I am often asked if I like compromises. I categorically do not.uncompromisinglyI answer — no! At the same time, I know that the “fashionable” and “respected” response should imply that I, as someone skilled in negotiation and reaching agreements, should strive for compromise. However, the very goal of “achieving a compromise” is already a defeat. Just think about it. compromise These are mutual concessions. In other words, my motivation for not achieving my goal should be that my negotiation partner also didn’t achieve their goal? It sounds like some kind of logic along the lines of “let’s both suffer” or “the neighbor’s cow is sick—it’s a small thing, but it feels good.” What do I want, to resolve my issues or to resolve my partner’s issues? I want to resolve my own issues. Whether or not my partner resolves their issues shouldn’t concern me at all from a rational standpoint.
A compromise is not the goal of negotiations, but rather an unplanned result. If you aim for a “compromise,” that’s exactly what you’ll end up with.
When it comes to reaching a compromise on a joint business decision, the situation can be even worse. For example, one business partner wants to open branches in the regions, while the other insists on developing the business in Kyiv. In the end, they come up with a “compromise” solution: a branch, but on the other side of the Dnipro River. And when the business plan fails to deliver results, it will be unclear who is to blame. Is it the one who insisted on the branches? They argued that rent is cheaper in the regions and the market is more open. Or is it the one who pushed for Kyiv? After all, issues in Kyiv could have been addressed without opening new branches. Compromise in business decisions is impossible. There is only one right decision, and it must be implemented. If I have fewer arguments than my opponent, I will side with them and actively help them carry out the chosen solution. Let time be the judge.
It’s really unfortunate when you’re working on a project, say, making a film, and you have to deal with “compromise” decisions. In the end, instead of a brilliant movie, you end up with something mediocre. Since you didn’t go on location, you painted a backdrop. You didn’t buy any sets, so you only shot close-ups, and instead of real special effects, you resorted to makeshift solutions. For the design of the “future cars,” you hired a carpenter from a nearby village to work with plywood. As a result, we have a pink tank with a ridiculous design and a plywood hatch on door hinges rolling around in the film. Compromise is the enemy of any creative work. If you want results, don’t shoot haphazardly; look for opportunities. Cameron waited 10 years to make Avatar, while “The Inhabited Island” was rushed into production just to secure the adaptation rights—quickly and with compromises. This is filmmaking, and if, for example, you’re managing a reorganization in a large company and end up with a “plywood tank,” you’ll be blamed for the failure, and you won’t be able to excuse yourself by citing the need for compromises. People see the results. If you can’t avoid compromises, then don’t start at all, and the right to make decisions should be yours. Don’t take on projects where you don’t control the situation. It won’t improve your portfolio.
People say that I always get my way. They say it with anger when they give up. It’s just that no one remembers the times when I simply handed the decision over to the other side—those cases make up half of the time. It’s easier to shift the responsibility onto someone else than to take “half” the blame for a preemptively wrong “compromise” decision. I’m not a “principled and uncompromising” jerk. I just believe that a compromise means both sides have lost. That’s much worse than if only one side had lost, especially if the winning side is your colleague.