Moral agreement and promise are a very effective way to lead, motivate, or coerce other people into performing a task, without doing anything in return. Effy got that right, adding this approach to her argumentation or negotiation toolbox.

“Meeting of the minds” is what best describe an agreement. Agreement consists of an offer made and accepted between two parties to perform tasks. Unlike contract, agreements are not legally binding (list of other differences from Key Differences at this link), and only engage the morality of parties to perform their side of the obligation. So promises and moral agreements are bound by the trust of parties’ reciprocal morality.

Here lies the loophole, since there are no generally accepted standards for morality, so trust is often bent. And breach of trust is the only negative impact for the faulty party. Effy knows her classics, quoting Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince:

“The promise given was a necessity of the past, the word broken is a necessity of the present“.

Besides, she could have quoted old French President Jacques Chirac that famously proclaimed that: “Les promesses n’engagent que ceux qui les recoivent” (or “promises only bind those who receive them”.

As manager, I always ensure that my team realizes that trust should never be the base of any serious agreement… Of course, that is unless you use moral agreement as a way to mitigate your liability in case of default. Not very moral…

G.M.