Thank you for providing that helpful extra clarity! Two thoughts on this:
(1) The example of the glass heirloom does not seem like a safety issue to me. It is a one-way door for sure. I wonder if an even more precise distinction between sanction rules and signal rules exist. Maybe something along the lines of "is there a low-impact fallback path in case of violations?" - but as concise as "is it a safety issue?" So, while I like the brevity of "is it a safety issue", I'd like to habe something even more precise.
(2) I have often come across sanction rules that did not state the actual sanction. They were more like "Don't do this, or else." It felt weirdly obscure. I never new whether I'd be fired or just "reminded" of the rule, not knowing whether it would maybe still pay off to violate the rule. Is this an antipattern? Should we always state the consequences in case of violations? Is that even desirable in a corporate context?
Thanks Simon. 1) Yeah, I agree about the safety issue question. I mean, I obviously like it, but I think it's more of an exemplar than a definition. "Non-reversibility" is similarly useful, but a lot of insignificant stuff isn't reversible, so my current thinking is to combine them, but yeah, there must be something more requisite, but I don't know what it is yet. It could just be something more like a deal-breaker which more clearly varies depending on the situation. I have an open inquiry around this.
2) Yes! Key point! This is actually a feature of sanction rules that they usually don't state the actual consequence, and it makes sense when you think about it. It is precisely because they are so serious or significant, that the author (i.e. the person whose tension is being addressed via the rule) feels very uncomfortable even imagining that they would be violated. It would be like saying to your partner, "I think we should think through the tangible consequences of infidelity..." You can't even really bring it up without somehow feeling that you're actually and paradoxically creating a permission pathway. But your point about stating the consequences is, in general, one I completely agree with, it's just that when it comes to true deal-breakers, they just don't tend to work that way. Both because of the weirdness I mentioned, but also because you don't often know all of the deal-breakers until they get broken, so the best course of action is to establish a clear inquiry process that clearly includes likely dismissal or dissolution of the relationship.
For lower-level sanction rules—those that are still protective, but not quite deal-breakers, then yes, absolutely the consequences should be clearly stated. And importantly the consequences must be realistic. One of the useful insights that often come from thinking about consequences is realizing that you can't actually enforce something the way you might have assumed you could.
So, yes, the non-statement of consequences is generally a anti-pattern that corresponds to the unconscious trend of authors to deflect responsibility for administrating the rules onto the agents. With the notable exception of deal-breakers.
Thank you for providing that helpful extra clarity! Two thoughts on this:
(1) The example of the glass heirloom does not seem like a safety issue to me. It is a one-way door for sure. I wonder if an even more precise distinction between sanction rules and signal rules exist. Maybe something along the lines of "is there a low-impact fallback path in case of violations?" - but as concise as "is it a safety issue?" So, while I like the brevity of "is it a safety issue", I'd like to habe something even more precise.
(2) I have often come across sanction rules that did not state the actual sanction. They were more like "Don't do this, or else." It felt weirdly obscure. I never new whether I'd be fired or just "reminded" of the rule, not knowing whether it would maybe still pay off to violate the rule. Is this an antipattern? Should we always state the consequences in case of violations? Is that even desirable in a corporate context?
Thanks Simon. 1) Yeah, I agree about the safety issue question. I mean, I obviously like it, but I think it's more of an exemplar than a definition. "Non-reversibility" is similarly useful, but a lot of insignificant stuff isn't reversible, so my current thinking is to combine them, but yeah, there must be something more requisite, but I don't know what it is yet. It could just be something more like a deal-breaker which more clearly varies depending on the situation. I have an open inquiry around this.
2) Yes! Key point! This is actually a feature of sanction rules that they usually don't state the actual consequence, and it makes sense when you think about it. It is precisely because they are so serious or significant, that the author (i.e. the person whose tension is being addressed via the rule) feels very uncomfortable even imagining that they would be violated. It would be like saying to your partner, "I think we should think through the tangible consequences of infidelity..." You can't even really bring it up without somehow feeling that you're actually and paradoxically creating a permission pathway. But your point about stating the consequences is, in general, one I completely agree with, it's just that when it comes to true deal-breakers, they just don't tend to work that way. Both because of the weirdness I mentioned, but also because you don't often know all of the deal-breakers until they get broken, so the best course of action is to establish a clear inquiry process that clearly includes likely dismissal or dissolution of the relationship.
For lower-level sanction rules—those that are still protective, but not quite deal-breakers, then yes, absolutely the consequences should be clearly stated. And importantly the consequences must be realistic. One of the useful insights that often come from thinking about consequences is realizing that you can't actually enforce something the way you might have assumed you could.
So, yes, the non-statement of consequences is generally a anti-pattern that corresponds to the unconscious trend of authors to deflect responsibility for administrating the rules onto the agents. With the notable exception of deal-breakers.