Perhaps, it is extremely significant for the Recruitment Section of Human Resources Division, of any organisation to know that, in finding talent, the trait of flexibility is not being confused with the attitude of being compromising.
MANAGEMENT
Perhaps, it is extremely significant for the Recruitment Section of Human Resources Division, of any organisation to know that, in finding talent, the trait of flexibility is not being confused with the attitude of being compromising.
Compromise and flexibility are not synonymous. They mean differently. Flexibility is the quality of bending easily without breaking; the ability to be easily modified or the willingness to change, while compromise means, settlement of dispute by mutual concession or expedient acceptance of standards that are lower than desirable. In flexibility’s definition, the important thing to note is ‘bending without breaking’ and in the explanation of compromise, the significant words are, “expedient acceptance … of lowering of standards”.
Bending without breaking would imply that in handling work environment, one shows demonstrable ability to accept others point of view, to its maximum stretch, so long as it does not break the framework of law and non-legislated standards of behavior. While accepting lowering of standards by means of expediency, would mean, willingness to cross threshold or barriers, whether legal or otherwise. Turning a blind eye to a subordinate's acceptance or demand of bribery, is not an act of flexibility but is downright an attitude of compromise i.e. acceptance of lowly behaviour.
Flexibility is a good quality with positive connotation; compromise reflects expedient acceptance of 'wrongs' and as such has negative connotation. There are two ways of meeting difficulties; either you alter the difficulties or you alter yourself, to meet them. In life, inclusive of spanning your work life, there must be recognition, that while to alter and change positively is good, but to alter to acquiesce for outraging standards is bad work ethics. In the business environment, it is actually respectability given to ‘compromise’ made, when it is said that our management of business is based on the 'principle of consensus'; it really is meant to convey with grains of nobility sprinkled upon the unacceptable 'management by compromise'. The decision-making bodies have members, who recognise that the decision being taken is not in conformity of either law or acceptable standards but they remain ‘expediently silent’. Compromised!
Just as in life, so also in corporate world, there are only win-lose propositions or even lose-lose formulas but never a win-win situation. You would find upon in depth examination, even in the classified best of win-win situations, where after a skin-deep scratch, you will surely find strong roots of compromises, that may have helped the management to take a decision of common acceptability, while to the world it is frocked as a‘win-win’ formula.
Is compromise, a bad attitude to possess? Yes, especially if it relates to violating fundamental principles of human behavior. Abandoning truth for falsehood to prevail, adopting a stance of duplicity to suit favourable action and general unwillingness to learn despite knowledge about lack of knowledge. This is compromise.
Compromise can be of merit only in situations where relationships are likely to be marred. Only in resurrecting spoilt relationships or for its avoidance, compromise may be used. If a marriage is heading to hit the rocks, compromise is always a good option. But such compromises shouldn’t be based on sympathy or with an attitude of being the ‘super-human’ who doesn’t react negatively, to any situations, regardless of the degree of its being provocative. Compromises with positive outcomes can be saintly. Compromise based on the premise of honesty is perfectly acceptable behavior. To give or to take, in a given situation, is not in my ‘view a case of compromise'. It is about violation of principles, standards and morality. Any challenges to these precepts must remain unacceptable to all. No organisation can demand subservience to outmanoeuvring or circumventing of legal standards from its employees. And no individual should for a handful of ‘misplaced recognition and reward’ succumb, to such demands. Refute and challenge.
Taking the path of least resistance in pursuit of career goals is not a compromise, especially if it does not harbour on the fringes of the unacceptable standards. Each day ushers new set of challenges and hence requires solution; as long as there is no conflict of interest, it is perfectly fine to yield to a given situation. Retreat, to renew force, is not a defeat. And hence, Julius Caesar had an Auriga (slave) who was told to constantly repeat ‘memento homo’ (remember you are a human). All managers have the need of having an Auriga by their side.
A manager compromises himself when he surrounds himself with people, who punish him with positive assurances that he (manager) is above humans. An Angel in disguise. A gift to mankind. It is such a slippery path, laid by the cheer followers, to get the ‘compromised’ managers slide into their corporate graves. No leader should find himself compromised by the colleagues who would dare not to challenge, criticise or comment upon his actions, without fear or favour. Truth will never climb into the managerial chambers, if the manager yields to low quality human resources, surrounding him. Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Premier” says: “This is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous to seek centre stage …! Has anything changed? No. Ibn-e-khaldum, in 1377 AD, wrote, “a person who seeks and desires ranks must be obsequious and use flattery as powerful men and rulers require. Otherwise, it will be impossible for him to attain any rank.” Has anything changed? No.
Senior managers and leaders are humans. They too possess ingrained weaknesses. One such weakness is to be loved, adored, and liked across the organisation. Accepting flattery is to accept being compromised. Should a manager allow himself to be compromised with people who cannot be trusted, whether above or below him, in rank? From Aesop’s Fables, in the story “Man and his two wives”, we learn, “yield to all and sundry and you will have nothing to feed'. Flattery, will lead you to throw to the wind, caution and prudence”.
For the cunning managers, “compromise” is a tool of hope, by which he feeds the crocodiles in his team – hoping he will be their last, not the first, supper. But Alas! History proves otherwise.
The art of life for successful outcome is a continuous re-adjustment to our surroundings, with zero tolerance to compromises of all sorts. Managers have to remain mindful that in this quest, it is always better to lose the saddle than the horse.
The writer is a freelance columnist
