Compromise: Not a Dirty Word

I am still reeling from the election results, and from ongoing posts on FB and everywhere. Many still are, I am sure. Some are trying to get the electoral college to decide that the popular vote should stand. Some are taking the election as permission to discriminate and to perpetuate hate through abuse, crimes and graffiti. Some are asking questions. The whole world is watching.

One of the posts I recently read was a reflection on the fact that the current Congress repeatedly blocked discussion, voting, Supreme Court selections and anything resembling progress during Obama’s (continuing) administration. And some people are calling for democrats in any position to do the same, to block efforts under the new administration once it takes over the reins.

I am not a politico, and I do not claim to have any special knowledge of the process or of the abilities and rights of government. I certainly agree that we need to hold the president and his/her cabinet and staff to the work we deem is important. It is not about just an election, and then let’s walk away, but about governing with the will of the people in mind.

In order for this to happen, the people need to stay engaged. Even more so, the government needs to stay engaged, with us and with each other. Holding someone to task should never mean stopping the work or being deaf to discussion and resistant to interactions, no matter how difficult those interactions are. This should never reveal itself as a refusal to collaborate or to compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word.

Let me repeat that, with a slight change; Compromise should not be a dirty word. We have come to see compromise as a death knoll to progress. We see it and often employ it as meeting the least common denominator for a solution, just in order to maintain favor with others or to get something, anything, done. This is a lousy way to approach anything, as it ends up meeting no one’s needs well.

Even worse, however, would be to implement solutions that address the needs of only one group of people. This creates frustration and a situation where the resultant pendulum swing to “fix” the problem for the other guy will also be radical and not attentive to all involved. In shorthand, this is what the election results perhaps revealed; that the solutions created did not address all stakeholders well, and the result is a whole group of USA citizens making sure they are finally heard and considered.

We need to change the connotation of “compromise” to be more like the word and the intent of “optimize”. A solution that meets the needs of only one faction or one side in a debate is not truly a solution at all, but a short-lived band-aide that will, in the end, cause more problems than it solves. We have relied on one-sided solutions too long, in politics, in green building, in social equity, and in our growing awareness of the dangers coming with climate change. We need optimized answers.

I do not mean to perpetuate the falsehood that there is a perfect solution that will meet everyone’s stated needs well. First, most people have needs that are not the ones they state out-loud, and that is a huge problem. Second, there will be a need to bend in order to improve. We must stop seeing this bending as a weakness. It is statesmanship and leadership.

In green building projects, seeking a true solution entails understanding the inputs and needs of all the contributors to the project. We must learn of and from nature, including on the site and in the community and with a long-term view to projected climate. We must communicate with the building designers and builders. Yes, they have needs from the project as well, and if those needs can be defined then they can be dealt with as component of the work. I’m thinking of the architect who sees a project as a cover photo and may let that goal overwhelm the real intents, or the builder that has under-bid and needs to economize in the construction. The facility managers, the building users, the real estate developer if it is a spec building, the manufacturers of materials, the municipality with an active climate plan, the insurance company, the community voting on a bond issuance and seeing their taxes rise, each need to feel the project is appropriate for them. If the solution meets the needs of half of these people, and totally disregards the needs of the other half, there will be ongoing issues including resentment and possibly anger. This will affect relationships and performance of the building. It will certainly affect the next bond vote, or the next opportunity to work with that owner or that municipality.

Optimize within the parameters of the work.

This means you must do better by finding the information from all concerned parties, even if you don’t want to hear it. It means developing solutions that address their concerns, and this will almost certainly mean changing your own understanding of what’s important and what is not. And it means using the exceptional tool of compromise to find that solution which will end up being better for all than the solution you brought to the table. It is better because the design includes optimal knowledge and inputs, on a broad base with a long-term time-frame, ensuring a strong foundation for success.

A true leader (read Architect or Project Manager or President for that matter) does not lead to force his/her views on the masses, but to seek understanding of the needs and the opportunities in order to illuminate the potentials for success. A leader needs to subjugate their own biases in order to do this, and must be strong enough to bend and help others to bend in order to get to an optimal solution. This is hard work. This is worthy work.

Lead on, toward a greener world,

Jodi