The definition of "Compromise" is that it is the art of devising an approach acceptable to all parties. I would like to hear of experiences where in compromise has been difficult.
Welcoming views on this.
Best Regards,
Sujatha Das
***********************************************************************************
Messages from Supriyo Das
"Compromise" is a bad word, in its positive sense. To meet the agreed upon objective between parties, in the event of a variance, either identify a "trade-off", or a "win-win situation" - or close the conversation / project / activity as "cannot proceed".
As an example, from the audit world, if the organization being audited fails to meet the criteria against which objective examination is being performed by the auditor - the auditor is free to stop the audit - one cannot proceed.
In the business world too, negotiations can reach a deadlock. Wait to see the circumstances that impact the decisions change - & when time is precious - no other solution is available, given that all decisions and possible solutions have been meticulously & rationally reviewed - drop the negotiations.
:) My humble two pence..
Supriyo
Messages from Phil Johnson
Business leaders need to create and encourage a culture that allows for opposing viewpoints on the way to reaching consensus decisions. By advocating dissenting viewpoints you can create a climate were ethical wrongdoing will not go unchallenged. It is important to invite dissent and debate within the decision making group. Individual status and position-based power needs to be eliminated during group discussions.
It is important to treat each other with trust and respect while working to keep the conflict constructive. There is great value locked inside corporate diversity. The consensus decision is the decision that everyone can and will support. When people within an organization are in consensus, their various tasks and activities automatically operate in alignment. Faster time-to-market and better resource utilization are just a few of the potential benefits. Authentic leaders can facilitate this type of conflict-consensus process so that synergistic results are achieved and no one gets left behind.
Phil Johnson, MBL Coach
Messages from Kevin Jackson
Compromise put simply is giving a little to get a little. The goal is to get what you need and not necessarily what you want. This is true for business and personal life, by the way.
For a business to be successful, leaders and team members need to learn how to engage in this beneficial behavior. Disagreements are inevitable. But unless both parties are comfortable, a "good" deal won't happen. Many bad ones happen this way, however.
Many times compromising is viewed as "losing", capitulating to the other person. If you are left feeling this way, then it is likely you feel that you have caved on a core belief or principle. This is indeed not satisfying your "need", since needs are basal, instinctive. We must feed our needs to be truly happy. "Want" is a whole other thing. Feeding a "want" can lend itself to a lack of compromise. We can't get everything we want. Hopefully most people learn this by age three. Compromise is a necessity, and doesn't have to be a dirty word.
Messages from Robert Dolezal
Interesting, your definition. Professional negotiators have another. It's the point where everyone at the table feels that they have given up too much to the other side, but are still willing to shake hands on the deal, verbage, sale, or treaty. In other words, a shared level of dissatisfaction. Lawyers use that definition when they settle a case, prosecutors when they plead out a case to get rid of it. The victims aren't happy, the guilty party isn't happy, but all agree to take the deal and move on.
Compromise means that multiple parties are settling for only their required results, not their wishes or wants. The only way to look at it is that you are moving a bit further toward your desired outcome.
A not-so-good example is Rupert Murdoch's purchase of The Wall Street Journal from the Bancroft family. He basically made an offer that he was unwilling to improve financially, then waited until the pressure of those members of the family, the board, and their advisors brought to force enough pressure on the holdouts to close the deal. That is a one-sided compromise, and that is the one that hurts the most. It meant that Rupert was willing to walk away from the deal rather than compromise. I'm sure there are some disgruntled parties left at the end.
Messages from Dr. Shaun Jamison
Not knowing what people actually want and need makes compromise difficult. Have a look at "Getting to Yes," which is a great book on principled negotiation. So often we are not clear about the issues so it's no surprise that it's hard to come to an agreement.
An additional issue is "worldview." It can be quite challenging to come to terms with folks who have an entirely different view of the world and reality. For example, one person might view matters from a single cause = single effect whereas someone else views matters as a complex web of interconnected events that influence each other. Imagine trying to come to an agreement about a complex issue with those two views represented.
For myself, I don't typically find compromise hard once I fully understand the issue and have educated the other person on my point of view. Sometimes it isn't necessary or advisable to compromise, however.
