Compromise is not a dirty word

The musical, Hamilton, continues to be an inspiration to me, and I cannot listen to the song, “The room where it happens” without stopping to reflect on the words. The song brilliantly acknowledges that at times you may have “to give more than you get to get what you want”.

The song talks about the art of the trade with great lines like:

• “Nobody knows how the sausage gets made”

• “No one really knows how the parties get to "Yes"”

• “The pieces that are sacrificed in every game of chess”

• “When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game”

• “But you don't get a win unless you play in the game”

The song also acknowledges that not all decisions are popular by saying:

“Oh, you get love for it - You get hate for it”.

Leadership and ongoing leadership development is so important, especially when it comes to decision making. Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is critical when it comes to complex issues, because, as the song wonderfully captures:

• “The art of the compromise - Hold your nose and close your eyes"

• "We want our leaders to save the day - But we don't get a say in what they trade away”

This thinking is enough to scare most leaders into decision paralysis, but we know that more harm than good usually comes from not making a decision.

Decision making inevitably requires compromise, which is why leaders need to:

• Be informed of all that is at stake

• Know who they are representing

• Continually sharpen their EQ

• Know themselves (but not make it about themselves).

Good decisions require nuancing, the ability to hold and weigh up varying issues and opinions. There are tools available to help with decision making, such as weighted scoresheets or priority mapping. Feel free to contact Zamagias Consulting if you would like assistance with this.

Nuanced decision making often requires more information, more analysis, more explanation, and generally more work. I recall having to justify a few decisions where a more expensive option was taken which meant having to write even longer reports to explain the reasoning in each instance. In some of these situations, it would have been so much easier to have just taken the cheapest option, which would have been easier to sell to the stakeholders, less work for me, and it would have been unlikely that any of the negative consequences would have impacted me, but they would not have been the best decision overall. The best ‘short-termism’ outcome is often the cheapest option, But the best long-term outcome usually requires more explanation. Sometimes more than people can appropriate.

Accountability and transparency are now a far greater leadership requirement, which is a good thing, but hard decisions that will not please everyone are still required. So much good has come out of the recent Royal Commissions in Australia, with a far greater awareness of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. But good decision making still requires compromise, which means not everybody will be happy with the outcome. We need to make sure our leaders are resourced properly for these hard tasks, and not shy away from the hard work of ensuring that proper consultation, analysis and consideration occurs when evaluating decisions.

Environmental issues in particular have become very divisive in recent years, with the greatest strides being made when a middle ground approach was taken. It has always amazed me that so little progress seems to be made even when some parties may be more closely aligned in their views, because one or the other will hold on doggedly to their view or ideology, thereby preventing even the smallest of progress. It’s unlikely that you will get a seat at the table unless you at least show a willingness to hear the other perspective.

To return to “The room where it happens”

• “When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game",

• "But you don't get a win unless you play in the game”