Compromise – Part 3

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.”

The term “worked” is really about expectations of the participants. If they are happy with the results, then, for them, it worked. Conversely, if they are not happy with the result, it did not. I don’t mean happy just at the end of the process but also as those results play out over time. I have seen many instances in which a compromise was reached and everyone was, seemingly, happy with it but later it fell apart or some unanticipated event arose which changed at least one party’s perception of the outcome.

Much of the view that compromise is a useful tool stems from the belief that it is a tool that works, and one that people think they understand. There is a host of books on decision-making based on various ways to apply compromise, and what we see in terms of decision-making and problem-solving is compromise, compromise, compromise. This makes it seem that there is no other alternative for making decisions as a group (remember: two or more people).

We have seen the definitions of compromise but definitions only tell half the story. There is also rationale. Let’s examine some of the rationales for why we should engage in compromise.

One common statement you hear about compromise is that it is a process in which each party gives something in order to get or keep something they want. The goal is to arrive at an agreement that all parties can live with. All well and good; that fits with the first two definitions we discussed recently. 

There are some problems with the first two sentences in that paragraph, though. One is that no one will give up something very important, or perhaps critical, to them. On the other hand, it is common that one party will expect exactly that of the other. This expectation may very well be rooted in not understanding just what is critical to the other party, something that can only come through getting to know them and their values and needs. More on this in a later post.

Another problem is an implied assumption that the parties to the discussion are on equal footing in terms of relative strength going into the discussion. This is not necessarily so. For example, if you are a section head and you are working on making a decision with a divisional VP, you are not on the same level and therefore strength. You are at a disadvantage when seeking compromise with someone much further up the company food chain than you. Not only do you need a much stronger argument but also some really good diplomatic skills.

I have an issue with the goal being an agreement both parties can “live with.” While we can live with a movie choice after a discussion and compromise, what about a major business decision? 

Do you want to “live with” the result? Emphatically no. You want to be happy with it, have it be something to be proud of and feel fits very well with whatever definition of “good” you maintain, in other words, your values. In a corporate setting, it also must mesh with the company mission, vision, and values.

A decision you can “live with” is a recipe for trouble down the road. The chances of one party to the decision becoming very unhappy with it is high. This especially is the case if they feel they had to give up something they actually want just to get to a mutual decision. This can lead to resentment about the decision and the process by which it was reached. It can even lead to one party breaking the agreement or going against the decision in reaction. Aiming for a decision you can “live with” appears to me to be a recipe for failure.

The discussion of living with a decision is a good segue into something I mentioned above: what happens after the decision is made. After all, how the decision is implemented is the proof of how good the decision turned out to be.

In a group decision, the ideal preference is to reach a unanimous agreement. In real life this is not going to be common. In fact, the bigger the group, the less likely you are to have a unanimous decision, especially on complex or on important topics. This is not to say that it is impossible to reach unity, just that it becomes more difficult. Ways to increase the likelihood of a unanimous result will be topics of future blogs as we look beyond compromise, but for now we will stick with what happens after the current methods of compromise are used.

Even with what appears to be unanimity there may well be one or more participants who did not fully support the decision but, for their own reasons, agreed to it. These participants may, afterward, actively or passively undermine that decision.

Passive undermining is not acting on it, not supporting it. This in turn could result in the decision not meeting expectations or outright failing because it was not followed. If the participant is a section head or group leader in a company, his staff, observing his non-implementation, will have no impetus to do that either. 

Active undermining is often seen as the person letting others know that he did not support the decision and, indeed, he felt it was wrong. He may also let it be known that he had a better idea. Either way, if a member of the group reaching the decision is saying such things, what impetus do the people around him have to implement it? 

There is, of course, the possibility that the decision is, actually, not a good decision. This, too, happens. Unfortunately, in the corporate world, the next phase is the search for scapegoats. Who will be the scapegoats? Obviously the prime targets will be the members of the group. 

But sometimes, for no predictable reason, decisions turn out to be wrong. As a scientist, I cannot tell you how many times an experiment has failed. That is life, but we don’t blame the experimenter; instead, we look at why.

Next week we will talk about some of the other problems with compromise.