When I practiced law full-time I often heard the refrain "my client will never settle." They almost always did.
Shaun
Messages from Jerry Linnins
In practice, I think most of us fear "compromise" will be seen/felt/thought of as "settling" for something less than we perceive as optimal. It means giving up something, a loss. I once had a friend who claimed he didn't get married because he didn't want to "compromise to boring." He definitely saw marriage as a loss of all the color, the excitement, the energy of his single life. Many times in work, negotiation, or problem solving people take this attitude into the dialogue. Stephen Covey, in THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE and other writings, outlines the need for WIN-WIN or Walk Away solutions. Often, he claims, this takes us being able to craft the third alternative (an entirely new approach/solution) not necessarily a derivative of two conflicting approaches.
Whatever label we may slap on the result, the process of "compromise" is essential to personal, team, and organizational success. And, it does not HAVE to be a bad thing.
Messages from François Coallier
Compromise is possible when there are already a lot of common grounds between parties. A good negotiation approach in such a situation is to first make visible what is already acceptable to both parties before trying to close the remaining issues.
Compromise means always a certain amount of give and take.
At the end, you get a situation were both parties are able to live with the resulting agreement, even if it is not 'ideal'. This situation may even be characterized as 'win-win'.
If there are no or few common grounds, or mutually incompatible strong positions - 'compromise' become difficult or impossible. This is when, for instance, it is better to walk away from a deal, or change jobs...
In other situations, other means - evidently legal and ethical - can be used to break the deadlock (hostiles bids, etc..). The result is not a compromise - since in such a situation there is a clear winner - and a looser.
Among nations, those other means can range from political and economical maneuvers to other means...
Messages from Howard Halpern
Compromise is difficult for people who expect to get what they want when they want it, i.e., they can't defer gratification. Compromise is not difficult for people who accept that they will not always get what they want when they want it. They understand fairness and wish to be fair. They wish to give, as well as take.
Compromise itself is trade-off: you get something you want, but you have to give something for it, as you should.
Compromise is not really the devising of anything. It is the enacting of the trade-off, the participation in the process of trading off, i.e., giving something to get something.
Although I do not emphasize it in my profile, I often act as a mediator. I help people get what they want by giving up something. I have helped members of married couples get along better. It is generally difficult because people don't seek help till things get really bad. In order to solve such problems, people often have to make character improvements, let alone personality change.
Character improvement is difficult at first because it requires people to go against their nature. The mind resists this. But once a person reaps the benefits of character development, that person is highly motivated to continue, because these benefits are highly rewarding. They are intrinsic, rather than extrinsic. There is no limit to what a person can achieve or acquire through the development of good character.
Links:
http://www.ToChange.com
http://www.DoChange.com
Messages from Mohamed Taher
Compromise with a headless, heedless supervisor?
Sounds (to me): Project impossible.
Compromise with a soulless companion?
Sounds (to me): Project unpredictable.
Messages from Alice de Sturler
The key is to be able to set ego and selfishness aside and to live up to your word. If we now do A then next time we'll do B. Stick to your word to do B and do it without complaining. That is the only way to build up a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. This counts for both your professional life as well as your private life.
Cheers, Alice
Messages from Robert Fornal
Compromise is one of those words ... I worked as a negotiator for a while and while I set up many compromises, it seemed best for both parties ... while the end result was often something less than one party wanted and more than the other expected. I saw both sides, but emotion seems to block the parties view of the overall picture.
Messages from Sheilah Etheridge
Life is all about compromise. I am always happy to compromise and see both sides to a situation providing my integrity is not affected. I will not compromise if it means losing my or reducing my morals and integrity.
Sheilah
Messages from Terrence Seamon
You've got to give something up, something you've been holding on to.
You may feel that giving in means that you look weak.
Messages from Steve Guine
Sujatha, I dislike compromise as it means that one party is giving something up. This may be the one ingredient that may make a project successful. This is a result of politics which is difficult to avoid. There are people in business that bring bring a "I must have my way" attitude to work. This destroys any hope of getting things done quickly and efficiently. As a result, projects are slow to finish, or fai.
