Abstract
The central fact underlying all relations is the question of power and how it can be used to get one's way. When power does not work, we move to compromise. This paper questions the validity of compromise as an effective means of settling differences. My standpoint is that compromise debases relationships, is wrong in principle and does not work in practice either. There is a better strategy: integration, when the contending parties find the wider solution that includes both their interests. Ethically right, integration also works better in practice, for it leads to longer-term, more productive and happier relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Mary Parker Follett: 1924, Creative Experience (Longmans, New York).
Metcalf H. C. and L. E. Urwick (eds.): 1973, The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (Pitman Publishing, New York).
Pauline Graham: 1991, Integrative Management -Creating Unity from Diversity (Basil Blackwell, Oxford), paperback.
Pauline Graham (ed.): 1995, Mary Parker Follett -Prophet of Management (Harvard Business School Press) (paperback) - a comprehensive overview of Follet’s work, with contemporary commentaries.
Richard Dawkins: 1989, The Selfish Gene, 2nd. Edition (Granada Publishing Ltd.).
Robert Axelrod: 1990, The Evolution of Co-operation (London, Penguin Books).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graham, P. Saying "No" to Compromise; "Yes" to Integration. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1007–1013 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006011130627
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006011130627