In the last couple of blogs, after looking at personality types and working styles of the wide range of members potentially involved in a group decision-making effort, I asked how a group that could be so disparate could make any decisions. In this entry we will look at how decisions typically are made in groups.
In the last blog post I said that compromise was one of my favorite subjects. Here we will begin to explore the advantages and disadvantages of compromise. There are actually many of both but, as you will see, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Last week, we looked at the first definition of compromise. I will reproduce the full list here for reference:
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language defines compromise in this way:
Let’s continue.
The last post ended with the question, “So, why do people use compromise?” Let’s explore that one.
Compromise is, to me, one of those things that has been around for so long that it seems normal. Does it work? That depends on what you mean by “work.” Can it be used to make decisions, come to agreement, and solve problems? Yes. But making the decision or coming to the agreement is just the beginning. What happens next is critical for determining whether the process of compromise “worked.”