The title for this current blog came from a quote I stole from another post by my good friend Aboodi Shabi who is the European leader for the Newfield Network. He writes some very poetic and inspiring blogs for which I am grateful.
In his latest post he writes about the recent election in the UK and how he found himself confronted by his own prejustices in not wanting a right wing or left of right wing government. In the same breath he recognised the admiration he felt for two opposing parties able to compromise their entrenched positions to create a greater good and to be bigger than what they cared about. Aboodi inspired me to consider the notion of change and of compromise.
Recently I wrote about letting go and how difficult a phenomenon that can be for many of us. I also know that wanting difference but behaving in the same way is a slow grind towards insanity.
I have been reading the book Immunity to Change by Kegan and Lahey and am impressed by the rigour of their analysis and legitimacy of their approach. They contend that as humans we often want difference or change in our lives but because of some underlying assumptions we act out in ways that maintain our status quo.
In this book the authors provide a methodology for change. They suggest to the reader the need to rewire the nervous system and deliberately intervene with new practices or behaviours for sustainable change.
The first part requires deliberate noticing and observing of the behaviours that militate against our desire for change. Curiously in some encounters with clients the “one big thing” that would have the most impact on a person’s life was often suggested by a significant other.
The second step involves taking small steps at difference what the authors refer to as “research” by the client. They suggest behaviours that are conceivably small enough to not appear threatening and therefore not subject the nervous system to too much overload. They have several others recommendations but above all they insist on practice and recurrence.
This book reminded me of a coaching scenario I encountered recently. I was coaching someone who wanted to understand why she was rejected by her former employer and had no success with male relationships. She presented as fiercely independent and unwillingly to compromise her standards. We talked about her history and how her parents were very committed to success at all costs. It turns out she regarded all relationships as acquisitions and prizes rather than what they were human interactions about which compromise and growth are significant.
Her interpretation by her own admission was skewed and she decided to reframe her interpretation and look to herself to become more yielding, willing to compromise and even share in the growth of any burgeoning relationship. She decided to accept the fragility and humaneness of people and put herself in that frame as well.
In essence she was willing to become something for which she was “not” as a way of getting what she really wanted; love.
We often assume and invariably are taught that compromise is weak and for the weak willed. This supposition often brings suffering. Many strive to be right over happy or minimally still in conversation and connected.
I am struck by how frequently we as humans will stick to our guns or refuse to concede a point in an argument when what is really at risk is the relationship. Compromise does not have to mean giving in or relinquishing in the heat of the moment but rather taking care of what we care about, which for many of us as was the case with my coaching client, is all about love.