Don't Compromise!

In a recent Crackers article, we provided a link to an excellent piece at the HR Bartender blog, Thinking Both/And, or – to give it it’s fuller and less ambiguous title – “Moving beyond ‘either/or’ thinking to see the future of work”. Sharlyn Lauby, its author, was inspired by the work of Luis von Ahn in human computation, and how it moves:

the relationship between technology and humans from a ‘either/or’ to a ‘both/and’.  It’s not about either a computer does the work or a human does the work.  It’s about how humans and computers can use their capabilities together to make things happen.”

 As I already commented on Sharlyn’s blog, this isn’t a way of thinking that should be limited just to our relationship with technology (although it surely has a bearing on the problems of qualitiative vs quantitative measurement we’ve addressed here before). “Both/and” – as an alternative to “either/or” – could be a powerful tool in many situations where an oppositional approach leads to either the undue detriment of one party or the stalemating of both.

In Professor Ahn’s sphere – computing – it’s refreshing to see an argument expressed not in the binary terms of ‘on or off’ but in the shaded, nuance analogue world humans operate in (and/or perceive), although I don’t think – appropriately enough – that this approach belongs merely in opposing a digital world of Ones and Zeroes against something less precise but more graduated. (Although for a stimulating read on technology and the gender division, Sadie Plant’s “Zeroes and Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture” makes interesting reading for anyone interested in both technology and society.)

While some of us in the UK may shudder slightly at the memories of Tony Blair’s ‘Third Way’ (curiously not making a comeback as the respective roles of state and business as loci of influence have been questioned in the wake of the financial crisis), think of other areas where it may be more beneficial to strike a balance – a mid-point on a spectrum rather than the extremes of an axis:

• carrot / stick
• ‘classroom’ /job
• supervision / empowerment
• centralised HR functions / engaged line management.

 The only pairing I can, off the top of my head, recall seeing frequently in writing about work, business and employment is ‘work – life balance’; even there, most of what I recall reading suggests that we are veering towards ‘either/or’ at the cost of ‘both/and’.

Consider a very different slant on ‘working together’, noticed in another excellent blog we’ve also previously referenced: Mark Gould’s “Enlightened Tradition” (a blog title that embraces ‘both/and’ all in itself). Mark recently wrote about Rory Stewart’s suggested alternative approach, and I’ll take the liberty of abridging the section of Stewart’s New York Review of Books article that Mark himself quoted:

A more realistic, affordable, and therefore sustainable presence would not make Afghanistan stable or predictable. It would be merely a small if necessary part of an Afghan political strategy. The US and its allies would only moderate, influence, and fund a strategy shaped and led by Afghans themselves. The aim would be to knit together different Afghan interests and allegiances sensitively enough to avoid alienating independent local groups […] and robustly enough to restore the security and justice that Afghans demand and deserve from a national government.

What would this look like in practice? Probably a mess. It might involve a tricky coalition of people we refer to, respectively, as Islamists, progressive civil society, terrorists, warlords, learned technocrats, and village chiefs. […] it could be a rickety experiment with systems that might […] include strong elements of religious or military rule. […] Civil war would remain a possibility. But an intelligent, long-term, and tolerant partnership with the United States could reduce the likelihood of civil war and increase the likelihood of a political settlement. This is hardly the stuff of sound bites and political slogans. But it would be better for everyone than boom and bust, surge and flight.”

It strikes me Stewart is also addressing another ‘and/or’: not to view a way forward (and possibly applying ‘and/or’ to ‘winning’ and ‘losing’) as a choice between territory on one hand and hearts and minds on the other, but seeing hearts and minds as territory. (Mark Gould is not the only one to think Mr Stewart may yet go far, although the next paragraph may point out a pothole or two.)

That ‘boom and bust’ will have struck another chord with UK readers, no doubt, but I remembered another word – one more associated with the US in recent years: bi-partisanship. As we reach the end of Barack Obama’s first year in office, the media are full of reviews and analyses as the Presidential approval rating hovers around 47% (a low figure for a President at this stage of his term in office). His campaign aspiration to reach out and heal divides was a strong element of his message, seeking to govern not ‘red states’ or ‘blue states’ but a ‘united’ (his emphasis) states of America. Back in Dec 2008, this approach triggered one of the first articles on this blog. A year on, there’s an important lesson in trying to shift thinking. You can’t be bi-partisan on your own. Little wonder that ‘The Tea Party’ is currently enormously popular in the US: the Republican party’s adoption of a ‘no co-operation/do whatever we can to handicap the Democrat’s agenda’ approach isn’t playing well with some of their own supporters. In yesterday’s Independent, two Republican lawyers from Washington DC answered the question “How would you characterise the current state of the Republican party?”: 

Mary Beth Ray: Absolutely a disaster. The right-wing has hijacked the party, and now Fox News will help push their extreme agenda and sway mid-term elections. Very depressing and I am seriously considering changing my party affiliation to ‘independent’.”

Joseph McManus: The Republican Party is near death, and given its performance, it should be put out of its misery. However, there is always rebirth.”

An equally striking comment came from Democrat-supporting Virginia housewife, Laura de Busk:

… they have made it virtually impossible for any member of their party to work with the President, which I think will hurt them moving forward.”

Does anyone else remember an old saying about judging a man by his enemies as well as his friends? Although I confess I’m struggling to identify a ‘both/and’ that combines an extended hand and clenched fist. And I’m not sure Obama has recovered from the experiment with bumping fists.

Another example, again from America (and on an issue that perhaps epitomises polarisation in that country), cropped up in this week’s The Economist. After Proposition 8 (withdrawing recognition for gay marriage in California, voted on the same day as the Presidential election), a new court case is brewing. Perry vs Schwarzenegger (mercifully for Perry taking place in court rather than the ring) is interesting for the choice of legal team. It includes prominent conservative Theodore Olson. At first glance, this stands ‘either/or’ on its head, but the argument goes beyond legal interpretation (the 14^th amendment to the US constitution guarantees Americans equal protection under the law, while the Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that any laws motivated by homophobia are unconstitutional). There is more to Olson’s argument than just legal precedent, however: to quote his recent Newsweek article:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs.“

If that’s not ‘both/and’, I don’t know what qualifies (it’s marriage of conservatism and ‘progress’ certainly puts a new spin on Mark Gould’s idea of ‘enlightened tradition;).  This could be as interesting to follow as Obama’s aspirations to bi-partisanship.

But let me finish with another argument that takes us back to our computer screens. They may be driven by the on/off logic of digital, but even the 256 ‘safe colours’ of HTML allow for 9 shades of something other than black and white. Consciously skirting the issues that mentioning Obama and the phrase ‘black and white’ in one article might invoke, can we propose a colour for the season? A practical colour that encompasses millions of shades (at least as perceived by the human eye, rather determined by the graphics card) and goes with anything. Ladies and gentleman, give grey a try. Combining be must a step forward from opposition: 1 vs 1 gives us two isolated 1s and ne’er the twain shall meet. But 1 plus 1 equals 2. To borrow an expression, you do the math …

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine