Compromise – Part 2

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:

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 continue.

The second definition, “an adjustment of opposing principles, systems, etc. in which part of each is given up,” may seem to be very close to the same as the first. For one thing, the terminology appears more positive than that used in the first definition (as discussed in the previous blog).  Consider, though, that the language here becomes much more complex when discussing the group member’s individual principles, which are much more intimately connected to them than many of their wants, desires, or demands. 

Groups have principles as well, and they are just as intimately connected to them to the point that the principles actually define the values of the group. To expect someone or a group of people to give up or adjust their principles to reach a decision mutually acceptable to another with a different set of principles is unrealistic. The same applies to the systems by which individuals and groups of individuals operate. Systems define how we work and while we should be willing to look at systems with an eye to improvement, the basic components of systems are often embedded within a group to the point that changing them is an unattractive alternative. When making decisions, say, about changing a complex manufacturing process, you can see it becomes more unattractive yet.

This is, in my opinion, why so many corporate mergers present difficulties. Corporations are groups, which, as said above, have values and principles. In the negotiations of a merger, there are many, many decisions that need to be made and agreed by both sides. The expectation is that there will be give and take on both sides of such negotiations. The problem is, one side is usually stronger and thereby is less willing to give than to take. 

The biggest problem is mainly related to the different internal cultures of the two organizations, even if they are in the same line of business (think two software companies, for instance). Those cultures are defined by their mission, vision, and values. When they do not mesh well, employees are unhappy, often leaving (unless they are cut in the downsizing that almost always follows a merger). Those that remain will have to adjust to the new set of values and practices of the merged company – values and practices that are largely congruent with those of the stronger component company. Ultimately, one of two things happens: either the remaining employees adjust to the new culture and stay until they either find a new employer or retire, or, as has happened a few times, the companies “demerge” into once-again separate entities.

Does this mean that corporate mergers are somehow “bad?” Not all, though some make little sense on the outside. It may mean, though, that with a better approach to decision-making, the subject, after all, of this blog, the results may be different, especially when dealing with very different sets of principles, values, and goals.

The third definition, “the result of such an adjustment or settlement,” really stresses the use of compromise as a noun, as in “We reached a compromise.” Since this is a perfectly good use of the word I will take it no further.

The fourth definition, “something midway between different things,” is perhaps the most troubling of them all to me. 

Something midway between two things (or even more) is neither (none) of them and, to my mind, the worst possible position. One justification for this is that you keep the best parts of the choices under consideration and discard the rest. All well and good, and even if you do that, what if those “best parts” are incompatible? 

The concept of selecting a position midway between two different things, when applied to making a decision, is based on an assumption that the two different things are equally valid choices. While this would be ideal, it rarely is true, especially when each is examined closely. 

This approach, unfortunately, is very seductive in that it can be seen as “fair” since each party get half of what it wanted. In my experience, this is rarely the case; the end result, most of the time, is that one party gets a lot more of what it wanted than the other. Guess which party is happier with the outcome?

The fifth definition is “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.).” I do not personally know anyone who would deliberately or voluntarily do anything of this nature, just to get a decision made. Groups are no different. 

I know there is a whole area of human psychology that studies why individuals and groups will do things to others that are pretty reprehensible. But that is a totally different, and complex, topic. I have not personally seen that happen in decision-making or problem-solving sessions in which I have participated.

Compromise, then, is a tool that has a number of issues that can lead to problems and less-than-effective solutions and decision. 

So why do people use compromise? That is the next topic.