If you're responsible for people or resources — most of us are responsible for at least ourselves — you probably make commitments at work. You commit to do something (or not to), at a certain pace, or by a certain date, or within some constraints. Sometimes the commitment is part of an exchange: I'll do this, and you'll do that; or I won't do this, and you won't do that; and so on.
When commitments are part of exchanges, we sometimes call them informal agreements. Rarely are they written down, though they might be; rarely are there handshakes, though there might be. Most agreements actually work. What makes agreements durable? Here are some of their attributes.
- They're bilateral
- Bilateral agreements are based on mutual consent. In a unilateral agreement one of the parties believes there is an agreement, but the other doesn't, or is unaware of any agreement. For durability, both parties must be aware that a deal has been struck.
- They're clear
- Even if both parties acknowledge existence of an agreement, they might not agree on the terms. It's essential that all concerned agree about what's being exchanged, and how it will be exchanged.
- They're voluntary
- Neither party is coerced — not by the other, nor by events, nor by another party. If coercion drives the bargain, the agreement is durable only while coercion persists.
- The parties are equally knowledgeable
- Each party has roughly Even if both parties acknowledge
existence of an agreement,
they might not agree
on the termsequal information about the value of the items exchanged and the framework of the exchange. That is, both parties estimate the agreement's fairness equally accurately. If one party has better information than the other, then when the second party "wakes up," the deal often implodes, or the relationship sours. - Incentives have symmetric value
- When the agreement includes incentives, the value of the incentives to each party is roughly identical. Incentives that mean much more to one party than the other are likely to lead to nonperformance by the party that has lesser regard for its incentives.
- There are no incentives for breach of confidentiality
- When the agreement is confidential and sub rosa a trap awaits, because there can be an incentive to breach confidentiality. The first party to admit to a sub rosa agreement can sometimes avoid the penalties of having made such an agreement, even after harvesting value from it.
Most important, there can be no incentive for one party to turn against the other. If one party can capture value by inflicting harm on the other, the agreement is inherently unstable. It becomes a form of "I'll scratch your back; you stab me in mine." Durable agreements are structured such that turning on one's partner is very, very expensive. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Animosity Patterns
- Animosity between two people at work is often attributed to "personality clashes." While sometimes
people can't get along, animosity can also be a tool for accomplishing strictly political ends. Here's
a short catalog of some of its uses.
- Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: II
- Communication can be problematic for any team, especially under pressure. But virtual teams face challenges
that are less common in face-to-face teams. Here's Part II of a little catalog with some recommendations.
- Group Problem-Solving Tangles
- When teams solve problems together, discussions of proposed solutions usually focus on combinations
of what the solution will do, how much it will cost, how long it will take, and much more. Disentangling
these threads can make discussions much more effective.
- The Power and Hazards of Anecdotes: II
- Anecdotes are powerful tools of persuasion, but with that power comes a risk that we might become persuaded
of false positions. Here is Part II of a set of examples illustrating some hazards of anecdotes.
- Reframing Revision Resentment: I
- From time to time, we're required to revise something previously produced — some copy, remarks,
an announcement, code, the Mona Lisa, whatever… When we do, some of us experience frustration,
and view the assignment as an onerous chore. Here are some alternative perspectives that might ease
the burden.
See also Workplace Politics and Project Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed