to achieve this result than is a clear win-or-lose decision. Finally, because an arbitrator frequently decides cases in a particular area, he or she wants to maintain a reputation of being fair to both sides. For example, a person who focuses on labor arbitrations would not want to gain a reputation as being pro-labor or pro-management.