Lawrence of Arabia or Meyer Lansky
When choosing between trusting a promise from an institution vs. an individual, choose the individual, as only individuals have a sense of honor. The story contrasts T.E. Lawrence's broken promise to Arab tribes by the British government with the reliability of mobster Meyer Lansky's word.
THE IDEA
Lawrence of Arabia or Meyer Lansky
Finally, if you ever have to choose between a mobster’s promise and a civil servant’s, go with the mobster. Any time. Institutions do not have a sense of honor, individuals do.
During the Great War, T. E. Lawrence, nicknamed Lawrence of Arabia, struck a deal with the Arab desert tribes to help the British against the Ottoman Empire. His promise: to deliver to them in return an Arab state. As the tribes did not know better, they made good on their side of the bargain. But, it turned out, the French and British governments had made a secret agreement, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, to divide the area in question between themselves. After the war, Lawrence went back to live in the U.K., supposedly in a state of frustration, but, of course, not much more. But he left us with a good lesson: never trust the words of a man who is not free.
Now on the other hand, a mobster’s greatest asset is that “his word is gold.” It was said that “a handshake from the famous mobster Meyer Lansky was worth more than the strongest contracts that a battery of lawyers could put together.” In fact he held in his mind the assets and liabilities of the Sicilian mafia, and was their bank account, without a single record. Just his honor.
As a trader I never trusted transactions with “representatives” of institutions; pit traders are bound by their bonds, and I’ve never known a single self-employed trader over a two-decade-long career who did not live up to his handshake.
Only a sense of honor can lead to commerce. Any commerce.
When to use it
When choosing a business partner, consider their personal reputation for honesty rather than just the company they represent.
Negotiating with a government agency vs. a private individual: be wary of promises from those who are not free to act on their word.
In hiring, prioritize candidates who have a track record of personal integrity over those who rely on institutional backing.
For long-term collaborations, prefer individuals who bind themselves by their word rather than those who hide behind corporate shields.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Lawrence of Arabia and the Broken Promise
T.E. Lawrence promised Arab tribes an independent state in return for their help against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. However, the British and French governments had secretly agreed (Sykes-Picot) to divide the territory, so the promise was not honored. The account contrasts institutions, which lack honor and break promises, with individuals.
Meyer Lansky's Word
Mobster Meyer Lansky was known for his unbreakable word. A handshake from him was considered more binding than any contract. He managed the Sicilian mafia's finances entirely from memory, without records, relying solely on his honor. This contrasts with institutional representatives who may not be bound by personal honor.
Self-Employed Traders
The author shares from experience that self-employed traders always live up to their word, whereas representatives of institutions cannot be trusted because they are not free to act on their promises.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a situation where you trusted an institution's promise. Did it hold up? How did it compare to a promise from an individual you know?
In your business dealings, do you place more trust in contracts or in personal relationships? Why?
Can you identify a time when an institution broke its word? How did that affect your trust?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Antifragile (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)