An uncompromising compromise
Uncompromisingness can be a sign of moral backbone, but also of dogmatic intransigence. How to navigate a sensible route between the two?
Are you an uncompromising person? Possessing this characteristic (or not) escapes easy social desirability considerations. Is it better to answer the question in the affirmative, and present yourself as resolute and steadfast, principled and determined, dedicated and unwavering, than to deny the label, and be seen as hesitant and vacillating, meek and a bit spineless, willing and ready to bargain about anything? Or is it better to reject the categorization and state that you are a pragmatic realist, capable of nuanced judgment, prepared to give and take to realize a win-win, than to come across as an dogmatic hardliner, obstinate and intransigent, unwilling to give an inch?
Imagine being a parent who occasionally treats the children to what they all agree is the best ice cream in town. One day, it turns out that the owner of the gelateria is an outspoken supporter of a political movement that is beyond the pale in your circle of friends. Will you uncompromisingly choose no longer to frequent this shop and gain the respect of your peers (and the unfathomable disappointment of your kids), or compromise and ensure the ongoing provision of superior ice cream to your offspring (while risking being treated as a traitor by some of your friends)?
Not only is uncompromisingness, at the very least, an ambiguous concept, it also depends rather on one’s perspective whether it is desirable or not. Does that imply that it is, ultimately, a meaningless concept, so subjective that it fails to tell us anything of relevance? Or is there a way of navigating this ambiguity?
Why we compromise
It might be instructive to look at why we might compromise in the first place. Compromise is an essential ingredient of trade. As a customer, whenever we set out to buy something, we aim to spend as little money as possible – which makes any price above zero a compromise. No matter how reluctant we are, we judge that parting with some money (up to some limit) to obtain the good or service we are after is better than walking away empty-handed. It looks the same when we are the seller. We want to obtain as much as possible for what we have on offer, and so any price is a compromise compared with whatever higher price we care to think of. But that option is better than losing a prospective customer and ending up with no sale. The fact that both buyers and sellers have limits beyond which they won’t do a deal does not mean they are uncompromising: every successful commercial transaction is a compromise.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fda6accac-5844-4709-9c82-a15195277f5c_800x533.jpeg)
This observation can be extended to most forms of cooperation. Colleagues in a work team will rarely be 100% aligned on how to execute a project – from the technical approach to the trade-offs between putting in overtime or facing overruns. Different business units may decide to work together to tackle larger opportunities, but at the cost of ceding some autonomy, and of diverting capacity from income earning activities to joint business development. The formation of a coalition government poses a sometimes-formidable challenge to forge a coherent government policy out of potentially deeply contradictory manifesto promises. Even in a family unit, different members likely have different preferences concerning the destination for the annual holiday. These conflicts are inescapable when multiple parties, with different interests, want to do something together. Compromising is a crucial instrument in making this happen – to cooperate, we must compromise.
Why we reject compromise
But sometimes, compromises are not on the agenda. Employees might refuse point blank, when the boss insists that they come to work in order to meet an important deadline on the day of their child’s wedding, or on an important religious holiday. Alongside such moral convictions, self-interest can play a part too, for example a NIMBY attitude, seeking to block a badly needed housing development, in order to preserve the value of one’s property. Loyalty to a friend or relative who campaigns against such a project may compel you to share this uncompromising stance, even if you are personally in favour of more housing (especially if the value of your own house will be unaffected!). The principal obstacle to compromise can even be pure emotion, for instance when siblings end up stubbornly refusing to reconcile after an inheritance dispute that led to profound anger and resentment.
There seems to be a common thread across these different motives for adopting an uncompromising stance: in all cases, it can be framed as a matter of right and wrong – sometimes directly tied to moral foundations, sometimes indirectly so, through a sense of entitlement or of outrage. When that sense of right and wrong is shared – whether in personal relationships or within the social norms of a wider societal group – such an uncompromising attitude will be supported and indeed respected. It is seen as a sign of authenticity, and moral strength and rectitude, that yields reputational benefits to the person taking the tough stance.
Navigating the ambiguity
The potential problem with being uncompromising is not that it may have unwanted consequences: it is that it can make us blind to what the consequences of being headstrong might be, both immediately and in the long term. Protest actions that gain widespread sympathy around aims that are initially perceived as sensible and worthy may quickly backfire when the demands become radical and unrealistic, or when the activism turns into uncompromising, wanton vandalism or violence. Geopolitical disputes can escalate when one side refuses to make any concessions and asserts maximalist claims, upon which the other side reciprocates, leading to the collapse of diplomacy, and to increasing military posturing and skirmishes, potentially even war. And on a personal level, in a dispute with a parent, a sibling or a colleague, we may hold the uncompromising conviction that we are in the right, that our position is the reasonable and just one and that it is not up to us to say sorry or make the first reconciliatory move. That may then provoke a lasting breakdown in the relationship, leaving both parties hurt. It doesn’t take much for uncompromisingness to become self-defeating.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcf10c22d-22c7-407f-86ba-a2283c969e32_800x533.jpeg)
An uncompromising attitude may at first be an impulsive response (it is almost always a reaction to a perceived unacceptable situation or offer), but it is the very sense that it is about right and wrong, justice, and fairness that might prevent us from reconsidering our position. If we find ourselves supported in our intransigence, that effect will be stronger still. Yet turning a blind eye to the possibility of a compromise, and to the costly consequences of denying it is often ultimately irrational and against our long-term interest.
Mediation can help break the deadlock of uncompromisingness on both sides, but even that requires some willingness to at least question our unyielding position. A better way is to avoid finding ourselves stuck in a situation where we feel we cannot afford to lose face, or where we get used to a status quo of a dysfunctional terminally deteriorated relationship.
Rejecting any compromise may be justified after due reflection and careful consideration of the consequences, not as a result of an unconditional inflexible stance. Here, it is important to recognize when we are rationalizing our resistance to making concessions rather than facing a genuine dilemma. Adopting an uncompromising position should be an extraordinary occurrence requiring extraordinary clear, principled preconditions, rather than the result of rigidly clinging to an obstinate refusal to negotiate out of habit.
The best approach is to cultivate nuanced thinking: not binary positions, but a scale of compromise. We should beware of getting locked into defending inconsequential, symbolic demands, or cutting off the option of compromise by committing to an all-or-nothing stance that will make reassessing and adjusting personally and reputationally very costly.
Whether in personal relationships or in complex multi-stakeholder contexts – like the formation of a coalition government – we can avoid being (seen as) either an irrational dogmatist or a compliant pushover by taking the time to soberly weigh the true merits of compromise. Where, and indeed whether, to place any metaphorical red line is a decision that ought to be based on coherent reasoning – not on stubborn pride, anger or self-deception.
If we must place a red line beyond which there is no compromise, let’s place it wisely.