Compromise – Part 1

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.

First off, what is compromise? Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language defines compromise in this way:

1. A settlement in which each side gives up some demands or makes concessions
2. An adjustment of opposing principles, systems, etc. in which part of each is given up
3. The result of such an adjustment or settlement
4. Something midway between different things
5. A laying open to danger, suspicion or disrepute, as a compromise of one’s good name, or; to surrender or give up (one’s interest, principles, etc.)

Let’s look at these definitions and dissect them a bit.

The first one, “a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or makes concessions,” is a pretty standard definition that most of us are quite familiar with and probably have used many times. Let’s take a look, before going on, at the verbiage in this definition.

I specifically want to address the words “settlement,” “demands,” and “concessions.” 

First, settlement. This makes the process of reaching a decision or solving a problem sound like the result of a legal proceeding. Legal proceedings are always adversarial, an atmosphere that hardly implies success in reaching a mutually acceptable, effective decision. It also speaks to winners and losers, again not a recipe for successful outcomes in decision-making.

Demands is another loaded word, as it implies a lack of flexibility. It also implies a feeling that the person making the demand is in a position to do that, which may or may not be true. When someone makes a demand of another, they are essentially saying that the other person must do what the one making the demand wants. This, too, is going to make the atmosphere of the discussion less conducive to reaching a mutually-acceptable decision, since the other party is likely to feel resentful and less than fully cooperative in reaching that decision.

Finally, there’s concession. This word has a number of disparate meanings but in the context of compromise, the one we will use is that of accepting the validity of a viewpoint, proposition, or idea presented in a discussion. This meaning implies the superiority of one set of ideas over another. This is a value judgement that may actually be correct but that should be determined by more information. If the concession is made to a demand from another, this can, again, can lead to conflict in the process, making it less likely to be successful.

You, the reader, may say to me, “So what? They are just words, right?” Yes, they are words but words can be used to skew the conversation. The words chosen to use to express ideas give clues to the meaning and intent of those using them. Our use of the language is tied to our attitudes and philosophies. If you find this difficult to accept, just listen to a couple of pundits from opposite sides of the political spectrum discuss, analyze, and then interpret the same situation. You may end up wondering if they are talking about the same thing.

Since I went after the language of the first definition, it would be logical to expect me to offer an alternative. Here goes:

1. An agreement which results from a process in which two or more parties present ideas, points of view, and preferences, weighs the merits of each and reaches mutual decision(s) based on those merits

That may not be perfect but at least the terminology is more positive. I used the work process and, indeed, reaching a decision is a process. Future blogs will go into that but let’s, for now, continue to look at compromise.

Having looked at the wording (either the original or my suggestion), we can discuss what this first definition means with a kind of every day situation that can come up, deciding to go to a movie with a friend/spouse/partner /child/etc. In this case, one wants to see one movie and the other prefers another. They will discuss the issue and determine which one to see, in other words make a decision.

This is a compromise, as most of us recognize. One of them has conceded and agreed to see the movie the other wanted to see. Or perhaps, both decided to see a third movie instead, a case in which both, essentially, dropped their preferences (“demand” in the definition) and settled on a different one. But what happens if one really dislikes the movie they decided to see? 

Even though this may seem a trivial situation, it does represent what can happen with a compromise of this sort; even though the parties may be genuinely trying to reach a mutually acceptable solution, the result may end up with one or more of the participants being unhappy with the result. 

Why is that? Ask yourself this question: would you voluntarily give up anything that is important to you? I doubt it. In fact, no one does. 

Note the word “voluntarily.” When reaching a decision, the individual participants in a group will sometimes find themselves in a position that they have to give up something they want, or, from the language in the definition make a concession, in order for the group to reach a decision. This implies that, at least in their minds, reaching that decision is preferable to the alternative of not being able to reach one. Is this a voluntary giving up of something? Not really; but it is a pragmatic choice. Is it a good choice, though? 

In the process of giving something up, there is usually an expectation, perhaps a demand, that others in the group do the same. Here is where things can get difficult, since the others may be unwilling to concede anything. The result can be gridlock and long, drawn-out, and frequently frustrating discussions and meetings. 

One major issue with compromise is that the definition assumes that all the members of the group want to make a decision and are willing to be flexible. Looking back a few entries in this blog sequence, we know that the range of personalities and working styles is vast; flexibility is an attitude, and a personality trait, that is absent in some individuals and they may be unwilling to make concessions themselves but quite willing to demand them from others.

We will continue this topic next week, examining other definitions. Then we will move on to the problems with the whole process of compromise as is currently used.