Most of what a senior executive needs done depends on a decision someone else controls. A budget sits with the chief financial officer, a headcount with the chief executive, a reporting line with whoever owns the organization chart. Getting those decisions to go one way and not another is political work, and almost every executive does a great deal of it. Very few keep a record of it. They remember what they wanted and how it turned out, and the reasoning in between (who they thought controlled the decision, what they expected that person to weigh, what they spent to move them) is gone within a month.
No single resource explains why some executives get more of these decisions than others. Standing, information, a budget, a favor owed: each is useful, and an executive who relies on one finds that others learn to counter it. A resource that sits unused also loses value, because the relationship cools or the information dates. And one well-chosen move produces one result. The executives who accumulate influence run the same sequence again and again, spending resources in exchanges that return more than they cost, so that each exchange leaves them able to attempt the next. Capital of this kind is built by acquiring what makes the next acquisition possible, used in exchanges that return more of it, and protected by spending cheap resources to keep valuable ones out of play.
The Lam System for Political Interaction is a way of writing that sequence down. It treats one piece of political work as a maneuver: one actor's intervention into one target's decision. The actor runs the maneuver. The system keeps its record, in a fixed vocabulary of twenty-one constituents, so that every maneuver, however tangled, is written in the same terms and can be read back later by the actor or by anyone the actor trusts with it.
One actor, one target, one decision
An actor wants a resource the actor does not hold, and a target's decision controls it. The target is choosing among options, which LSPI calls the decision matrix: the preferred position, the option that gives the actor what they want, and one or more adverse alternatives, the options that lead away from it. The target weighs each option by its benefits and its costs, and the net of the two is that option's utility to the target. The actor's task is to change how the target sees those utilities until the preferred position is the one the target selects.
Take an illustrative case, which the rest of the series returns to. Lena Ortiz is head of customer operations at a freight company that serves one region. Its night dispatch desks sit in the depots, under the depot managers, and Lena wants them brought into her own operation and paid for from her budget. The decision belongs to the chief operating officer, Daniel Okafor. Her preferred position is that Daniel approves the move. Her adverse alternatives are that he leaves dispatch with the depot managers, or hands it to the automation program.
The unit is kept this narrow so that the record stays exact. If Lena also needs the depot managers to cooperate, that is a second target with a decision of its own, and a second cycle. If the move is one step in a longer aim, such as running all of the company's overnight operations, that aim is her agenda, and the agenda holds each of her pursuits as its own cycle. Every constituent of every cycle gets an address, read like a path from the agenda down: this interest, its objective, its second lever, that lever's required resource. No two constituents share an address, so anything in the record can be pointed to exactly.
The constituents of a maneuver
Structure. Each line joins a constituent to one it contains.
The map shows what contains what in one actor's maneuver, from the actor down to what flows back when the cycle closes. It illustrates the structure only.
Actorα / a · A name only, performed by no oneThe person who opens the cycle and acts within it.
AgendaΑ / A · A name only, performed by no oneThe actor's long-running aim, which holds every cycle the actor opens.
Interestι / i · Performed by the actorWhat the actor stands to gain from the cycle.
- Detectionδ / d · Performed by the actorThe actor finding out who controls the resource wanted.
Targetτ / t · A name only, performed by no oneThe person whose decision completes the cycle.
Decision MatrixΔ / D · A name only, performed by no oneThe options open to the target, each weighed by what it offers and what it asks.
Preferred Positionπ / P · A name only, performed by no oneThe option that leads to the outcome the actor wants.
Adverse Alternativeψ / X · A name only, performed by no oneAn option that leads away from the outcome the actor wants.
- PerceptionΓ / G · Performed by the targetHow the target compares the options' worth before choosing.
- SelectionΣ / S · Performed by the targetThe target's choice among the options.
Objectiveω / o · Performed by the actorThe direction the actor wants the target's choice to take.
Intentionγ / g · Performed by the actorA specific action the actor chooses to move the target's options. A cycle holds one or more.
