(click title to read full article)

Mrs Thatcher famously hated it. Civil servants notoriously strive endlessly for it. Managers fall back on it, HR practitioners learn to hunt for it. It’s compromise—the give and take that allows for concessions to be made, bargains to be struck agreements to be forged.

This month for example, the annual meeting of the international whaling commission has opened with compromise talks between pro and anti-whaling blocks delicately poised. There is a conscious search for common ground so that some kind of agreement can be made.

Nor can we expect the strikes at the Total oil refinery to be resolved by one side simply capitulating to the other. Almost inevitably the final resolution will come down to a deal, a concession from one or both sides so that somehow middle ground can be found that allows everyone to get back to work without too much humiliation.

Much the same process of compromise occurs when recruiting. Choosing a new speaker of the House of Commons, for instance, has all the hallmarks of a classic compromise in which the final choice will come down to a selection which will probably not please everyone, yet be sufficiently acceptable to be allowed to stand.

HR practitioners are often highly skilled at spotting the opportunity for a compromise in disputes and in situations where conflict and different points of view threaten to derail work relationships, team performance or important decision making. But is being a connoisseur of compromise a good thing?

The danger of being adept at spotting, fixing or accepting a compromise is that you can end up being pushed into doing things you actually believe to be wrong or undesirable. In a recent study in Canada nearly 800 HR professionals were asked if they had ever felt coerced into doing something they were not comfortable with professionally. Over half said it happens from time to time and a further 6.8% said it happened regularly or often.

The situations where these HR people reported experiencing an uneasy compromise included: being expected to turn a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour, facing pressure to hire less qualified candidates, demands to reveal confidential information, and requests to falsify an official document. In these situations what would be your reaction?

In Canada only about a fifth of the HR professionals resigned or threatened to resign because of a request to do something they were not comfortable professionally. About a third had not resigned but thought about it and the rest said they had not met that situation in their working life.

In a recessionary climate sympathy with those fighting to gain a job foothold can easily turn into a natural tendency to compromise on some criteria. As one HR specialist puts it: “Though I will not compromise on quality of the candidates, this recession compelled me to have some compassion as a recruiter and compromise on some such as communication skills, minor errors in attitude when it comes to selecting the right candidate.”

The Japanese tendency to endlessly discuss courses of action until everyone is agreed can seem the ultimate fudge. In practice is often how the best solutions emerge, forcing everyone to consider different points of view until some combination of these produces an acceptable way forward.

Compromise is built into the democratic process since so much of it is trying to balance and respect different interests while still seeking a way forward. Politics is indeed the art of compromise. Politicians unwilling to compromise are typically called ideologues — a label not regarded as a badge of honour. It is perhaps not surprising that those with dictatorial tendencies find the whole idea of compromise an irritant or that it undermines “the so-called” best solution.

The ultimate test of an unacceptable compromise is that it undermines or threatens individual or company core values. Often it is not about compromise at all, but simply about a willingness to negotiate.

Seven ways to a compromise

• Reframe: Describe the situation as a problem outside both parties rather than as a problem between them. This can allow both to approach the solution as a team rather than as enemies.
• Brainstorm: together write down all possible compromises, including even seemingly crazy ones. Discuss the consequences of each. Choose the one that’s the best win-win.
• Win-win: true compromise creates a situation where both parties give up some portion of what each wants
• Decide: get both parties saying what they do want, not what they don’t want
• Propose: ask both parties to make proposals rather than demands
• Elevate: move the discussion to a higher level
• Fate: leave it to fate and toss a coin

Where do you stand on compromise? Feel free to comment!

www.maynardleigh.co.uk