The Toxicity of Compromise

Compromising has a pleasant connotation in most people’s mind. When compromises are reached, we assume parties with differing opinions made concessions and settled in the middle. It is the civil and selfless way to resolve disagreements. We applaud and pursue it.

But should we? Few talk about the unhealthy side effect that develops in environments where compromise reigns.

The problem with routine compromise is that people naturally evolve toward advocating extreme positions. You learn that a decision or outcome will always settle out somewhere in the middle of the two positions argued. To adapt and compete, each side advocates a more and more extreme position to ensure the compromise either remains in the middle or more closely aligns with the desired outcome. It is a game we learn to play and play well, but it is subtlety destructive.

Consider everyday politics. Politicians and parties are locked in a tug of war, but the rope keeps stretching. They know that if they do not match the other side’s increasing tension, the eventual compromise will favor the other team. So, both sides pull furiously, knowing that neither are arguing for positions they really believe in, but positions they must argue to keep the compromise palatable.

Organizations can develop similar cultures if they are not careful. If leaders cultivate a decision making process whereby compromise is pursued and praised, individuals and teams will naturally advocate more extreme positions over time simply to ensure the final outcome is somewhere in the middle. This breeds unhealthy competition and conflict. Individuals and teams begin to war with one another, not over ideas and solutions they genuinely believe in, but over positions they have to take to play the game. To add insult to injury, the compromises reached are rarely optimal by anyone’s measure. The optimal outcome or decision becomes subservient to a dysfunctional process.

Alternatively, what would your organization’s culture look like if you refused to compromise as a process for making decisions? What if you pursued and rewarded the advocation of positions individuals and team members genuinely believed in, no more, no less.  What if leaders viewed debate about alternative or competing ideas as an information discovery, rather than decision making, process? What if after receiving counsel from all sides, managers and leaders had the courage to go with a decision that seemed optimal rather than simply acceptable?