04 Sep Are you playing fast and loose with what you intend
I’ve spent years studying how promises play an indispensable part in how people work together. Most recently, in a research project, where I talked to dozens of people about what makes and breaks a promise. They had plenty of insights to share, and I’ll write about them here over the coming months.
One thing is clear. People often play fast and loose with what they intend. And while it’s usually for benign reasons—trying to be the good guy or they are simply unrealistic about what’s possible, promising what they can’t deliver creates a cascade of expectations and obligations. Which unmet, holds consequences for you.
When someone makes a promise, you generally feel it ought to happen, and because it ought to happen, think it can. In her essay entitled “Promising too much”, Academic Julia Driver takes aim at the idea that “ought means can”.1
“Off-hand, it seems obvious that, of course, some people make promises that can’t be kept. But this is puzzling if we also think that promises entail obligations, and we buy into the ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ principle. My claim will be that ‘ought’ does not imply ‘can’…”2
Before I continue, promises, as we most commonly understand them, are made and received, person-to-person. Even if you are making a promise to a group, each one hears and feels it individually. What that means for how entities, such as organisations, make promises and what they ‘can’ do, is an emerging insight—so, more on that soon.
Once you make a promise, I expect you ‘ought’ to keep it. However, does that mean you ‘can’? The parade of broken promises suggests there’s no guarantee you will.
For example, B promises C to do (x). At this point, B has created an expectation with C of (x) happening and has an obligation to C to do (x). What is less clear is whether B can do (x). B may hope they can, fully intend to, try and still fail. The only way out of the promise is for C to release B from their duty to do (x).
For example, Bob promises Carol he will get her product data on Thursday for an upcoming sales pitch. Carol lets him know the pitch got cancelled, and she doesn’t need the data anymore. Carol has released Bob from his promise and what he owes.
Alternatively, on Wednesday, Bob realises he won’t have the data for Thursday and asks Carol if he can get it to her on Friday instead, and Carol agrees. Bob has reset the promise to Carol and must still send the information.
In both cases, as recipient, Carol is the only one who can alter or agree the promise’s new terms. If Bob instead ignores his obligation and doesn’t deliver the product data on Thursday, he has broken his promise and now has a debt to Carol.
Outside of C releasing B from the obligation, breaking the promise means B still owes C something; they have an outstanding debt for (x) or something equivalent.
And while the physical debt may be easy to fulfil by getting C the information later. The moral debt is more difficult to remedy. Next time B promises something to C, she may seek a guarantee or avoid B altogether and go to another person.
Once B made the promise, C had the right to expect that he ought to keep it. However, ‘ought’ doesn’t always mean ‘can’.
Versions of this example play out between people across organisations, by turn eroding or boosting confidence and culture. Which is compounded depending on how they handle what is owed.
However, if we stop assuming ‘ought’ means ‘can’, we unlock a more dynamic approach where, with agreement on both sides, the obligation and the terms can change without breaking the promise.
Thanks for reading
References:
1. Promises, Obligations, and Abilities, Driver 1983
2. Promising Too Much, Driver, Promises and Agreements, p184.