- Required Resourcesθ / q · Performed by the actorWhat the actor must hold to carry out the intention.
- Executionε / e · Performed by the actorThe actor carrying out the chosen action.
- A sub-cycle's interest, when the gate fails↺ Interest, under AgendaWhen the actor lacks a resource the intention needs, a sub-cycle opens whose interest is exactly that resource. It is an ordinary interest, drawn here a second time.
OutcomeΩ / O · Performed by the cycle itselfThe state the cycle closes in, one of the futures that were possible.
- Obtained ResourcesΦ / Q · Performed by the actorWhat the actor gains when the cycle closes.
- Obtained UtilityΛ / U · Performed by the targetWhat the target gains from the outcome.
- Current ResourcesΘ / R · A name only, performed by no oneWhat the actor holds now, counted.
The five movements of a maneuver
A maneuver runs through five movements, and each writes into the record what the next one reads.
The first movement is Declare. The actor states the interest, the resource wanted; records detection, what the actor has found out about who controls the decision and what is in front of them; and sets the objective, the selection the actor projects the target will make and what it will yield.
In Choose levers, the actor commits to how the target will be moved. Each lever is an intention: the actor's projection of how the target's weighing of the options will shift, bought with some resource the actor will have to spend. Lena has two. She will show Daniel that a single dispatch desk cuts the overtime his critics keep raising, and she will put the savings figure in front of Daniel with the signature of the controller, Priya Natarajan. Each lever declares its required resources.
Test and act comes next. Before a lever is played, the gate asks whether the actor holds everything it needs. Lena holds the overtime data and her standing with Daniel, so her first lever passes. She does not hold Priya's sign-off, so the second fails, and the failure does not end the maneuver. The missing resource becomes the interest of a sub-cycle, with Priya as its target, and the parent waits. A sub-cycle is simply a cycle, running the same five movements one level down, and it can open a sub-cycle of its own. When Priya signs, the sign-off flows back, the parent's gate is tested again, and this time it passes. Execution plays the lever and spends what it used.
The fourth movement, Read, belongs mostly to the target. Perception is how the target now sees the comparison, and the actor reads whether it matches what the lever projected. The target selects only after each lever still in play has been read or dropped (the essay on Selection explains why), and then the outcome resolves. Daniel approves.
The maneuver ends with Close and carry forward. The target's obtained utility is what Daniel gains from his own choice: lower overtime and a cleaner organization. The actor's obtained resources are what Lena gains: the desks themselves, with the budget that pays for them. They flow back into what she holds, ready for the next maneuver.
The five movements of a maneuver
Illustrative. The movements in the order they run; a sub-cycle runs the same five, one level down. Select a movement for its detail.
Declare
- The constituents in it
- Interest, detection, objective
- What happens
- The actor names the resource wanted, records who controls the decision and what is in front of them, and projects the selection that would yield it.
- What the record shows
- The interest, what detection found, and the objective as a projection, kept to be compared with what the target later does.
Choose levers
- The constituents in it
- Intention, required resources
- What happens
- The actor declares one or more levers, each a projected change in how the target weighs the options, and names what each one needs.
- What the record shows
- Each lever at its own address, with its required resources beside it.
Test and act
- The constituents in it
- The gate, execution, escalation
- What happens
- The gate checks that the actor holds what the lever needs. If it does, the lever is executed and the resource spent. If not, the actor can escalate, opening a sub-cycle to get it.
- What the record shows
- The gate's result, the execution and its effect on the target's options, the resource spent, and any sub-cycle filed under the lever that opened it.
Read
- The constituents in it
- Perception, selection, outcome
- What happens
- The actor reads how the target now sees the comparison against what the lever projected. Once every live lever has been read or set aside, the target selects and the outcome resolves.
- What the record shows
- The realized reading beside the projection, the target's selection and the outcome.
