This is when we settle for a solution or intervention that is not what we wanted. It’s a non-ideal alternative that is still acceptable. This could be slightly less than ideal or the lesser of two evils. Either way, we only compromise if we believe it is the best alternative available. This is a question of effectiveness.
Everyone can start their own charity because we like feeling that we are in control of the difference we make, or we can pool resources and increase our impact (the real objective) by stepping away from the less important derailers.
When we compromise effectiveness for efficiency, ie. doing things that do not support our core mission in a cheaper, faster way, we have not compromised, we sacrificed the queen.
Healthy compromise is only possible when we break through the noise of the stuff we think are important but aren’t.
Will compromise help us achieve our core objectives faster?