1. LESSONS LEARNED– MISTAKES REPEATED– Vol. 3
There is too much compromise inbusiness
Carl Miller President CMMS Inc.
Ofteninthe hectic world of Project Managementthe quickcompromise fits
the bill. It’squick, efficient and getsthe job done. But is it the best solution?
Every Projectclosure needsa time for lessons learned. Alas I am notthe only
one who sees the samemistakes repeated far too often.
One of the most oft repeated mistakes I see in negotiation and conflict
managementis the over use of compromise. It is almost accepted practice to
split the differenceand moveon. Peoplethink the correct answer is half way
between the two positions.
It is not.
If an agreement is madeand the parties can smile afterwardssomethink this
is a win-win.
It is not.
Compromise isreally a competitive negotiation because it is based on
positionsnot the underlyinginterests.
Whether it is a Project Managementtimeline, Governmentshutdown or
MiddleEast peace negotiations, a collaborative processis essential to having
a true win-win outcome. Quick and efficient is not the same as a solution
that truly satisfies the needsand interests of both parties. Not damagingthe
relationship of the two parties in a negotiation is not the same as building
trust and engaging in a collaborative negotiation methodology.
Let mebe clear that compromiseis sometimes the ‘right’ negotiation
strategy. I would suggestwhen there is a need for a quick solution and the
issue is not vitally importantto either party a compromisemay well solve
the problem without damagingthe relationship. Butit is not the same as a
win-win and it is not collaborative. That is, it is nottrue problem solving –its
competitive negotiation.
My experienceas a member of a MiddleEast citizen diplomacy mission to
Israel, the West Bank and Gazataught methat when the issueis vitally
importantto both sides collaborative negotiation is the only way to resolve
the conflict.

2. At the root of collaborative negotiation is the conceptof the difference
between positionsand interests. What the parties say they need (position)
as opposed to what the parties really wantand why they wantit (interests).
Let meexplain by a simpleexample of a bedtime conflict with my daughter
Kristen, who upon reaching the lofty age of 10 demanded that her bedtime
be 10 o’clock whilst I was firm that the bedtime should be 9:30.
All of you parentswill know the predictable path that the discussion took.
“You need your sleep”; “I get up in the morningso I don’t need that much
sleep”; “Mary’sbedtimeis 10 o’clock” and on and on and on.
I was about to give in or compromisebecause I was tired of arguingwhen I
got oneof these ‘Father knowsbest ‘ moments.
I said to Kristen “why is it so importantthat your bedtimebe 10’oclock”?
Kristen paused for a moment. You could see the wheels turningin her head.
Probably thinking “what is Dad trying to do, I bet it’s a trick”.
Finally she said, “There is a TV show on at 9:30 and the kidsat school always
talk about it a recess”. Immediately I knew that what Kristen really wanted
was to be partof the group at school ant the bedtime change the solution to
her problem.
Then as all futureparentsshould know; no matter what you do for kidsthey
one day turn on you! Kristen looked at meand said “And why is it so
importantto you”.
I thought about it for a minute – It was importantto meas a single parent
with two kids and fulltime job to have somequiet time at the end of the day
to relax and unwind.
So as my astute daughter so cleverly revealed the disagreementwas not
really about 9:30 – 10:00 o’clock where there is onewinner and oneloser.
Wecould assume that the likely outcome is the compromiseof 9:45p.m.
which leaves everyonealoser. Butreally when we look at the underlying
interests we movefrom arguingabout positions to solving a problem.
The problem is how do we let Kristen be a part of the group at school and at
the same time give Dad his quiet time? This is a problem to be solved and
not positions(9:30-10:00 o’clock)to be argued. If we look at it as a problem
to be solved by both of us workingtogether wewill be muchmoresuccessful.
Effectively Kristen and I are on the same side of the table.

3. Wedidn’tsolve the problem right away but I left that interaction with a far
differentview of the problem.
In mission critical projects can we afford a 9:45 solution? And why isit so
hard to get a collaborative solution where both parties win?
Number one, we don’ttry –weoften go for the quick and expedientrather
than the best solution.
Some believe it takes too longfor a collaborative solution. The Government
shut down in the U.S. and the National baseball strike, suggest that on the
contrary, a competitive negotiation takes far more time and takes a toll on
the relationship between the parties. Often everyoneendsup a loser and the
relationship is harmed in the process. Trust is lost and communication is
difficult.
Eventually Kristen and I worked outa collaborative solution to our
problem. This wasthe deal – we would watch the TV show together and on
the commercials Kristen would puton her pajamas, brushher teeth etc.
That is the labour intensivepart of putting a child to bed. So I wasrelieved
of that tiring burden and the coaxing / nagging that goes with it.
On the other hand Kristen got to watch the TV show, we both got cuddle
time and our relationship was not harmed. In fact the relationship was
enhanced through the honest communication and a norm for settling
parent– child disputesputin place.
One could arguethat I got more than I would have got if I had prevailed at
a 9:30 bedtimeas I would still have had to go through the tiring –“brush
your teeth, get your pajamason” process.
And likewise Kristen got morethan she would havegot had she pursued a
competitive negotiation and a 10 o’clock bedtime - getting somecuddle
time with dad, avoidingthe go to bed angst, getting to watch her TV show
and being able to be partof the gang at recess!
This is the win-win.
p.s. I have a YouTubevideo recountingof the story above. It is publically
available at; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTG73MyOBeU