The principle in detail
Three steps through the principle: grasp it, place it, put it to work. Open each topic on its own.
The core messageCore statement and 3 clarifications
A goal that would provoke resistance as a whole can often be reached in steps that are accepted one at a time.
- It does not say
- That every step-by-step approach is a tactic. Small, open steps taken with consent are often the sensible norm.
- It does not say
- That every small step inevitably leads further. If you see a slippery slope everywhere, you also block what makes sense.
- It also says
- The most effective antidote is a line drawn beforehand at an unambiguous point.
The explanationHow the principle works and what matters
The principle works because each step shifts the yardstick for the next one, and because nobody wants to contradict themselves. You can use it, and others use it against you.
Are you checking the direction, or only the next slice?
The signs3 signs when you heed it · 3 when you overlook it
- You add up small commitments and look at the direction.
- You set your limit before the next request comes.
- When you yourself change something step by step, you state the goal openly.
- You judge each additional demand on its own and say yes every time.
- Responsibilities gradually migrate to another department.
- At some point, you find yourself at a place you would never have chosen.
The backgroundTradition T5 Game Theory, Negotiation and Conflict
- 1952Mátyás Rákosi
A retrospective in the party journal, reported in TIME on April 14, 1952: the Communists demanded a little …
- 1966OriginThomas C. Schelling
Arms and Influence
- 1966SupplementedJonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser
Compliance without pressure
- Tradition T5TraditionGame Theory, Negotiation and Conflict
Thomas C. Schelling, Robert Axelrod, Herman Kahn, Roger Fisher and William Ury
See the tradition on the Origin page
Read more: the full background
From Thomas C. Schelling’s work “Arms and Influence” (1966); the term goes back to Mátyás Rákosi, who described the seizure of power in Hungary this way in 1952. Supplemented by the finding of Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser (1966).
The research4 sources: 2 theories, 1 case study, 1 experiment · 1952–1966 · with limitations of the research
- weak
- moderate
- strong
The mechanism of the small first commitment is supported by experiments; Thomas C. Schelling and historical cases show that a big goal can be pushed through against resistance in this way, but this has not been measured.
- 1952Mátyás Rákosi
A retrospective in the party journal, reported in TIME on April 14, 1952: the Communists demanded a little more each day, “like cutting up a salami, thin slice after thin slice.”
- 1959Charles E. Lindblom
“The Science of ‘Muddling Through’”: incremental, open change is the sensible norm in politics.
- 1966Thomas C. Schelling
“Arms and Influence”: if you proceed in steps so small that none of them justifies the threatened response, you hollow out the other side’s threat.
- 1966Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser
“Compliance without pressure”: people who have agreed to a small request agree to a large one much more often (the foot-in-the-door technique).
- A step-by-step approach becomes a tactic only when the goal remains hidden and the smallness of the steps is meant to undercut resistance.
- Whether Mátyás Rákosi invented the image himself or picked it up is disputed.
- Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser’s finding concerns requests among strangers, not power struggles; applying it to conflicts is an inference.
Read more: what research shows
The term goes back to Mátyás Rákosi. According to a report in TIME magazine from April 1952, he described in the party journal how the Communists in Hungary took power with 17% of the vote: by demanding a little more every day, slice by slice, as with a salami. In 1966, in “Arms and Influence,” Thomas C. Schelling explained the principle in strategic terms: small steps hollow out a threat because none of them justifies the threatened response. Social psychology offers a related finding. In 1966, Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser showed in field experiments that people are more likely to agree to a large request if they have first agreed to a small one. By contrast, as early as 1959, Charles E. Lindblom described open, incremental change as the sensible norm in politics.
The related principles31 Indirect Approach · 64 Credible Commitment · 65 Focal Points · 68 Escalation Ladder
The antidote comes from 64 Credible Commitment (a line drawn with binding force) and 65 Focal Points (red lines at a conspicuous, unambiguous point)
68 Escalation Ladder shows why the slices deliberately stay below the next rung
Like 31 Indirect Approach, the principle avoids a frontal attack on the strongest point
Read more: the full text
The antidote comes from 64 Credible Commitment (a line drawn with binding force) and 65 Focal Points (red lines at a conspicuous, unambiguous point); 68 Escalation Ladder shows why the slices deliberately stay below the next rung. Like 31 Indirect Approach, the principle avoids a frontal attack on the strongest point.
The action steps5 things you can actually do
For ongoing projects and negotiations, write all the small commitments in a list and add them up regularly.
Set your limit before the pressure comes, and draw it at an unambiguous point, not somewhere in the gray zone.
- With every additional demand, ask about the goal behind it: where does this step lead if three more follow?
Watch for phrases that play a step down, such as “only temporarily,” “an exception” or “a stopgap solution.”
- When you yourself proceed step by step, state the goal openly and get consent to the whole. Otherwise you lose trust as soon as it becomes visible.
The reflection questions3 questions: Which small commitments from the past few months have you never added up?
- Which small commitments from the past few months have you never added up?
- Where is your limit in the negotiation that is currently underway, and have you written it down?
- Where are you yourself changing something in small steps without stating the goal openly?
Take your time with one question. Write down your answer – or talk it over with someone you trust.
The picture to rememberThe animation once more, with an explanation
- A long teal bar lies across the frame with a guard dot beside it
- A fine line cuts off slice after slice, the guard dot pulses only briefly each time, and a counter shows minus 2%
- In the end, only a short stub remains, and in the flashback a gold line appears at the start of the bar, where the cutting would have been stopped early
How the principle shows up in practice
Mátyás Rákosi, Hungary
With 17% of the vote, the Communists first secure the police, then weaken the majority party and by 1949 rule alone.
Henry VIII, the break with Rome
Between 1529 and 1534, one law after another separates the Church of England from Rome, up to the Act of Supremacy.
Schaeffler, Continental
In 2008, through financial contracts with banks that did not have to be disclosed at the time, Schaeffler secures access to about 36% of Continental, but the financial crisis turns the success into a burden.
Where do you draw your line?
Get your profile across all 12 groups in about 10 to 15 minutes.
Start the Strategy CheckGroup 8: Interaction, Alliances and Negotiation
Guiding question: How do you act when others are in the game too?
Stage 4 of 5: Act with others
- TraditionGame Theory, Negotiation and Conflict
Thomas C. Schelling, Robert Axelrod, Herman Kahn, Roger Fisher and William Ury
- Related principles
Where the 92 principles come from: eight traditions of strategy, from classical war theory to dealing with uncertainty.
More about the originBackground: WEGVISOR’s own selection from the strategy literature · More about the origin
