Sometimes my burden seems more than I can bear
It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.
Leadership is pretty simple in concept, expressible as what I call the 4Cs—those four cornerstones that are indispensable for effective leadership: character, communication, compromise, and collaboration. I wrote about the 4Cs previously, and you can check that out here.
Today I want to focus on just one of the 4Cs, the one that is a bit of a double-edged sword—compromise.
What I mean by compromise is the art of splitting the difference and meeting someone part way. Compromise in this sense is always transactional—a give and take—and, at its best, requires sacrifice on both sides to serve a greater cause. Such productive compromise stems from the mindset of, "I'll let this go to benefit the team," which then sets the stage for collaboration, the last and perhaps highest of the 4Cs.
But what of the less sunny side of compromise? Compromise can evoke more destructive connotations—for instance, discredit, as in compromised data, deterioration, as in a compromised structure, or even corruption, as in a compromised politician. We’ll dive into this last meaning, but first a little detour to consider common sense.
Hmm, common sense. I have long had a love-hate relationship with common sense. On the one hand, it is often the best guide, offering the simplest, most obvious, and most seemingly logical approach. On the other hand, common sense can mislead and morph into the miasma of conventional wisdom. Proceed with caution.
For instance, self-preservation seems just good common sense. After all, if you are not actively trying to preserve yourself, what the hell are you doing? Then again, is self-preservation so absolute? Is it okay if your immediate self-preservation compromises the wellbeing of others or compromises your principles? Does the common sense appeal of self-preservation still hold then?
In the workplace, self-preservation and even self-promotion at any cost are generally cast as common sense and even professionalism. At the same time, risking your own wellbeing for the sake of others is castigated as shortsighted and naive at best. Staying true to your values is less likely to be lauded as integrity than denigrated as hubris. The higher you climb the management ladder, the more convoluted these contortions become.
I personally have been accused of disloyalty and arrogance simply because I refused to throw others under the bus for my bosses’ amusement. It’s perplexing, isn’t it? What sort of a person regards sticking to principles and basic human decency as vices? In such a world, adherence to the almighty CEO and their minions is paramount.
This scenario cropped up a lot during my career journey. I was pretty bad at playing the political game on their level. I knew what I had to do to protect myself, and I confess that sometimes I did it. But, as I have explained elsewhere, my focus was on the politics of possibility—building relationships to get things done—rather than the politics of personal destruction and personal gain—the stuff of vendettas, gaslighting, and power plays.
Some colleagues, perhaps well-meaning, counseled me to suck it up and knuckle under to bully bosses who prioritized self-interest over doing good. By resisting, I was labeled “rigid” and “uncompromising,” which is ironic considering my openness to compromise and to forging productive relationships. The problem was that I had no interest in that other kind of compromise, compromising my integrity and becoming more and more like those people. I had seen what such compromise did to others. It begins innocently enough, but quickly snowballs beyond control. This is the stuff of corruption.
Still, some individuals pretend such compromise is a virtue, that compromising their values is just the reasonable choice. What they overlook is that the bad actors they give into are merely pretending to compromise and never make any actual concessions. Their worldview is a zero-sum game where they only take and never give. They are also usually highly skilled bullies. Far too many good people fall into their trap and wind up selling themselves out for professional gain.
Sometimes entire organizations compromise themselves. It becomes baked into their culture. I once worked as a vice president for a college that had survived severe budgetary problems. From then on they would blame all their bad choices on budgetary constraints, effectively washing their hands of any responsibility. It was a lie the institution told itself, leading to a cultural of scarcity. Worse still, this lie, this budgetary boogeyman, became their excuse for all sorts of questionable actions. Want to keep salaries low? Budget problems. Want to excuse poor student outcomes? Budget problems. Want to skimp on vital infrastructure? Budget problems. In other words, this lie was how the institution’s leadership compromised and corrupted itself every day.
The opposite of such corruption is integrity, which I have written about extensively.
Integrity, to be sound, requires solidity, wholeness, and reliability. It’s that middle one that really trips people up: wholeness. Many who compromise their values for personal preservation and gain justify their corruption by claiming that they are doing so for their loved ones, that—however they function at work—they practice integrity at home with their family. But can you truly have integrity in one part of your life and not in another? No, because integrity must be whole, meaning maintained throughout all aspects of your life. If you are mainly self-interested at work, rest assured, it's creeping into your personal life too. At the very least, you're setting a rather dismal example.
I know I am coming across as self-righteous here, but my point is that while compromise is a crucial component to great leadership, we need to be discerning about the kind of compromise we engage in and who with. Remember, compromising with someone whose approach is basically, “do it my way or perish,” isn’t compromise at all. It’s giving in. There is no winning or even partial-winning their zero-sum game. You will simply compromise away some part of your very self.
The best policy is to designate your principles as off-limits. You just don’t compromise your values—not in the short run and definitely not in the long run (although regularly reassessing and challenging them is necessary and constructive). You also simply don’t compromise with someone who plays a zero-sum game. This scenario is particularly dicey when that other person is your boss.
Holding to your principles can be painful. I’ve experienced that pain firsthand, and I genuinely hope you never have to. I hope you only find yourself in situations where your integrity is never put to the test, where you're never asked to compromise your values. If you ever do find yourself in that situation, though, the choice can be quite stark. You can go to bed knowing that your success is due to your corrupted values, or you can go to bed knowing that whatever the consequences, you were true to yourself. Making that choice once may be the hardest thing you ever do. Imagine making it every day. I did so for a long time.
My admiration for those who stand up to corrupting compromise is boundless. They are the people who truly get things done and hold this planet together. Those are people you can trust and truly compromise with.
How often are you asked to compromise what is most important to you? How have you coped?
Leaders must understand the difference between productive and destructive compromise, and I can help.
If you want to learn more about how to become 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.
Share this post