Compromise: Good? Bad? When? (essay)

***

1

We seem to agree that it is bad when an undercover police officer’s identity is compromised or for a relationship to compromise a person’s integrity; but we also seem to agree that it is similarly bad for an individual to be known as uncompromising. Also, when discussing a negotiation of some kind, we seem to agree that compromise is not only normal but essential (both good), and the much-admired antebellum Senator Henry Clay – Lincoln’s idol – was called “the Great Compromiser” as a term of praise. So it seems clear that, while not ideal in some circumstances, in resolving political disputes compromise is particularly important.

In decision-making processes generally, however, there are at least two outcomes preferable to compromise.

 The first is agreement. This should be the conscious goal of any serious engagement among proponents of differing viewpoints. In Getting to Yes, their best-seller of forty years ago, William Ury et al. demonstrated that you should not assume that your opponent disagrees with your most highly held values, and vice versa. The two sides – or for that matter, the various several sides – may see different aspects or portions of the issue under consideration as the critical ones.

The standard, highly simplified illustration of this point has to do with a fierce argument between two strong-willed individuals over who will take the only orange available to them. A compromise, of course, would be for each to take half of the delectable fruit… but that way, both may be left unsatisfied. In this standard story, humble as it is, the two individuals state just why each wants that orange so much and so urgently. One is preparing to cook something special and needs all the zest of the orange peel, while the other has been for a run on a hot day and is desperately thirsty for the juice inside. A mere compromise is not necessary in this case. An agreement is obviously preferable, by which the one would take the peel including the zest and the other would take the insides including the juice. Both would get what they wanted and needed.

In real life, disputes are much more complex, but agreement is still a worthy goal, the preferred outcome. If the discussion begins with an assumption – on one or both sides – that agreement of some kind is not possible, the opportunity for doing better than compromise, for ending up with more than half an orange apiece, would be lost. The secret to reaching agreement, and thus avoiding a dreary compromise, lies in coming to know just what the other party, or parties, wants and why.
2

The second outcome of dispute-resolution preferable to compromise is consensus, which is not the ideal – agreement – but an arrangement that all parties to the dispute can live with, perhaps more comfortably than with merely balancing one’s own wishes off the others’ with no one’s getting what is most important to her or him. For multi-party disputes, consensus is probably the best alternative that can realistically be achieved, and it should be the objective of the discussion once it has been determined that a full agreement is not possible in that particular case.

Reaching consensus is often time-consuming, but it can be reached without too much pain if all parties to the dispute analyze and articulate early on not only all that they want to achieve but also just why each objective is desirable and how much it is desired. That is, one must be both willing and able to explain to the others how the interrelated objectives are prioritized. Self-understanding, honesty, and candor are needed for the prized consensus to be reached.

In the ideal version of such a consensus, all parties end up achieving many of the objectives most critical to them, as well as a sufficient number of the less critical objectives so that they can feel that the values of the gains, taken as a whole, outweighs the disadvantages of not gaining everything desired and of giving up what they may have preferred to keep.

If resolution of the dispute is honestly the goal of the decision-making process, it is surprising how often self-aware, articulate, and candid individuals can reach consensus.

3

Compromise itself, of course, is a bargain according to which each party gains something valuable by conceding something valuable to the others. The satisfaction level of a compromise is lower than that of an agreement or a consensus, but a compromise can still be satisfactory, even though the dispute under discussion may come up again relatively soon.

A good example of a very significant compromise was reached in establishing the U. S. Constitution. A majority of the framers wanted to eliminate slavery within a relatively few years, but a significant minority – all from the South – would have been willing to put up with the status quo under the generally ineffective Articles of Confederation rather than concede something of such high value to them. In other words, the very highest priority in the negotiations for the southerners was maintaining slavery.

The others’ highest priority was making significant improvements in the status quo, but the prospect of maintaining slavery was particularly onerous because the slaves – despite having no civil rights – were to be counted in determining each state’s number of congressional representatives. The now notorious compromise was for slavery to be maintained, but for only 60% of the total number of slaves to count in the census in determining the state’s representation in Congress. The southern states benefitted to some degree from the improvements made and also gained their highest priority, while the other states could live with the improvements made, perhaps as Lincoln said anticipating the slow disappearance of slavery, and in the negotiation had made maintaining slavery more nearly tolerable in the short run.

4

The question of timing is very important in any form of dispute-resolution. To reach an agreement, it is important to share with each other what advantage one is seeking at the outset of the discussion. To reach a consensus, it is also very important to say at the beginning what one is pursuing, why, and what matters the most. Proceeding in this manner is helpful also in trying to reach a compromise – presumably after the hope of agreement or consensus has withered away. But it is also of critical importance to avoid offering to give up something one desires too early in the process.

Doing so, even if what is given up is less important than what one gains, short-circuits the process which if allowed to take its course might allow limiting the final concession to only a portion of the valuable objective; whereas offering the major concession too early guarantees the loss of that desirable gain and – even worse – causes the negotiations to start with the assumption that the other side will make a minor concession, as a response to the offered bargain, and will go on to seek further concessions from the first party. The key in seeking compromise, as in resolving disputes through agreement or consensus, is to start by asking for everything one hopes to achieve and only then being willing to make compromises – first on minor objectives – only in return for significant concessions from the other side.

Frankly, the result may turn out to be the same when a concession is offered from the beginning, but to remove all hope of achieving all one’s objectives in the final compromise before conversations even begin is to despair of making the significant progress that may have been possible despite appearances to the contrary.

***