Arguing With Hitler
Finding the middle ground is overrated.
I often hear fellow business coaches say that changing organizations is a question of give and take. It aligns with what we’ve been taught at school - to take turns; you can’t always have it your way; also give others a chance to participate. And, quite likely, the people that raised you said similar oneliners at home. But, when finding the middle ground is pushed to achieve supposed progress, I feel a strong urge to counter it.
I tend to make a quick assessment of a statement by pulling it into extremes, just to see if it holds. If someone says it’s not smart to smack your head into a wall, I will agree on the basis that it doesn’t matter whether you do that softly or extra hard, or into a brick, concrete, or wooden wall - neither of those options seems smart under any circumstances.
If I apply my into-extremes-litmus-test to the push for the middle ground, it would - for instance - entail that if I were arguing with Adolf Hitler, I would have come to some form of agreement with him. Imagine what that would look like.
“What about killing just three million people in concentration camps? You’ve got to meet me somewhere in the middle, Adolf - please, be reasonable.”
I don’t believe that is correct, and I hope you agree.
If Hitler sounds too much of a stretch, think of the current situation in Ukraine. There are people - including highly placed Western politicians - who implore Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy to start negotiations with Russia’s Putin to end the horrible war.
If the middle grounders would have their way, Ukrainians would have to give up parts of their country - like Crimea and their two Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk - to reach an agreement with Putin to prevent further bloodshed. Luckily, neither President Zelenskyy nor the majority of the Ukrainian people is even remotely considering this miserable option. The only viable solution is for the Russian army to leave Ukrainian soil entirely, and that includes every inch of Crimea.
Under no circumstance should evil behavior be rewarded, no matter the cost. The latter part of the sentence is important: it signifies the value of the first part.
Exchanging land for consensus is the geopolitical equivalent of my business coaching colleagues calling for reaching the middle ground to find organizational changes that somehow satisfy all parties involved at least somewhat. Even though such a proposal sounds like the voice of reason, in reality, it will result in an unsustainable mess that will fester for years to come.
I’ve seen it happen on the job more than I care to remember: I’m hired to help the organization adopt an agile way of working, but since it’s too hard for many to give up their traditional command and control urges, they reach for the middle ground.
Invariably, a ‘hybrid’ format is promoted that serves neither way of working. In the end, agile is blamed for not working - “well, at least not at our company” - and the hierarchical cravings are once again quenched.
What the organization should have done, is support and promote one way for the full one-hundred percent. Of course, I prefer the agile way, but if a traditional approach is chosen, that would be fine by me as well - as long as I don’t have to be part of that.
What about private life? Isn’t it best practice to reach agreements somewhere in the middle with your friends and loved ones? Yet again, I don’t think so.
If you wholeheartedly believe in something, you should stand for that. I also think that you should be open for discussion and argument, but if after all that you still believe in a standpoint, you should stick with it. Finding the middle ground because your friend or partner doesn’t share your conviction will leave you with a lingering feeling of unease that will at some point explode onto the scene when you least expect it.
Belying your innermost values does nothing good for your inner peace. In the long run that is not a sustainable way of living.
Does this mean that you will be left with lots of quarrels and few friends? Not necessarily. Good friends, and partners, will appreciate your steadfastness. If you both allow for room to agree to disagree, you can be friends with people who have quite opposing views on important topics. Of course, the lesser the amount of disagreements, the closer the relationship.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the environment doesn’t really matter - whether it’s politics, business, or private - finding the middle ground is usually a bad thing. Pick a side and stick with it. That’s usually the sustainable option.