Tennis Elbow Foot

“You can’t drop a ball that isn’t in your court.”

This mixed metaphor implies an agenda that extends from tennis to business - put the ball into the other guy's court.

The Nerdherding weblog describes some of the uses of this practice - both good and evil.

• avoid misunderstanding
• defensive move by contractors faced with client demands that are ill-considered, half-hearted or impractical
• as a delaying tactic
• as a way to create a bureaucratic block that can be easily removed in an act of “artificial good faith"

Nerdherding then recommends a reflective strategy.

If someone uses this technique (for evil) on you - simply ask for some examples of the format they want information in. The chances are they don’t have such a format and will be shamed into being genuinely helpful. If they do have examples then you will be able to formulate your request in a more convenient manner. Win either way!

This sounds suspiciously like tit-for-tat. If you suspect someone is trying to pass the buck, simply pass it back.

There may be some contexts in which a tit-for-tat strategy is a reasonable way of building or rebuilding trust. But it doesn't seem right for collaborative business relationships.

The trouble with tit-for-tat is that it may look strong and consistent from one perspective, but it can look weak, reactive and inconsistent from another perspective. And the metacommunication of tit-for-tat is that you are playing games - this can sometimes be interpreted unfavourably.

Playing the trust card

originally posted by John

---

Political leaders in trouble frequently play the trust card in the hope of getting out of jail free. With great humility, they play it talking over the heads of their captive audience to the country at large via the TV cameras. The deeper the trouble, the more exuberant their claims become that trust is the solution to the country’s – and the party’s - individual and collective woes. Everything will be fine, the leader says, when there is trust. Trust makes great sound bites. Don't trust him, trust me, see how 'umble I am, says the political wolf in Heep's clothing.


I’ve just been watching a report on Channel 4 News of Michael Howard’s trust-focused speech to his party’s Bournemouth conference this afternoon. Personally, I’ve never had much sympathy with him or with the politics he’s been involved with over the past twenty-five years or so. Today was no different. But he, more than anyone in the country I reckon, must know that he’s talking through his hat.



British politics is an adversarial, zero-sum affair. For all involved, it runs on publicness, comfort and asymmetric power. And whatever trust is, however it is defined, by Michael Howard or anyone else, it is none of the above.



Immediate concerns determine behaviour in adversarial politics, leaving no space for trust. Trusting behaviour is punished. And worse, the more the trust card is played, the more adversarial the politics becomes. And so the spiral spins down. Ego, not trust, is what’s needed to play zero-sum games.