From 4aa48de34755d90763c45261c7073450a6c495cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jack Jackson Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:00 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Save draft of How To Reach Agreement --- blog/content/posts/how-to-reach-agreement.md | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/content/posts/how-to-reach-agreement.md diff --git a/blog/content/posts/how-to-reach-agreement.md b/blog/content/posts/how-to-reach-agreement.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..138a9ce --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/content/posts/how-to-reach-agreement.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +title: "How to Reach Agreement" +date: 2024-06-21T07:01:25-07:00 +draft: true +tags: + - communication + - productivity + +--- +I'm a big fan of eponymous laws, to the extent of keeping a list of some of my favourites[^favourite-laws] on my personal page on the Wiki of any company I join[^own-your-own-information]. I tend to find that putting a name to a concept makes it easier to conceptualize, remember, and reason about; and anything which someone thinks important enough to put their name to is probably worth consideration[^eponymous-dish]. + +For the past few years, I've been mulling over a [perspective](https://fosstodon.org/@scubbo/112598934484845346) that I suspect has some real legs as a helpful tool, and so I humbly present for your consideration the first draft of **Jackson's Law Of Policy[^what-is-a-policy] Alignment**: + +> When a group of individuals, acting in good faith to decide on a policy to achieve a shared goal, are in agreement on: +> 1. The goal itself, and the criteria for and definition of success +> 2. The properties of the proposed approaches, including degrees of certainty where doubt exists +> then the group cannot fail to reach agreement. + +As it stands, the observation itself is not particularly interesting - "_when people agree, then they agree_" smells like a tautology. Where it gets interesting in in observing the converse - if disagreement on conclusion exists, then this observation enumerates the possible causes. + +# Possible causes of disagreement + +T_subbed_K - good faith (self-interest), context (some may believe that more or less risk is available) + +## Lack of Good Faith + +This is both the most common cause, and the hardest to recognize and remedy. All too often, policy-makers are _not_ acting entirely in good faith to whole-heartedly and solely achieve the goal. Manager may choose a solution that allows their team to garner more glory or avoid toilsome work. Legislators may support laws that harm their constituents but benefit themselves. Self-interest abounds, and is powerful. + +## Disclarity in goal + +It sounds ridiculous to say "_If you don't agree on what the goal is, you won't agree on the solution_", but this happens more often than you might think. + +T_subbed_K Internal or External + +### Disagreement on context + +Part of agreeing on a goal is agreeing on the context in which it exists - the environmental factors like timescale, integrations, dependencies, and so on. One decision-maker might believe that they're trying to find a long-term, sustainable, extensible, comprehensive solution to the problem, and another might believe they're looking for a quick-fix patch which will stem the bleeding for a short time until the problem is ameliorated by other means. In this situation, they will naturally disagree about the properties to prioritize. + +# How to address them + +T_subbed_K - clarify definitions, reduce to illustrative examples + +[^favourite-laws]: They are, in no particular order: [Ashby's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)#Law_of_requisite_variety), [Sturgeon's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law), [Brandolini's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law), [Hyrum's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API#Hyrums), [Goodhart's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law), [Hoftstadter's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law), and [Conway's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law), along with the differently-named [Chesterton's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence) +[^own-your-own-information]: which - I'm increasingly realizing as I get older and more ~~cynical~~ realistic - was a mistake. Own the information that you create, in such a way that it is portable when you are no longer convenient to the organization providing you with hosting - and recognize that "_an index of useful information_" is itself useful information! +[^eponymous-dish]: for similar reasons, if I'm eating at a new restaurant and they have a dish named after the establishment, that's usually my default first choice - though I might there be being a sucker for a subtle priming technique... +[^what-is-a-policy]: In my original formulation of this observation, it applied to technical decision-making and system designs. However, I believe it applies to any decision of the form "_What should we do in order to achieve some goal?_" + + \ No newline at end of file