Americans, there is no “them” there’s only us. We need to work together.
Compromise and cooperation: Two words with similar meanings but evoke very different feelings when considered together or separately. “Compromise” seems pleasant enough, but there’s always a lingering gut feeling that something was given up–like you didn’t get what you really wanted. It even sounds adversarial. “Cooperation” similarly means that two sides came together to work out a solution and worked together for the best overall outcome. Compared to “compromise,” “cooperation” sounds congenial, almost pleasant. Both words convey an outcome that’s essentially the same, but why does one feel so good, and the other, so, well, not so good?
The answer is in the framing–and in a fundamentally different outlook on human interaction.
The subject was masterfully addressed in 1989 by Stephen Covey in his landmark work, “7 Habits of Highly Effective People.” In it, he summarized what his research had taught him about the principles successful individuals consistently included in their work and life processes. He had the following to say about “compromise” versus what he called his term for cooperation, “win-win”:
Compromise = both sides give up something.
Covey suggests that compromise is better than a win‑lose outcome, but it’s still suboptimal. In a compromise, each side surrenders part of what they want. The result is often “1 + 1 = 1.5” — functional but not inspiring. It’s a transactional settlement, not a creative solution.
Win‑Win = both sides get what they truly need.
Win‑Win, one of Covey’s core habits, is about seeking mutual benefit. It aims for solutions where everyone feels satisfied, respected, and valued. Covey describes Win‑Win as a mindset of abundance—the belief that there’s enough success for everyone.
Key distinction
Covey viewed Win‑Win as a higher‑order solution than compromise because it requires deeper communication, trust, and creativity. Instead of splitting the difference, you work together to find a better third alternative — what he calls synergy. Synergy is a solution in which the total outcome is greater than the sum of its parts. 1 + 1 = More than 2. Synergy is a better outcome for everybody, and it is reached only through cooperation along with a respect and recognition of the humanity and needs of all parties involved.
Why does this even matter? Because it may be the only way we find ourselves out of the societal quagmire we’re in.
In compromise, each side gives up something. The focus is survival, coexistence, and avoiding catastrophe. Compromise prevents society from killing itself. But compromise tends to produce least‑common‑denominator solutions: good enough to avert disaster, rarely enough to create flourishing.
Cooperation is not about minimizing losses; it is about maximizing gains. It emerges when individuals or groups discover that working together yields outcomes impossible alone.
Cooperation is the foundation of modernity: Cities, markets, and trade networks exist because cooperation creates mutual benefit. Science is cooperative knowledge-building. Technology is cumulative: each invention builds on countless predecessors.
Democratic institutions are forms of cooperation in which people pool their legitimacy to govern themselves. Unlike compromise, cooperation relies on alignment: shared goals, shared norms, and mutual trust. No one has to lose for others to win.
Cooperation produces synergy—the essence of scientific, economic, and cultural flourishing.
Why the Advance of Modernity Comes from Cooperation, Not Compromise
Compromise stabilizes societies so that cooperation can flourish, so it’s not a terrible thing, but it’s only a foundation. Cooperation produces progress that compromise alone never could. You can think of their relationship like this: Compromise is the floor: it stops the collapse. Cooperation is the ceiling: it enables expansion.
When societies get stuck in perpetual compromise—patching over conflicts without building shared purpose—they stagnate. When societies cultivate cooperation—trust, institutions, rule of law, predictable norms—they innovate.
Modernity required more than temporary bargains; it required systems that enabled sustained cooperation: markets, universities, legal frameworks, scientific norms, communication technologies, and shared political ideals.
The Fragile Dance Between the Two
Cooperation depends on compromise to settle disputes when consensus fails. Compromise depends on cooperation to create the prosperity and trust that make peaceful disagreement possible.
Societies that master only compromise avoid destruction but fail to thrive. Societies that push for cooperation without mechanisms of compromise risk fragmentation when conflicts inevitably arise.
The healthiest social orders cultivate both.