
The Japanese battleship Yamato during machinery trials off Bungo Strait, 20 October 1941. To avoid an arms race, the great naval powers had agreed to a sequence of treaties from 1922 to 1936 constraining the sizes and numbers of capital ships they could construct. In 1934, Japan withdrew from the treaty (and the League of Nations), and in 1937 began construction of the Yamato. Its great size was intended to enable it to engage multiple U.S. warships simultaneously, a capability that was believed necessary because of the industrial capacity advantage of the U.S. Thus, although the battleship treaties provided incentives to signatories to adhere to the treaties, for Japan there were even greater incentives to abandon them. For more, read the Wikipedia articles, "Treaty battleship" and "Japanese Battleship Yamato". The photo is part of the records in the Yamato Museum (PG061427). It is available from Wikimedia Commons.
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? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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:
Managing Pressure: Communications and Expectations
- Pressed repeatedly for "status" reports, you might guess that they don't want status —
they want progress. Things can get so nutty that responding to the status requests gets in the way of
doing the job. How does this happen and what can you do about it? Here's Part I of a little catalog
of tactics and strategies for dealing with pressure.
Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: I
- Virtual teams encounter difficulties that rarely confront face-to-face teams. What special challenges
do they face, and what can we do about them?
Stalking the Elephant in the Room: I
- The expression "the elephant in the room" describes the thought that most of us are thinking,
and none of us dare discuss. Usually, we believe that in avoidance lies personal safety. But free-ranging
elephants present intolerable risks to both the organization and its people.
Anticipate Counter-Communication
- Effective communication enables two parties to collaborate. Counter-communication is information provided
by a third party that contradicts the basis of agreements or undermines that collaboration.
Congruent Decision Making: I
- Decision makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make faulty decisions.
Congruent decision making can limit the incidence of bad decisions.
See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming August 13: Leaving High-Touch Jobs: How
- High-touch jobs require that we work closely with colleagues, teammates, clients, or suppliers. Because choosing to leave such a job affects all these people, and the person departing, we would do well find a path that respects all involved. Here are some suggestions. Available here and by RSS on August 13.
And on August 20: Earned Value and Goodhart's Law
- Earned Value Management, widely used approach to project management, is most useful in contexts in which estimators are familiar with the Tasks, the Technologies, and the Teams. But even then, it is vulnerable to the tactics of those who game the metrics. Available here and by RSS on August 20.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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
rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
