What’s your view of those who take a “my way or the highway” stance? If you are in favor of having them hit the highway, please honk.
The impetus for this blog is the current “stand-off” in Wisconsin that pits Republicans against Democrats and corporations and the state against labor unions and those that belong to them. The Governor (a Republican) admits that the unions have agreed to 90 percent of his administration’s demands. But, he says, “no compromise.” It seems to me that we’ve been seeing more of that philosophy in recent years, and I am not at all sure that it will serve our collective purposes over time. We have, after all, seen a number of examples recently, including Egypt and now Libya, where a “my way or the highway” stance eventually led to a revolt by those who didn’t like the options. History affords other examples, including eighteenth-century France, nineteenth-century Russia, and twentieth-century China. Closer to home, we have had a sufficient number of revenge shootings by those who had been bullied for too long in school. People forced to give up too much for too long eventually find a way to get even.
The sad part is that all too often, when they get even, they tend to adopt a “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude themselves, basically saying, “You did it to me, and now it’s my turn to do it to you.” And that leads to…. Well, you get the idea. You doubtless know the saying, “What goes around, comes around.” For this reason, “my way or the highway” is a short-term solution at best. The saying, “Don’t get mad; get even” is a misnomer. What happens is that people get angry, and then they get even—and then some.
One of the 7 habits of highly effective people in Stephen Covey’s book by that title is “Win-Win or No Deal.” The ideal is to find ways so that everyone benefits in the way he or she desires, to “expand the pie” rather than merely share it more equally. Although fundamentally “fair,” sharing more equally may result in neither side’s getting enough to feel satisfied. The ideal, “win-win or no deal,” is to seek creative solutions that will ensure that both sides get what they want. A common workshop example is the husband and wife negotiating where to spend their vacation. The husband wants to go hiking in the mountains, while the wife wants to spend the time on an ocean beach. The solution: a waterfront resort adjacent to mountains good for hiking.
Some situations, however, are “zero-sum.” If two people find $1, the most logical split is 50/50. No matter how much they would wish to multiply their find, they are not likely to find a way to do that. They might buy a lottery ticket, but that would almost guarantee that they would lose. Fortunately, very few things are “zero-sum.” It is almost always possible to expand the pie. Unfortunately, we fail to see those possibilities when our principal objective becomes punishing the other party to gain advantage. Such cases mimic boxing matches or war in which each side has the willingness to endure pain—sometimes a lot of it—to be able to inflict greater damage on “the enemy.” The “winner” is the individual, team, or side that is hurt the least.
It seems to me that “war” doesn’t make a good metaphor for negotiations between or among political parties, corporations, or individuals. Who benefits if the marketing division of an organization “kills” the human resources division or those two gang up to kill production? The first question ought to be how everyone can win. In a recent column for the New York Times, David Brooks (“Make Everybody Hurt,” 21 February 2011), focuses on the need to share losses equally. Other commentators have pointed out that isn’t always possible. A 10 percent reduction in income for a guy making $4 billion a year is not really equal to a 10 percent reduction for the guy making $40,000 a year.
For this reason, I can see problems with the concept of spreading the pain. I agree, however, with Brooks’s principal idea of striving for fairness. Relationships on personal, cultural, and international levels need to have a reasonably high degree of perceived fairness to avoid festering resentments that lead to another cycle of “getting even.” A balance of power helps ensure that, but it would be even better if those with the power had a fundamental desire to be fair enough to think in terms “win-win.” Lord Acton’s dictum—”Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”—is a confounding influence. It is all too easy and seemingly natural for those with power (physical, intellectual, financial, or political) to “lord it over” those perceived as less powerful. It is difficult for those with power to think in terms of win-win when it comes to dealing with those who have less power.
As history has shown with regularity, this view is short-sighted. Relationships with an unequal division of power—whether personal, organizational, political, or international—eventually reach a “tipping point” where those who have been on the “short end of the stick,” do whatever is necessary to reverse their fortunes. If we are going to end the cycle of those without power getting mad and getting even, those in power need to have the foresight to avoid its corrupting influence. For most of us, that means increasing our awareness of and sensitivity to the “energy” of relationships and thinking more in terms of win-win in all our exchanges with others.
In NLP workshops, Richard Bander often says that the best way to put someone into trance is to “go first.” And that is probably also the best—and perhaps only—way to create increasingly fair relationships on all levels.
