LGK Brief: Compromising vs. Caving In - The Art of Creating a Win-Win Situation

By Leisa Chester Weir

In business and politics, settlements of the opposing entities are eventually reached by compromise and caving in. To find the significance in all of this, let’s turn to the POTUS. President Obama was faced with a compromise vs. caving in situation recently when he extended the Bush era tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, something he said he was not inclined to do. He was accused of caving in. He said it was a compromise, "Sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do," he said. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.”

What gives? Was this a good or a bad thing?

Although they are different degrees of the same thing, compromise has the idea of each party sacrificing something with both meeting somewhere in the middle – an agreement that neither party loves or hates, whereas caving in has the feel of one party giving up most or all of their marbles to more dominant force – a concession. What’s missing in the semantics of it all is the understanding of the end result. Can each party live with the solution? Did everyone take a step forward? Was there a feeling of accomplishment? Did someone learn something about themselves, others or a situation?

Click here to read this brief in its entirety.