Assessing Reward Justification

Overview

A procedure for determining whether to accept honors or rewards by analyzing the true basis of your position and the implications of accepting.

Analysis Steps

1. Identify the basis of your current position - Why were you given authority? (Ability, relationship, or lack of alternatives?)
2. Identify the basis of your current rewards - Why were you given wealth/fiefs? (Merit, relationship, or political necessity?)
3. Assess the new reward's justification - Did you actually contribute to the outcome being rewarded?
4. Check for contradiction - Does accepting create a logical inconsistency with how you obtained your position?
5. Consider the intermediary's motives - Does the person proposing the reward benefit regardless of outcome?

Key Principle

If your position is based on relationship (not merit), accepting merit-based rewards creates a contradiction that undermines your legitimacy.

Warning About Intermediaries

Those who propose rewards may:

• Claim credit if you accept ("I arranged this")
• Blame you if it fails
• Gain leverage over you

Expected Outcome

Maintaining consistency, avoiding obligations, preserving long-term legitimacy

Verification

1. Confirm that the basis of your position (merit vs. relationship) has been honestly identified before evaluating the reward.
2. Check whether accepting creates a logical contradiction between how you gained your position and the reward's stated justification.
3. Validate that intermediary motives have been assessed for hidden leverage or self-serving agendas.