Let’s Be Rational and Why True Leaders Must Accept a Fraction of What They Want
- Brainz Magazine
- Aug 8
- 4 min read
Written by Matthew Hutcheson, E.P.I.C.™ Philosophy
Matthew Hutcheson is well-known for having survived a politically motivated false allegation leading to his eventual incarceration. Now, Hutcheson and his wife advise law firms and organizations of all sizes on leadership and strategy. He is the author of the book Rapport, published in 2025, and the host of the E.P.I.C. podcast.
The words “ratio” and “rational” share a linguistic root: ratio evokes proportion, fraction, parts of a whole; rational denotes thoughtful, reasoned action. This paper posits that a truly rational leader cannot insist on obtaining everything. Rather, a rational leader must yield, compromise, or satisfice, that is, accept a proportional portion of the ideal in recognition of contextual constraints. Rationality, the author argues, is intrinsically fractional. Thus, a leader who demands “everything” from his team by definition is irrational.
One can conclude that organizational breakdown and discord often stem not merely from irrationality, but from the refusal to embrace rationality’s inherent fractionality. When individuals or factions insist on total outcomes rather than proportional, reasoned compromises, they disrupt the equilibrium necessary for collective function. In this light, irrationality is not simply flawed logic, it is the demand for everything, which ultimately yields nothing.
Conceptual foundations
Herbert A. Simon revolutionized our understanding of decision-making by critiquing the overly idealized “economic man” and introducing bounded rationality, the notion that real agents work within cognitive, informational, and temporal constraints and therefore seek “good enough” rather than optimal outcomes. This process, labeled “satisficing,” lies at the heart of rational action under limits⁵.
Cognitive constraints and satisficing
Bounded rationality acknowledges that agents lack the resources to conduct exhaustive evaluations. Instead, they adopt satisficing strategies, stop searching once an option crosses an acceptability threshold¹. Thus, rationality coexists with compromise: accepting a fraction of one’s goal to conserve effort, time, or cognitive load.
Compromise in leadership
In leadership negotiation and conflict resolution, compromise is the norm: each party concedes part of its position for mutual gain. This aligns with instrumental rationality, pursuing outcomes effectively, even if not ideal. Rational negotiators recognize that uncompromising stances can sabotage agreements³.
Game theory & bargaining equilibria
Game theory formalizes how rational agents bargain over a fixed pie. A bargaining equilibrium represents a division where no party can unilaterally improve without harming at least one other, reflecting a Pareto-efficient compromise⁴. Each rational actor ends up with a fraction of what they initially wanted, the optimal achievable given the strategic context.
Inefficiencies and limits of rationality
Even rational agents may settle for suboptimal agreements due to bounded analysis, hidden preferences, or miscalibrated expectations. Consequently, rational behavior often includes compromise that falls short of theoretical optimality, yet remains the best under real constraints².
Ethical and pragmatic dimensions
Compromise isn't just strategic. It can embody moral wisdom. Recognizing others' perspectives and valuing collective outcomes may require sacrificing some self-interest. In debate or policy, rational actors may accept fractional wins to build consensus or preserve relationships, reflecting practical wisdom beyond sheer instrumental gain⁶.
Leadership implications
Whether in diplomacy, business, or personal negotiation, insisting on complete success is often irrational. A leader who insists on everything often ends up with nothing. While some might argue that deeply principled positions resist compromise, even then, rational agents weigh the long-term costs of rigid stances. Rationality is flexible, not a fixed endpoint but a guided navigation among constraints, goals, and contexts.
Leaders… Let’s be rational
Rationality, properly understood, is proportional. A rational agent, bound by constraints and mindful of the strategic landscape, cannot justifiably demand everything. Instead, the leader must accept a fraction, a ratio, of what was initially desired, achieving a solution that is rationally sound and practically attainable. Any leader who refuses to operate within the bounds of rational proportion will inevitably fracture rapport, corrode morale, and forfeit influence.
Read more from Matthew Hutcheson
Matthew Hutcheson, E.P.I.C.™ Philosophy
Matthew Hutcheson is a leader's leader. After years of working with elected officials in Washington, D.C. and powerful law firms around the world, he found himself in federal prison following a political dispute turned political attack. There, he developed a philosophy for overcoming trauma titled E.P.I.C.™ and helped over 200 inmates earn their GED's. Today, he provides leadership training to organizations on every continent and advises premier law firms on strategy. His mission: Help others to "defeat anything, triumph over everything, be limited by nothing, and emerge as an unstoppable force."
References:
{1} Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. MIT Press.
{2} Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
{3} Menkel-Meadow, C. (1996). Ethics and Compromise. In the Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy.
{4} Nash, J. (1950). The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica, 18(2), 155–162.
{5} Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
{6} Walzer, M. (1990). Moral Minimalism. The Yale Journal of Ethics, 3(1), 1–19.
