Why Promising & Imposing are so Popular

Promising and imposing are popular because they seem so easy. But they are certainly not easy instruments to handle well.

Inducing compliance may occur between any two employees irrespective of status or hierarchy. Although the word «formal» is used to describe the upper Level, there is nothing legally-binding, and sometimes not even a written statement. So why does anyone allow themselves to accept imposition or to be influenced by promises?

This instrument depends on the overall credibility of the imposer or promiser. In any particular case that in turn depends on the influencer being convincing and the receiver being convinced. That requires personal interaction and regular conversations amongst co-workers who get to know each other well i.e. it is a matter of communication-PH6 generally, and the specific way of using language-PH'6.

See the Typology

Imposition and promises operate best amongst an in-group that creates its own psychosocial reality—a comfortable environment that can be assumed, understood, and accepted as natural and meaningful. Language is used in a familiar and informal («connoting») way because there is enough trust and certainty amongst the group that what is said will be properly understood. It follows that outsiders would be unlikely to fully grasp what is meant. People naturally tend to bond to some degree within such groups. This type of in-group language use is named in THEE: associative-PH'5L2.

Associative language is available to more or less everyone—and is, in any case, a characteristic language type for most employees.

Impositions from HQ are Tricky

If someone descends into an operational team or work group from HQ "to make matters clear", they are faced with two severe difficulties:

• The language used in HQ to talk about the business is conceptual-PH'5L3 and so alien to most operational managers.
• Insofar as associative language is used in HQ, it is likely to be an HQ variant, and not at all like language at the coal-face. So it is not understood properly—but this misunderstanding is subtle and may not be recognized by either party.
  

HQ communications are easily handled by not assigning credibility to the HQ officer: "they just don't know what it is like down here!" HQ staff are not fools, so they have to demonstrate credibility: but that often goes wrong.

---

Originally posted: 20-Oct-2011. Updated: 15 August 2023.