Compromise is discussed in my blog on Huffpo today. The comments people are posting ins response are quite interesting and worth reading. It’s a good discussion and one we need to have.
The word “compromise” is being bandied about Washington as if it’s a solution rather than a methodology. It’s not a goal, but one means of achieving goals. Yet, we keep hearing that reaching across the aisle is the way to get things done — at least from the Obama team.
Is it because they haven’t thought through the disadvantages of responding to Republican challenges with a compromise comeback? Or could it be that they actually believe that compromise is the best means for dealing with opposition? Is there not yet enough evidence to convince the Democrats that compromise, especially as an opener, is not going to be welcomed by Republicans? And have they not considered the advantage of laying out what principles and positions they are unwilling to submit to compromise, and which ones they are?
In Comebacks at Work we wrote about the types of situations where extending an olive branch works — where giving the other side the opportunity to do the right thing is the best option for all involved. After all, we do communicate quickly most of the time and we say things before we’ve had a chance to filter. So, it’s useful to give people a chance to rethink what they’ve proposed. But when a particular type of communication, like bullying, occurs repeatedly, it’s time to recognize that the behavior is purposeful and not about to change with the offer of a handshake.
Compromise can be a beautiful thing when the parties involved are operating in good faith. This is mentioned by some commenting on the Huffpo blog. It’s much like what we call “pulsing the person” in the book. You have to know who you’re dealing with before offering to trust as well as before going to battle.
Quid pro quo is somewhat different from compromise. Here something of value to one side is traded for something of value to the other. That’s not simply meeting in the middle. It is a strategy for finding a way forward when the path seems blocked. It takes a willingness to assess what you have that the other side values and vice versa. So it usually involves inquiry — listening and asking questions to determine how the other person or group is prioritizing. Often it’s possible to find that something you consider a priority, they do not. And something you do not consider a priority, they do. A trade is then possible.
Early each semester while teaching negotiation, I’ve observed MBA students end their negotiations feeling good about compromise. Often as they started to pack up to leave, I’d ask each side, “What did you achieve?” The typical answer was, “Well, we compromised” as if that was sufficient. “Yes, I saw that,” I’d reply. “And I see you’re all happy. But what did you achieve? What did you obtain that you wanted when you began the negotiation.” Often they couldn’t say. They had simply been content to compromise. And, the truth is that compromise feels good.
But when these same students returned to the negotiation knowing that compromise wasn’t sufficient, they always did better. If they compromised to achieve some of their goals, that was fine. If they did so merely to feel good, that was not. There’s a considerable difference between the two. And our representatives in Congress should know that.
Comebacks at Work: Using Conversation To Master Confrontation here.
