You are right from your side and I am right from mine.
I must confess that my most recent post, which delved into the dark side of compromise, was difficult for me to write.
It compelled me to dip into some of my past, which can sting. I do that a lot, though. The real challenge was crafting a clear, complete, and convincing argument. That’s the fun part, but I admit that in that piece I may have fallen short of my goal.
The gist of my argument centered on compromise and how, while constructive compromise is vital to effective leadership, one should never compromise their core values for personal gain or a little protection.
A perceptive reader reached out to raise a valid point. Peter, in his eloquent and polite manner, highlighted a caveat that I hadn't addressed. He pointed out that some individuals may insist that the entire team stand on and fight for, as he put it, “the high moral ground” of zero compromise. This moral ground is their particular truth that they steadfastly refuse to yield regardless of any arguments or evidence to the contrary. In fact, to these zealots, merely hazarding counter arguments and evidence is deplorable. Peter has witnessed this scenario, and I certainly have too. These individuals perceive anyone with any other perspective or opinion—be it boss or peer—as inferior and lacking integrity. Peter is right. Such self-appointed moral standard bearers deserve addressing, so let’s do that.
Here’s a quick rule of thumb, though, to kick things off: You don’t get to own a truth that you then impose on others; that’s called bullying.
It’s worth noting that an effective leader regularly practices what I call “putting your ego in a sack and throwing it in the river,” which necessitates a journey down to the river bank in the opposite direction from Mount Sanctimony, where self-righteousness peaks. Descending into the river valley is a humbling experience, and leaders who choose to dwell on the river’s edge tend to inspire team members to join them.
This raises a matter I did not directly address in last week’s screed. The role of egoism in differentiating the motivation behind constructive and destructive compromise. Addressing it now requires reviewing some truths as I see them.
There are four essential elements of solid leadership, the 4Cs: character, communication, compromise, and collaboration.
Each one builds upon the other. Character includes your core values, which are necessary to developing a creditable message to communicate. Without the ability to effectively communicate, you certainly cannot compromise, which is a vital precursor to the final and most consequential of the 4Cs, collaboration.
Your personal values, then, which make up much of your character, are critical to leadership. However, your values are not chiseled into stone any more than they are scribbled in sand. Identify your values. Embrace them and stand with them. But also continually assess and adapt them as you grow and learn in life. If your values at age 50 are exactly the same as they were at 30, something is seriously amiss.
Never budging is the stuff of the zero-sum game, and the zero-sum game is the stuff of bullies. Zero-sum thinking means never compromising, which in turn prevents collaboration. In contrast, a successful life allows for pliability, often manifesting as humility, which brings us right back to the that river’s edge where we toss that ego.
So, if you are mired in an organization that has corroded or become corrupted, how can you uphold your values while remaining open to constructive compromise? Yeah, that’s a tough one. Put more poignantly, how can you be sure you’re not just being a pious jerk, zealously forcing your vaunted principles onto others?
Well, as with all thing introspective, it starts with asking such introspective questions. A touch of self-doubt and genuine deference can go a long way toward keeping hubris at bay. Also, check in with trusted others. Encourage and give them the space to respond honestly and be sure to listen to them.
As for the scenarios I described in my previous piece, they came from my experience. Those circumstances I witnessed were objectively problematic with observable and sometimes measurably bad consequences. In the cultures where they occurred, many individuals recognized and even lamented the rampant corruption, but they hesitated to speak up due to the personal risks involved. At what point, though, does blinkered conformity—the attitude of “I’m just doing my job”—morph into mere complicity cloaked in excuses? At what point does compromising oneself cause more harm than good?
To be sure, there are plenty of times when choosing not to confront an issue is the right decision. Learning to pick your battles is a crucial political skill and a sign of wisdom. Sometimes opting not to fight can set you up for a more productive future while shielding you from harm. On the other hand, if every hill you choose to defend is one you are willing to die on, you had best dial your self-righteousness back quite a bit.
The balance between adhering to your values and being inflexible requires emotional intelligence or EQ, a crucial aspect of character among the 4Cs of leadership. Plenty has been written about EQ, so I won’t reiterate it here. In terms of leadership, though, a high EQ can be a mark of a strong leader with sound principles. People with high EQ know when to stick to their values and when to bend—in other words, how to compromise. They don’t ascend Mount Sanctimony to look down on others, nor do they readily yield to bad actors out of self-preservation. Therefore, individuals with high EQ are, as a rule, excellent and productive compromisers.
Some of these ideas were missing from my previous piece on the dark side of compromise. While there are situations where compromising can be detrimental, choosing not to compromise can never be an act of ego or individual piety. Such sanctimony is a form of hypocrisy as it assumes the zero-sum game, which is the antithesis of truth and productivity. Those who practice the zero-sum game, by definition, cannot compromise, and by emulating them, no matter how virtuous the cause, you risk becoming them as the ends justify the means. Great leaders seek the right balance to compromise, and they teach their people to do the same.
How do you address team members who refuse to compromise? How do you distinguish a real expression of values from ego-driven rigidity in yourself and others?
Leaders need to discern and compensate for self-righteous recalcitrance, and I can help.
If you want to excel as a great leader in this world of bad bosses, visit GuidanceForGreatness.com.
Join the conversation by leaving a comment, and leave a like or review.
Please share this post on social media.
And be sure to SUBSCRIBE to have On Leading with Greatness sent weekly to your inbox.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Share this post