I think that collaboration is the best way to do business. There is no give and take, and the process is pleasant for all involved.
Best, Steve Guine
Messages from Terri L Maurer
Sujatha: My professional organization was faced not just once, but twice, with a decision on whether or not to merge with another similar group serving the same general population. Neither time did we get to a point where complete agreement could be reached so that the merger could occur. Even when you can agree on the big issues, sometimes there are others where agreement cannot be reached. In our instance it came down to operational culture of the two groups. While we had a lot of similarities and in concept the idea of the merger was a good one, in the end, neither group could give up their ingrained culture. In reality, even if the two groups had merged, it is highly likely that in a very short time, another group or groups would have sprung up to satisfy something missing from the new, larger organization. In this case, there was no trade off except to back away from the discussions. It seems that the more parties involved in the discussions about any problem, the more difficult it is to arrive at compromise. There are simply too many obstacles to overcome and some people will never be satisfied unless they get 'all' of their personal issues resolved, instead of giving a little and getting a little. Just hard heads, I guess.
Messages from Tom Adam
I'm reminded of what a professor of mine discussed when I was in grad school pursuing a Master's in Counseling. The class was in group and family therapy, and he brought to our attention an interesting phenomenon, something he called "The Need to Prevail". It says, quite simply, than in interactions between several people they are each driven to prevail over the other(s), to get their way, whether it's a something as minor as what to watch on TV or in matters far more important to the relationship. Conflict arises as a result, since each person wants to prevail and not everyone can.
Compromise, it seems, would then run counter to this drive as it requires one to move away from prevailing. Putting one's ego aside and recognizing that yielding or changing does not equate to losing therefore becomes necessary if one is to move past these inevitable conflicts.
Messages from Kalyan Bandyopadhyay
Some years ago I read somewhere that successful compromises or trade-off's are those which resolve the 'origin' of the various positions rather than solve the ‘positions’. Illustratively, if someone wants a window open and another closed - a compromise can be reached when reasons for both these positions are understood - say, draft or wind for one person wanting to keep the window open and not wanting too much light is the reason for another person to keep it closed. In this case, an air conditioner or a ceiling fan can be compromise solution, which will be acceptable to both.
Hope this helps.
Messages from Ryan Turner
More than mere semantics, the difficulty stems from:
· perceptions among the purpose of parties convening in the first place;
· the amount and type of power or leverage each party feels they have (or deserve) and expects others to have (or deserve);
· the amount and quality of options available for consideration or discussion
They way I was taught to remember the distinctions among all this goes something as follows: We trade-off something tantalizing for something less tempting.
We compromise by conceding under constraint.
We negotiate to negate nonsense.
Messages from Mukund Toro
You asked the question at right time. Just recently I read about conflict management and resolution. Paraphrasing what I read. Compromise is basically a non-ideal solution. You give up something and get something. In return the other person too gives up something and gets something. Probably the process of giving up, leaves a residue, resulting into partial commitment.
Messages from Frank Gorrell
Dear Sujatha,
The word "compromise" tends to make people think of "weakness." In reality, what we are describing by compromise is a "win-win" scenario. However, many people think of negotiation as strictly "win-lose."
Best, Frank Gorrell, MSA, CPA
Messages from David Phillips
Compromise requires sacrificing ego in many forms and at many levels. Living in a society bound by the rule of law demands compromise many times daily. Working with others in any environment is much the same: in collaborating we constrain ourselves to the tasks at hand and bend ourselves to satisfy a group norm.
Messages from Thomas Dodds
Compromise is difficult when one party is forced to violate their conscience.
Messages from Jonah Hughes
Showing up at work is a compromise. Money makes it worthwhile. Somewhat.
Messages from Shweta Kapoor
Hi Sujatha,
Compromise is always difficult as no body would like to let go. So, I use the word negotiation as it has a positive energy to it. Once you think that its negotiation, I think half of the difficulty goes away as you know you could get something in return. For me, I am good at professional negotiations are easier than at personal ones. As there is always logic and analytical reasoning in professional ones.
Cheers, Shweta
************************************************************************************
