When a team ships something meaningful, it’s obvious that somebody cared. Startups often manage to do this because they have no choice. Conviction is the only fuel they’ve got. In large companies, it’s different. It’s easy not to care. People go through the motions, make safe calls, and prioritise optics over outcomes. Ownership becomes blurred, accountability is lost, and decisions are diluted until they mean nothing.
That’s how mediocrity gets shipped. And the root cause, more often than not, is this: meeting in the middle.
Why “middle ground” is overrated
“Meeting in the middle” feels safe. It looks diplomatic, fair, and balanced. But in practice, it’s usually the worst outcome. Instead of the best of both worlds, you get the worst of both: mediocrity.
If you want to build meaningful products, you can’t afford watered-down decisions. Middle ground kills conviction, blurs vision, and leaves you with outcomes nobody truly believes in.
The psychology of compromise
Compromise is attractive because it avoids conflict. It keeps the peace. It makes everyone feel heard. But easy decisions rarely lead to great outcomes.
Conviction is what matters. When teams compromise, both sides lose it. No one feels full ownership, and energy drains away. That’s how you end up shipping safe, forgettable products.
The fix is to allow rigorous debates upfront. Stress-test ideas, challenge assumptions, push each other hard. But once the decision is made, commit. At that point, it’s no longer “their idea” or “your idea.” It’s the team’s decision. And you go all in. Importantly, make sure the path you choose is closer to an extreme than to the middle. That’s where clarity and conviction live.
The cost of compromise
Compromise strips away conviction. Products lose their edge, strategies lose direction, and teams lose their sense of purpose.
In startups, meaningful products emerge because someone takes a stand. In bigger organisations, it’s easy to fall into process theatre — endless meetings, consensus-seeking, and decisions optimised for appearances rather than outcomes. Teams waste weeks debating reversible, low-stakes choices instead of simply trying one path. The result: safe decisions and work nobody truly believes in.
The antidote is clarity. Assign a decision maker, give space for input, then let them call it. Record the trade-offs so everyone understands why the path was chosen, and move forward with conviction.
Disagree and commit
The better approach is to disagree and commit. This doesn’t mean blind obedience. It means recognising conviction.
If someone is pushing hard for a direction, assume they know or believe something you don’t. Borrow some of that conviction. Let their clarity pull you forward. And when it’s your turn to lead, communicate your conviction so strongly that others can align with you.
This is how great teams work: conviction gets transferred, not diluted. The result is a clear direction, backed by shared commitment, even if not everyone started on the same page.
Practical guidance
Debate hard, then commit: Don’t avoid conflict. Push until you surface a real conviction.
Define ownership: Democracy in decisions often dilutes outcomes. Someone must make the call.
Don’t force consensus: Harmony isn’t the goal.
Move fast on Type 2 decisions: Don’t burn weeks on reversible choices. Pick a path and try. Action leads to clarity.
Document decisions: Record why you chose one path over another, so the team rallies around it.
Courage beats compromise
Compromise feels safe, but safety rarely builds anything meaningful. Strong products, bold strategies, and high-performing teams are born from conviction, not middle ground. If you want to stop shipping mediocre products, stop meeting in the middle.
If you found this post useful, share it with a friend or a co-worker. Thanks for reading. Your support means a lot.