Compromise: “to make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize.” Published synonyms include: “weaken, discredit; expose.”

How much do I compromise my personal autonomy with communal collaboration? I value my personal autonomy and I believe each one of us should protect and preserve it as much as is functionally possible. Yet even the smallest amount of exposure will have some influence on output; often before the fact, but if not before the fact, then after the fact in the form of feedback or judgement, critical or favorable, which in turn may (consciously or subconsciously) influence future personal output. In this sense, communal collaboration is restrictive. Yet communal collaboration, interdependence, synergy is necessary for significant communal progress. So, perhaps the question is not only how much, but also when? Perhaps I must first work to mitigate influence, and then determine opportunity and share, and then assess the feedback and reactions, and then again work to mitigate influence. So, in this circular process, I must share; or, I can circumvent the process and choose to suppress. As I examine this thought, I realize that at different levels for different circumstance, I have been consistently choosing to suppress.

There are different levels of self-suppression:

1. Quiescent Proximity – I will get as close to comfort as I am allowed, hunker down, and stay there until I am noticed and forced to move.
2. Angry Indignation – I am aware. I have a sense of reality. I recognize that of the entirety who practice quiescent proximity, a select few are allowed to hoard comfort and protect their places closest to that center. The majority continue to be pushed further and further away, but because I am angry and indignant, if I speak up I am condescended to, (by those in power, close to the center), and made to feel like a small child; or an idiot. So I choose to stay quiet. This characteristic, (angry indignation), in a large group perpetuates divisiveness which in turn impedes progress.
3. Uncertainty – I am aware. I have a sense of reality. I am an active learner seeking answers, but because I am not an expert in a given area, I am hesitant to verbalize thoughts or opinions. I am certain that wealth could be shared and those further and further away from comfort could be moved closer. I am fairly certain that for most, angry indignation could be used as a springboard to uncertainty and from there to an agreement on the necessity of expertise and from there to an ability to differentiate between the expert and the politician and from there to perhaps some actual significant communal progress. But I am uncertain how to pull the very large majority of us from quiescent proximity. So I choose to stay quiet. This characteristic, (uncertainty), in a large group perpetuates status quo which in turn impedes progress.

I don't have the answers, so I shut up. By their nature, a politician, (i.e. one who struggles for power), claims to have the answers and cannot shut up. Looking at results and evidence, politicians don’t have the answers. An administrator, (i.e. one who delivers positive results despite hardship or difficulty), accepts that they do not have the answers and looks for and to those (many) individuals who may each have a specific answer for a specific question. An administrator accepts that change is necessary and not comfortable. An administrator understands that angry indignation is counterproductive. An administrator is an active learner seeking answers. An administrator understands that politicians are counterproductive. Though still uncertain, an administrator finds a way to express their self through organization driving progress.

It is sad that today, to have a chance to be an administrator one must first overcome politics. Yet to overcome politics requires one to become a politician. And to become a politician greatly reduces the likelihood of effective administration. Thus, the aforementioned results and evidence; not only in our ‘hallowed’ halls of government, but everywhere there is a bad or ineffective or mediocre boss.

So perhaps the ultimate question is not how much or when, but how do I compromise my personal autonomy in the context of communal collaboration? And perhaps the answer is, administratively. Exposure is bound to happen. And with exposure comes vulnerability. And with vulnerability comes a fear of being hurt. And with this fear comes a reluctance. And if I am reluctant, I will likely remain quiet, but I can still accept that change is necessary and not comfortable. And I can still understand that angry indignation is counterproductive. And I can still be an active learner seeking answers. And I can still understand that politicians are counterproductive. And I can still seek and perhaps on occasion find a way to express my self through organization driving progress. And perhaps organization will have more success mitigating influence and protecting personal autonomy than do angry indignation or quiescent proximity. And perhaps instead of seeking opportunity to determine when, I should simply share; administratively. And if there is no immediate feedback or reaction, I must believe that ultimately there will be; because I am exposed. So I must continue to work administratively in order to mitigate influence, preserve personal autonomy, maintain integrity, and continue cycling active hope.