Compromise – Part 4

There are many factors that can affect the process and effectiveness of compromise as well as what happens later. “Later?” you say. Yes, after that often convoluted effort the decisions resulting from compromise then have to be implemented and worked with, and this is another source of problems with compromise. I will get back to the topic of what happens next in a bit.

The process of coming to a compromise can be a labyrinthine venture. Ideas and proposals are put forth by members of the group, discussed, rejected, accepted, modified, argued over, criticized, dissected, etc. There is a whole range of directions the conversations can go. They can be cordial and positive or they can be the opposite. While this sometimes depends on the topic (remember the bike shed effect?), it also depends on the personalities of the participants. 

When working with a group each member should be prepared to offer ideas and suggestions that are relevant to the goal of making a decision about the issue. This is particularly necessary when the group will be approaching decision-making from the viewpoint of compromise. Altogether too often, some participants do not put forth anything, even though, from my experience, all of them do have ideas. Why do they not offer anything? It could be that they honestly feel they have nothing to offer. It could be fear of looking foolish, or of being ridiculed by others in the group. There could be many reasons and, in reality, the only way to actually know the answer to that question is to ask them. 

Then there are those who do not offer their ideas but are all too willing to criticize the ideas put forth by others. Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with, indeed there is a need for, critical evaluation of ideas, but there is a big difference between that evaluation and simple negative criticism. Have you ever heard someone say something like, “That’s the stupidest thing we’ve heard today!” or some other such useless put-down? I know I have, and there is nothing that can put a damper on discussion like it. Besides being just plain rude, it adds nothing to the discussion, and the person it is said to most often withdraws from further participation. Not always, though, since it may also spark major and rancorous interchanges, depending on the personalities involved.

In arriving at a compromise, people have to be willing to consider that their ideas are not necessarily the best, the most well thought-out, the most appropriate, or maybe even within the ballpark. Let’s face it: we all think we have good ideas. We also don’t really enjoy seeing them analyzed and picked apart, which is what happens in discussions that are supposed to reach decisions and solve problems. However, not enjoying seeing that process unfold is different from becoming upset or even angry, which I, and likely you readers, have seen more than once.

Personality clashes are also a significant risk in groups of people. Personality differences are useful as they can lead to some alternative thinking, since different ideas and suggestions arise from the unique knowledge and experiences of the participants. The problem is that when members of the group do not “get along” with each other, or even actively dislike each other, they can be blinded to the value of the thoughts of one another. This leads to not being willing to consider the merits of the ideas, and can be a roadblock to decision-making and problem-solving. After all, if you reject the person it is difficult to credit the ideas, thus potentially negating a useful line of thinking.

Now for the biggest three-letter word we run into in the world of business: ego. 

Everyone has, or should have, some level of ego. This is the sense of self, who you are and how you see yourself and, perhaps how others see you. There are many other definitions for ego, but for the most part they are from a psychoanalytical viewpoint and largely point to negative traits. Ego is not negative in and of itself. It can take on some negative characteristics, especially when it gets in the way of being able to listen and interact with others. Or when it presents as an outsized view of a person’s worth compared to those around them. This can manifest itself as believing one’s own ideas and desires to be so superior to those of others that they are the only acceptable alternatives. This can sometimes lead to attacks on the ideas or even the ability of others. When this is seen in someone in authority, it can, and often does, quash any real discussion.

In my thinking, ego, or sense of self, is a frame of mind and confidence that allows a person to consider his ideas and suggestions worth offering up to a group and allows him to objectively evaluate any comments or critiques about or of them without taking them as personal attacks. But ego is also more than that. It is respect for self and allows, even encourages, respect for others. Without that two-way path of respect, group discussions aimed at decision-making become much more difficult.

Unfortunately, egos too often clash. This happens under a combination of a couple of factors. One is when intense dislike, mutual or unilateral, is the operating relationship between individuals. Another is when egos do not allow consideration of other thoughts or ideas. When more than one person in a group acts from this stance, little or nothing gets done. This situation can be accompanied by much rancor and, in the extreme, yelling matches. Again, nothing useful actually gets accomplished.

While ego is a necessary part of the interplay between individuals and ideas that leads successfully to decisions and solutions, ego that is out of control most often leads to unsuccessful outcomes and outright failure to reach any sort of agreement. This may be one of the factors, if not the major factor, that causes difficulty in these discussions; it is a factor that has to be dealt with on a regular basis. We will come back to it in a future post.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that the group has, after much discussion, come to a decision that is accepted by the participants. I mentioned above that I would address the aftermath of this group effort.

Ideally, after a compromise is reached, everyone involved fully supports it and works diligently to make the decision successful, in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of the decision, even if they did not think it was the best option. 

If only. 

In reality, unless there is true, enthusiastic unity for the decision, the chances are very high that at least one of the participants will not support it – even if they ultimately accepted the group decision. That non-support can take the form of active undermining of the decision, by either ignoring it and doing what they wanted anyway or by letting others know that they did not really accept that decision and thereby encourage others to ignore it. If they are in any sort of position of authority, those working for them may feel that they have permission to not support it or even that they are being told not to do so. 

It can also be a passive form of undermining: pretending it did not get made and simply go about business as usual. 

Either way, it is a form of sabotage and in many cases, whatever the decision had been, it can be made to lead to failure by this simple act. It fact, it is much easier to make something fail than to help it succeed. By sabotaging the decision, the saboteur can claim that he knew the decision was the wrong one all along.

I have mentioned a number of factors that can make compromise fail. I do not think compromise is “bad,” whatever that means, but it does have a number of problems. I described compromise at the beginning of this post as a labyrinthine venture. It is also a rocky road, full of potholes and patches of uncertain navigation, from beginning to end and even beyond.

Compromise is engrained in our culture. It is integral to business, family, organizations, politics, indeed virtually every aspect of our lives and our world. My discussion over the past few posts has had the goal of pointing out the problems regularly experienced in the process of compromise. 

Of course, if my goal was to point out the problems, then what suggestions to I have to deal with them? One approach is the process we call Solution-Building™ and beginning with the next post I will be introducing this topic and begin a series describing how my partners and I propose it be applied.

See you next week.