Credible Promises, Credible Threats
- Rashmi Kulkarni
- Apr 12
- 4 min read
A plan is negotiable. A commitment is not.
In 'Reputation Is the Real Asset', Rahul wrote about reputation … the only KPI everyone tracks without data. I want to build on that, because once you start creating a new rhythm (Making a New Normal Feel Obvious) and showing consistency (Reputation Is the Real Asset), people in a legacy MSME begin to watch for one thing:
Do you mean what you say?
Not in a motivational way. In a practical way.
Because most people in these companies have seen this pattern before:
a new leader comes in
announces something big
people panic, adjust, comply for a week
then the leader gets busy, distracted, or tired
everything returns to old normal
So the system develops a habit: wait it out.
If you want change to become real, you have to break that “wait it out” habit.
And you don’t break it with more planning.You break it with commitments that are believable.
Which seat are you stepping into?
Inherited seat: People assume you can change your mind anytime because you have power. They wait.
Hired seat: People assume you won’t last, or you’ll be overruled. They wait.
Promoted seat: People assume you’ll protect old friendships and bend rules. They wait.
Different seats. Same test: credibility.
The small-town vow
Think about a public vow in a small town.
If someone says, “I will do this” in a private room, it’s easy to change later.
But if they say it publicly where everyone will remember, it becomes harder to reverse.
Not because of law. Because of reputation.
That is how commitments work in legacy businesses too. The moment you make something public and link it to your identity, reversing it becomes costly.
That cost is what makes it believable.
Thomas Schelling, a well-known strategist, wrote about this idea: commitment changes the game only when it is credible. In simple terms: it must be hard for you to undo it.
Why your team doesn’t believe your “initiative”
Most leaders think credibility comes from authority. It doesn’t.
In MSMEs, authority is often blurry:
the old guard has informal power
the owner still overrides
relatives have influence
senior staff can slow things quietly
people don’t know who will “win” in a conflict
So when you announce a change, people don’t ask, “Is this correct?”
They ask, “Will this stick?”
And the honest answer depends on one thing:
Is there a real cost if you reverse it?
If there is no cost, it’s a plan. Plans are negotiable.
Commitments are different. Commitments lock you in.
Credible promise vs empty promise
An empty promise sounds like:
“We will digitize everything.”
“We will become process-driven.”
“We will improve accountability.”
A credible promise sounds like:
“For this pilot, no one will lose their job because of a mistake.”
“Every Monday 11 AM, we will do the dispatch scoreboard no exceptions.”
“Only entries in this queue will be approved. Everything else waits.”
Notice the difference: it’s concrete, and it creates a visible consequence.
Also, credible promises are often smaller than empty promises. But they change behavior faster.
Credible threats (don’t overreact to the word)
When I say “threat”, I don’t mean aggression. I mean an enforceable rule.
Most MSMEs suffer because rules are optional.And optional rules create politics.
So a credible “threat” is simply:
clear
calm
enforceable
consistently applied
Example: “Data must be submitted by 6 PM every day.”
If nobody checks and nothing happens when it’s missed, it’s not a rule … it’s a wish.
A real rule has a gate:
“If it’s not updated by 6 PM, it doesn’t get discussed in the 10 AM review.”
“If PO details are missing, the PO doesn’t move.”
“If a quotation isn’t logged, it won’t be approved.”
No shouting. No humiliation. Just a gate.
How to design commitments that don’t backfire
Three practical guidelines:
Promise protection before you demand discipline
People won’t share the truth if the truth will hurt them.
That’s why “no layoffs from the pilot” is powerful as it reduces fear.
Make rules enforceable by design, not by energy
If your rule needs you to chase people daily, it will die.
Put it inside the workflow as a gate (Week 3 logic).
Start with one promise and one rule
Too many commitments create confusion and loopholes.
One promise + one rule is enough to change the mood.
Field Test (this week)
Make two commitments for the next 30 days:
1) One public promise
Choose something that reduces fear and signals fairness.
Examples:
“No one will be punished for raising a problem in the scoreboard review.”
“No layoffs due to pilot mistakes.”
“No public shaming in reviews. We fix, we don’t insult.”
Make it public, not private. Say it in the forum where everyone will remember.
2) One enforceable rule
Choose one small discipline that supports your new rhythm.
Examples:
data update deadline
PO approval cutoff
quotation logging gate
dispatch confirmation rule
Then define the gate clearly: what happens when it’s not done.
And most important: follow through.
Once.
Twice.
By the third time, the system stops testing.
Document what happened in the first two weeks. You’ll learn more from this than from any workshop.
The Close
If Reputation Is the Real Asset was about building a reputation through patterns, this one is about making those patterns believable.
Because in legacy MSMEs, people don’t change when you announce change.
They change when they see that reversing it has a cost.
So don’t overbuild plans. Build commitments.
Next week, Rahul will take this into internal politics: your BATNA ... your real leverage when you can’t “just order people” and expect compliance.
Comments