Managing agreements

People cannot be reliably programmed. You can create conditions in which the required action becomes clear, possible and worthwhile.

This is not necessarily manipulation. Any cooperation is built this way: clear roles, available tools, feedback, reward, consequences and the right to refuse.

Manipulation begins where the true goal is hidden and a person acts on a picture that has been distorted on purpose.

Reframing unpleasant work as a privilege is sometimes witty. But if the task really remains a punishment, changing the name does not make the relationship more honest.

It is more sensible to look for the overlap of interests:

What do I need?

What does the other person need?

How do we build an action in which both get an acceptable result?

Values influence behaviour, but treating them as control knobs is dangerous. A person notices quickly when his convictions are being used purely as a lever.

An agreement in which both sides understand their own benefit and their own price is more durable.

Managing people often means an endless struggle with their resistance. Managing conditions and agreements leaves them the authorship of the action.

Conditions are cheaper than persuasion. If the dishes pile up, you can give a reminder every evening, or you can agree that one person cooks, the other washes up, and on the same evening. The first requires daily pressure and damages the relationship at roughly the same frequency. The second is discussed once, after which a breach is visible to both sides without reminders. A reminder, moreover, appoints one person as the inspector and the other as the offender before the first unwashed plate.

What distinguishes an agreement from a demand is that it can be declined. A condition the other side did not agree to but merely listened to works exactly as long as somebody is watching it.