Close and carry forward
- The constituents in it
- Obtained utility, obtained resources, flow back
- What happens
- The target's gain and the actor's gain are written down, and what the actor obtained flows back into what they hold.
- What the record shows
- Both gains, and the actor's resources after the close: what they started with, plus what flowed back, less what was spent.
The figure below holds the whole cycle on one page: the actor's side above the target's, and every constituent at the point where it fires. Each name opens that constituent's essay.
One cycle, across the actor and the target
Illustrative of structure. One cycle of one actor's maneuver. Each constituent appears with its name and symbol pair, shaded by who performs it, and its address can be shown as well.
By the actorBy the targetBy the cycle itselfA name only
The actor's side
- Actor α / a
[a.]A name only, performed by no one- → Agenda
- Agenda Α / A
[A]A name only, performed by no one- → Interest
- Interest ι / i
[A/i.]Performed by the actor- → Detection
- Detection δ / d
[A/i./d.]Performed by the actor- → Objective
- Names the target, and moves nothing
- Names the preferred position, and moves nothing
- Names the adverse alternative, and moves nothing
- Objective ω / o
[A/i./o.]Performed by the actor- → Intention
- Intention γ / g
[A/i./o./g.]Performed by the actor- → Required Resources
- Required Resources θ / q
[A/i./o./g./q.]Performed by the actor- → The gate
- The gate Does the actor hold every resource the lever needs?
- If yes: → Execution
- If no: escalate. A sub-cycle wants exactly the missing resource, and opens at Interest
- Current Resources Θ / R
[a./R.]A name only, performed by no one- → The gate
- → Execution
- → Actor. What flows back is held for the next maneuver
- Execution ε / e
[A/i./o./g./e.]Performed by the actor- → Decision Matrix. Changes benefit and cost
- Obtained Resources Φ / Q
[A/i./O./Q.]Performed by the actor- → Current Resources
The cycle's own
- Outcome Ω / O
[A/i./O.]Performed by the cycle itself- → Obtained Resources
- → Obtained Utility
The target's side
- Target τ / t
[A/i./t.]A name only, performed by no one- → Perception
- Decision Matrix Δ / D
[A/i./t./D.]A name only, performed by no one- Preferred Position π / P
[A/i./t./D./P.]A name only, performed by no one - Adverse Alternative ψ / X
[A/i./t./D./X.]A name only, performed by no one - Benefit β / b A name only, performed by no one
[A/i./t./D./P./b.]under preferred position,[A/i./t./D./X./b.]under adverse alternative - Cost κ / c A name only, performed by no one
[A/i./t./D./P./c.]under preferred position,[A/i./t./D./X./c.]under adverse alternative - Utility λ / u A name only, performed by no one
[A/i./t./D./P./u.]under preferred position,[A/i./t./D./X./u.]under adverse alternative
- → Perception, from the utility row
- → Selection, from the options
- Preferred Position π / P
- Perception Γ / G
[A/i./t./D./G.]Performed by the target- → Selection
- Selection Σ / S
[A/i./t./S./P.]Performed by the target- → Outcome
- Obtained Utility Λ / U
[A/i./O./U.]Performed by the target
What the record keeps
The record keeps everything, and it overwrites nothing. A projection stays beside the realization that followed it. When the actor revises what the cycle is after, the new wording is written next to the one it replaced, with the revision itself as an entry. A gate that failed stays failed in the record after the sub-cycle has fixed it. Even the decision matrix is read from the history of entries, so its state at any earlier moment can be rebuilt by replaying the record up to that point.
Resources are counted. If Lena held two favors and spent one, she holds one. Every spend and every return is an entry, so the actor's holdings at any moment can be worked out from the record alone, and Capital Is Conserved explains why the sum always comes out right.
The discipline exists so the actor can learn. An actor who projected that Daniel would see the overtime case one way and finds he saw it another can only measure the gap if both versions survive, and memory, left to itself, tends to move the projection toward what happened. Over many maneuvers the gain is larger. The actor accumulates a history of what they expected and what happened, target by target and lever by lever, and that history outlasts any single result in it.
