Preventing Spontaneous Collapse of Agreements

When two or more parties work out their differences, they often employ explicit agreements. Written or oral, signed or unsigned, agreements spell out what will be exchanged and when, or what the parties will refrain from doing. Agreements are essential to collaborative work in the context of constrained resources.

When agreements collapse spontaneously, there is no apparent external cause. Even when external conditions remain unchanged, agreements can implode. Distrust and rancor can follow, jeopardizing the possibility of future agreements. Because the long-term consequences of collapse can be more severe, unpleasant, and debilitating than the collapse itself, skill in crafting stable agreements is a valuable asset.

Here are some of the attributes of stable agreements.

They're voluntary

Stable agreements are voluntary. Neither party is coerced by the other, or by any other party. For example, the supervisor who addresses toxic conflict between subordinates by ordering them to "work it out or else" is establishing conditions for an unstable agreement.

If coercion drives the bargain, the agreement can remain stable only as long as the coercion remains effective.

Information quality is symmetric

Both parties have equal access to information about the context of the agreement and the value of the items exchanged. That is, one party estimates the fairness of the agreement about as accurately as the other. Information quality asymmetry is especially troublesome when the advantaged party knows that the disadvantaged party is agreeing to an unfair exchange, or when the advantaged party intentionally misleads the disadvantaged party.

When the truth finally becomes apparent, the disadvantaged party often feels harmed. Relationships degrade. The agreement collapses.

There are incentives for preserving the confidentiality of confidential terms

When agreements have If coercion drives the bargain,
the agreement can remain
stable only as long as the
coercion remains effectiveconfidential components, stability requires that there be incentives for maintaining that confidentiality. For example, when an agreement must remain confidential for delicate policy reasons, a trap awaits: the first party to disclose the agreement can sometimes shift responsibility for the need for delicacy onto the other party, even after harvesting value from the agreement.

When agreements are confidential, they must address the problem of incentives for first disclosure.

Value exchange is contemporaneous

Perhaps the most important stabilizer of agreements is simultaneity of exchange. If one party harvests value from the agreement before the other, or faster than the other, then the earlier harvester has an incentive to renege after having harvested enough value. Such an agreement becomes a form of "I'll scratch your back; you stab me in mine."

Working out contemporaneous exchanges can be difficult, sometimes requiring streams of small bits. Finding workable decompositions can require some cleverness.

Failure to find an agreement structure with these attributes after long negotiations can be painful. But living through an agreement collapse can be even more painful.  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

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 Conflict Management:

Questioning Questions

In meetings and other workplace discussions, questioning is a common form of conversational contribution. Questions can be expensive, disruptive, and counterproductive. For most exchanges, there is a better way.

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.

Logically Illogical

Discussions in meetings and in written media can get long and complex. When a chain of reasoning gets long enough, we sometimes make fundamental errors of logic, especially when we're under time pressure. Here are just a few.

Handling Heat: II

Heated exchanges in meetings can compromise both the organizational mission and the careers of the meeting's participants. Here are some tactics for people who aren't chairing the meeting.

Newly Virtual Politics: Choices

Pandemic or not, workplace politics marches on, though politics might take slightly different forms in a pandemic. Those different forms make new choices available, and render some formerly effective choices ineffective.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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