Accepted Demands

Years ago, I was involved in an angry dispute between management and six new employees.  I was one of the six new employees.  A few months after we were hired, we all realized that many of the things we had been promised simply were not going to happen.  As a consequence, every single one of us submitted our resignations.

The CEO of the company quickly summoned us to a meeting, and asked about our grievances.  He seemed sympathetic, and quite surprised that the company had lied to us and completely failed to fulfill their obligations.  He agreed that we would all be justified in quitting, but asked what it would take to get us to stay.  Surprised, we began to lay out our demands.  After each demand, he would agree that it was reasonable, and turn to his second-in-command and instruct him to make it happen.  Eventually, we all agreed to stay, and walked out of the meeting quite pleased with all that we had gained.

Days went by.  Days turned to weeks, and weeks turned to months.  NOTHING CHANGED.  Not one of our demands was ever met; nothing that the CEO agreed to ever actually happened.

To this day, I do not know what transpired.  All of us eventually left.  I do not know whether we were consciously deceived, more than once, or if the CEO truly BELIEVED the changes would be made at the time he agreed to them, and then decided against it.  Or perhaps the CEO's instructions were never carried out.  I truly don't know.  Looking back, it has taken on a dream-like quality.  It's hard to believe they would agree to ALL of our demands, yet fulfill NONE of them.

Intentional or not, it was an amazing strategy.  We entered the meeting disappointed, disgusted, and truly ready to quit.  We left the meeting feeling happy, even elated, and ready to resume our duties with renewed vigor.  We truly felt that someone had listened, and we had "won", despite all later evidence to the contrary.

When I tell other people about this incident, they seem shocked, even disbelieving, but I have come to conclude it is a variation on a fairly common occurence.  Perhaps a more blatant version, but still, something that occurs commonly, and not just in negotiations.

Psychologically, it's much more complicated than simply broken promises.  We went from being frustrated, disappointed, angry, and ready for a fight, to being pleased, relaxed, and feeling quite victorious.  The fact that these feelings eventually were proved to be unjustified did not completely wipe them away, and the old feelings of anger never completely returned.  Actually, it goes back to the idea of "cooling the mark out" -- making the victim of a con feel less bad about being victimized.

I have witnessed the same phenomenon at modern slot machines, when flashing lights and ringing bells convince the gambler that he or she has "won" -- when perhaps the gambler has "won" two cents on a forty-or-fifty cent bet.

Recently, my mind keeps returning to this idea as I watch President Obama, and especially as I watch videos of President Obama from months and years past.  Somehow, President Obama seems almost immune from the charge of "broken promises".  Instead, he seems to be able to make people feel, at least on some level, that he has done exactly what he said he WOULD do, or at least to feel good about his promises.

For example, he has repeatedly pledged "openness", promising that his administration would be the most open, transparent in history.  Objectively, his administration has been one of the least open, at least in recent memory -- but on some level, people remain pleased about his openness.  He SAID he would be open, therefore he IS open.

A more specific example: During his first Presidential campaign, he pledged that all potential legislation would be published on the internet for public review days before it was passed.  This pledge has simply been ignored, yet on some level President Obama still gets credit for making the pledge.

Especially frustrating to me is the fact that President Obama routinely stresses that there is general agreement about ideas when the ideas are in fact hotly debated and controversial.  On some level, the public accepts his statement regarding widespread agreement, just as they accept his repeated claims of a "balanced" approach to solving problems, when in fact his approach is generally totally one-sided.

Perhaps I should be looking back at my earlier thoughts regarding stranded travelers.  Perhaps, since there is nothing anyone can DO about the Obama administration, it simply comes down to a choice of being unhappy, or trying to be as happy as possible in a bad situation --  and people are choosing to overlook the disappointing, disturbing facts and instead be happy with promises and misstatements.  Examined from that angle, I don't suppose I should criticize anyone for trying to make the best of a bad Presidency.

Truth is complicated.