Where is the Middle Ground?

Polarization and rigidity evident in politics, business, culture

When did “compromise” become a dirty word?

In politics and more and more in business “compromise” is seen as a sign of weakness, a failure of will to stand one’s ground. Leaders willing to negotiate are criticized as soft and ineffective.

Yet in most cases compromise is what gets things done. Through tolerance, understanding, accommodation and agreement, compromise seeks a win-win outcome.

Call it a happy (or less miserable) medium, the middle path, a willingness to inch toward the center for the collective good. Getting there involves talking, listening, disagreeing, beer, and then finding what works for all parties.

The nuclear test ban treaty and the U.S. Constitution are great examples of compromise and accord. Within organizations, leaders strike a balance when they set priorities and allocate resources. On a less grand scale, agreement over who does what in a busy household follows domestic negotiation and compromise. Or it doesn’t, which is a recipe for unhappiness.

Of course there are exceptions. Terrorists are extreme and they have to be dealt with extremely. There is no middle path. Turnaround situations, in many cases, require a command and control decision-making framework where speed and clarity of authority takes precedence over compromise.

Likewise, fierce visionaries often behave as dictators (think Steve Jobs) and it is best to go along with the plan or get out of the way. For the rest of us, though, strength is most effective when tempered. Strength and flexibility are not mutually exclusive.

All or nothing often equals stalemate

Yet extreme thinking and positioning is everywhere. We see it in the Presidential election cycle and continued Congressional paralysis. Healthcare in the U.S. is another sadly perfect case. Attempts to remake the system into one that makes sense and serves consumers fall short because key stakeholders act in self-interest and not the greater good.

The middle is missing.

Somewhere the tone and intent of negotiations went from win-win to “all or nothing,” which usually results in nothing. The idea that “I win, you lose” forces everyone at the table to take an extreme position out of the gate. The tactic jeopardizes any agreement at all, let alone one of mutual benefit.

Unwillingness to engage in give-and-take may be appropriate in dealing with terrorists but is not a productive way to conduct day-to-day matters of business or politics. 

Agreement advances the ball

Making policy, business and even personal decisions gets stuff done. Stuff gets done when people reach an agreement. Agreements emerge from compromise, which requires perspective and trust, which comes from building a relationship.

It doesn’t have to be as hard or complicated as we’ve made it out to be. When you are at an impasse or dig in your heels, five basic guidelines will open opportunities and increase the odds of a win-win. A shift in perspective helps, too.

1. Maintain a longer-term view and know what is fair
2. Listen and understand the other viewpoint
3. Assume intentions are good and not malicious
4. Focus on the topic and not on the person
5. Keep communication channels open in spite of difficulties 

Middle doesn’t have to mean mediocre. Nor should compromise mean capitulation.

The middle is often home to the good stuff.

Sameer Bhargava has led and turned around IT organizations in multi-billion dollar companies and created world-class R&D teams at startups. He is CIO of Onlife Health and founder of Callibrain, a cloud-based software platform that drives higher performance by strengthening alignment, communication, collaboration and employee engagement. The views, opinions and positions expressed are the author’s alone and should not be attributed to Onlife Health or anyone within the organization.