What the actor judges
Some questions in a maneuver have no mechanical answer, and the system leaves them to the actor. One kind is interpretive. Does Lena hold what her first lever needs? Her standing with Daniel is a resource, but whether it is enough for this particular ask is a judgment about Daniel, made from what she knows of him. Did Daniel's reading of the overtime case come out the way she projected? Only Lena, watching him, can say. Utility in this system is appraised qualitatively, and two careful people can appraise the same target differently.
The other kind is strategic: which lever to declare first, whether to lay out every lever at the start or add each one after seeing how the last landed, whether to resource a pending lever now or press on, whether to moot a lever that another lever's outcome has made unnecessary, when to revise and when to walk away. Actors differ here for good reasons, and the system accepts each of their stances without ranking them.
Once the actor's judgments are given, the rest of the maneuver is determined: which entries the record gains, what the actor holds, which cycle has control, which exits remain open. That leaves a machine a large share of the work around a maneuver. It can keep the record, refuse an entry that does not fit, tell the actor where the maneuver stands and what moves are available from there, and replay any earlier state on request. It cannot decide whether Daniel was persuaded, and a system that let it would be recording its own guesses as facts about Daniel.
A maneuver also ends. Every cycle closes, moots or is abandoned, because the actor decides how many levers to try, how many times to revise, how deep to escalate and how many cycles to run, and each of those is finite. At any point short of the close, the actor can ask whether the maneuver is still live, and the answer is found the same way each time: run the checks in order and stop at the first that fails, since each assumes the ones above it.
Is this maneuver still live?
Illustrative. Tick each check that holds, from the top. The first one left unticked names the exit the maneuver takes.
Why a vocabulary for political work
Executives are sometimes suspicious of formalizing politics, on the grounds that the work is too human to write down. The system agrees, and leaves the judgments to the person making them. What it formalizes is everything around the judgments, which is where the shortcuts get taken.
A fixed vocabulary forces the questions a hurried actor skips. Writing the decision matrix means naming the adverse alternatives, which is where surprises tend to come from. Once Lena has named the automation program as one of Daniel's options, she has to ask who is arguing for it. Declaring required resources before acting means discovering at the gate, on paper, the sign-off she lacks, before she discovers it in Daniel's office. Separating what the actor projected from what the target did separates two different failures: a bad judgment about the target, and a good judgment poorly executed. Each calls for a different correction, and without a record the two look the same.
A shared vocabulary also lets the work be discussed. An executive and a trusted adviser, or a chief executive and a direct report, can talk about the second lever's required resource and mean the same thing. And because addresses are exact, an actor whose agenda holds pursuit after pursuit, each with sub-cycles of its own, never loses track of which sub-cycle is waiting on which.
Because every judgment stays with the actor, the system computes nothing a person has to decide, which is why it is neither a calculus nor an algebra. It is a vocabulary with a grammar, a record with rules about what can be written in it, and a short list of guarantees that hold whatever the actor decides.
How the series is organized
The series begins with five papers that state the system: what it is, how a maneuver runs, where the machine stops, what the record is, and what is guaranteed. The twenty-one constituents follow, one essay each, from the actor to the obtained resources, each placed where it fires in the cycle. Five essays then take the joints of the cycle that are not constituents, such as the gate and the moment perception is read, and six take the failure moves: escalating, resuming, a failed perception, mooting, abandoning and revising. Two essays cover how actors sequence several levers under uncertainty, and five state the guarantees one at a time, each with the reason it holds. Five constructed maneuvers, each in an invented organization, are then worked through from opening to close, and Maneuver Replay steps through those five one entry at a time, as the record keeps them. The series ends with the system's limits and its neighbors: why it is neither a calculus nor an algebra, what it cannot yet represent, how a machine administers a maneuver, and what happens when several actors are involved.
51 of 51 pieces published