Based on your feedback

It is great to be able to share your wisdom, and doing so reinforces our belief that it is well within our collective ability to continually develop knowledge, capability and resilience for the transition we are in. Let's jump right into the feedback with some additional questions and commentary.

"There is nothing more satisfying than achieving an agreed/required outcome with other people where everyone does what they say they'll do when required, and even better when others spot gaps and fill them competently as needed. Mutual agreements on delivery/contribution help make this possible".

"Handshake deals work fine when the shakers are both in total control of what they agree to, have an ethical commitment to do it, and retain the capacity to do it."

There is a lot in this. Some questions arising that might be worth making a note of; 

• Are we agreeing on something that we have control over? 
• If not can the agreement and relationship accommodate for that lack of control?
• Do we have the capacity to fulfil the agreement? While this might seem obvious for a short-term agreement, it might be a completely different story over the long term. Organisations lose good people; individuals can fall on hard times or the entire context can change. Imagine some of the businesses affected by flooding, trying to fulfill the commitments they have made when a significant part of their production capacity is wiped out.
• Is this a simple arrangement, or could it become more complex over time?
• Is this the type of agreement and relationship that is growing, developing, improving?
• Are they trustworthy, reliable, would you work together again?
• How will we remember what the details of the agreement are in future?

So, while we can be 'salt of the earth' types and start with the best of intentions, it seems that making agreements can be a serious undertaking that can get out of hand pretty quickly, without the right checks and balances being in place.

Another reader said...

"My best dealings are through mutual understanding and a handshake... there is great integrity in the primary sector..." 

And thank goodness this is so. The ability to work like this is critical in fast turnaround sectors. Without such integrity, doing business might become much less efficient, less fun and a drag on the economy. We wonder what might happen if the government tries inching itself further into free enterprise, will more friction be the straw that breaks the camel's back for already stretched operations and people?

While many agreements and business deals are handshake based, short term and largely transactional, there are those that need a more formal approach.

"Over time both memory and capacity can change. As long as we accept that when the deal is challenged that there are three views - being 'yours, mine and the right one', it has a better chance of being resolved.

Good written contracts provide the ability for a third party to help decide what the right one is."

So written contracts have a place, here is a perspective to perhaps bear in mind in future.

"No contract should have to be more than two pages long. Often in a 50 page one, the intent is less than two paragraphs with the important components making up the rest of the two pages. Legal, 'what-if' clauses take up the other 48 pages. Contracts only come out of the bottom draw when there is disagreement, so it's important for us to make sure those additional 48 pages are not a trap for us as a well minded, ethical people wanting to do the 'right thing. We better be clear about what is in the 48 pages as there is no way to redefine them at a later date" (Unless of course both parties mutually agree to change something, which isn't usually the point of the 48 'what-if' pages)

Another major question was raised about who is in the agreement or what is the 'entity' entering into contract.

"It is important to understand who is behind the contract, why the contract really exists and who will administer or manage it"

Hard-core advice for when it comes to any agreement, especially ones where it is a significant commitment, or there is a lot of interaction and or a complex process or set of deliverables to work through. 

There are a few personality types that can lurk in the background within organisations and 'spoil your day' and life under contract;

• Tooled-up-ers - Who like weapons, power, control -being in your face.
• Dreamers - Idealists in LaLa land, with very impractical expectations, that start well and end terribly.
• Snakes - Tricky schmoozers with two faces and forked tongues, they know how to use words and emotions for short term gain. 
• Clunkers - Mindless administrators who are someone else's pawn or a willing participant in dragging things down.
• Penny pinchers - Fixated on money to the detriment of the whole.

And consider take extra time to work through the finer points of an agreement with people that use this kind of language:

• "There are always winners and losers" 
• "We've got/had experts involved."
• "The contract will be managed by our commercial team"
• "We can sort out the details later"
• "Im looking forward to this project, it will look good on my CV"
• "We have a legal team that will take care of the '48 pages.' "
• "Contracts are always master/slave arrangements any way"
• "All decisions about the contract will need to go to the committee."
• "Lets get the cheapest price and go from there"

Despite what is written or said, time and what people do (not what they say) always reveals the truth about whether the agreement will grow or die.