Agreements Make Organizations Work

An agreement is an arrangement between two or more people in which both participants concur on an arrangement, or consent to do or deliver something.  If you agree to go to lunch with someone, the two of you have concurred on a lunch date, time, and location. If you agree to take a job with an employer, you consent to (accept) the job description as a definition of your job responsibilities.

Agreements exist “in between” the parties involved.  If you and I have an agreement with each other, then the agreement is “between” the two of us, i.e., it belongs to you as much as it belongs to me.  This also means that if the agreement is broken, no matter which one of us fails to show up for lunch, it involves both of us: one of us broke the agreement, and the other is left waiting at the agreed location.

There are benefits for keeping agreements and consequences for breaking them.  Some are more significant than others: benefits of keeping agreements might range from an increase in trust to gaining valued personal or professional rewards. Consequences of broken agreements could extend as far as losing a job, a promotion, or a valued relationship. There are several negative byproducts that almost always accompany broken agreements, however, including resignation, cynicism, and resentment.

What makes agreements particularly important is that they are the basis for performance, results, and accomplishment in organizations of all kinds.  Two quite simple observations:

1. People make agreements all the time, sometimes with a formal and explicit contract and other times informally with a nod of the head or an “OK, will do” message on their Blackberry, and
2. When people keep their agreements, meetings happen, results are produced, and services are delivered – on time, accurately, and completely.

In other words, when people keep their agreements, things work. When they don’t, they don’t.

Managing People vs. Managing Agreements

What gets done in an organization depends on people keeping their agreements. So, it is not surprising that much of management theory and research has focused on trying to get people to do what they have agreed to do.  This has shifted the focus of management to the people themselves, asking: What makes people keep their agreements?

Management theorists have asked, “What will get people to do the high-quality job they committed to when they accepted the position, the project, or the assignment?” One answer has been to develop compensation packages that will “motivate” people to do their jobs well. Another answer is to use various performance management systems to support people in honoring their agreements. Both answers focus on managing the people, through compensation or performance systems.

An alternative and more direct way to getting things accomplished is to manage the agreements, not the people. You may not have any control over compensation systems, or performance management systems, but you can always manage the agreements that are critical for your own success. The point is to focus only on changing the agreements, not the human beings involved. (This is good news, since changing people is a specialty that is not a strong suit for most of us.)

Step 1. Make Your Agreements Explicit

Most of our agreements in the workplace are invisible or transparent. We only notice them when they are broken, i.e., when we have a problem. Job descriptions that are vague, or assignments given hastily, often leave questions about exactly what the agreement really is. Many managers are clearer about making their lunch appointments than they are about turning over a project to a staff member or colleague.

To make agreements explicit, take the time to specify:

a)   What results and outcomes are required or expected,

b)   When they are due,

c)    Why it matters to you, or the goals of the team or department,

d)   Who else could be involved in some way,

e)   Where resources and results could or should be obtained or delivered, and

f)    How the work should be performed, in the event that there are specific requirements for processing.

In other words, answer the “journalist questions” as clearly as you can. This makes it possible for everyone involved to know, at the end of the day, whether an agreement has been kept or not.

Step 2. Track Your Agreements

Peter, a manager I know, was frustrated by the lack of progress on a change he was managing.  He complained that things weren’t getting done as expected and that he was at risk of falling behind on the schedule his manager had given him.  When I asked him, “Which people are not doing the things you asked for, and what exactly are they not doing?” he could not answer the question. He said, “I don’t keep track of all the things I ask people to do. I just don’t have that kind of time!”

The lesson: Maintain an up-to-date “Agreement Tracker” – a list of all the agreements you have with people who have promised to deliver results to you, and people to whom you have promised to deliver results. If your agreements:

1. Are important to your success,
2. Involve results that will happen over time, i.e., are not resolved with a simple email or phone call, or
3. Include interim results that are critical to long-term success,

then they belong on your Agreement Tracker. You do not need a complex spreadsheet. Your Agreement Tracker should include (or refer to) the agreed specifics on What-When-Why and Who-Where-How for each important agreement.

My observation is that keeping a current record of agreements is actually a time-saver, not a time-waster. Your Agreement Tracker allows you to see what agreements you have with other people and groups are currently outstanding, and when the next action or result is anticipated.

Step 3. Follow Up, Early and Often

Why keep an Agreement Tracker? It’s so you can stay alert to the progress of performance on each agreement. You owe something to someone? Someone owes something to you? Your Agreement Tracker shows you Who to talk with, When to talk with them, and What result you need to reference. Manage your agreements by knowing what they are, who they are with, and when to talk to them.

Communication about your key agreements is the lever that will ensure your successful performance.  Follow-up conversations don’t wait for the due date to arrive – they anticipate the due date, and confirm whether the agreement is on track. This serves three purposes. First, it reinforces the importance of the agreement; Second, it lets you know if things are going as planned or if there are issues that need someone’s attention; Third, it lets you update your Agreement Tracker to alert you to the next time communication will be needed.

Follow-up: Are things going according to plan? Are there problems on the horizon? You want to know early. Touch base on your most important agreements early – and often – to take the pulse of progress and perils. The purpose here is not to micromanage anyone, but to support accomplishment for everyone involved.

Here are some ideas on the kinds of things you might say in some of your follow-up conversations:

• The next project due date is approaching and I want to be sure that you have everything you need in order to get everything done on time.
• I know that I have a report due to you at the end of this week, and I thought I would check to see if there is anything else you’d like me to include before I finalize it?
• The IT manager had a delay in deliveries this week, so I would like to talk with you about whether that might impact our agreement for the system upgrade.

Managing agreements is about working with people – after the agreements are made – to fulfill the agreements successfully. It includes getting and giving alerts regarding potential problems, and updates on any necessary modifications. Follow-up conversations are the opportunities to work with people to ensure their success as well as your own.

Conclusion

The primary difference between managing people and managing agreements is where you focus your attention.  When you shift your attention away from the characteristics and attributes of people, and toward the state and condition of your agreements with them, you are paying attention to performance, not personality or preferences.  Are the agreements alive and well, or have people forgotten about them?  If people have forgotten, what needs to be done to put the agreement back into effect?

Managing agreements means that you establish clear agreements, keep track of them, and have periodic follow-up conversations to learn how things are going. It is a way to avoid unpleasant surprises, and it also works well to develop other people in being more accountable, more aware of the importance of their agreements, and better attuned to their role in overall workplace performance.

This was reprinted with permission from The Great Managing Newsletter, vol. 9, no. 23, published by Critical Path Consultants.

Signage is a critical part of an effective infrastructure that allows for “silent” (non speaking) communication.  We rely on signage every day to navigate through work.  Signage is used to guide and direct traffic, get us into and out of buildings, and tell us which restroom we should use.  Signage, in the form of uniforms, also makes it possible for us to know who we are talking to, who belongs to which group, and what people are accountable for.  We depend on signage to help us coordinate work.  Given our reliance on signage, therefore, it should not come as a surprise that failing to play attention to it can create performance breakdowns.

I work on a conference project where people are assigned to different teams.  Each team has a particular accountability and must coordinate their part of the conference with others.  One way we distinguish who is on which team is by the type of name tag they wear.  That way, when the conference is happening, we can tell instantly who is suppose to be in certain places and who isn’t – all without ever talking.

In a way, it is like the way the teams on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier distinguish themselves by the color of their uniforms.  Since the flight deck is loud, oral communication is not always possible or effective.  And, because the deck is dangerous, it is imperative that coordination get done or people die.  One way the Navy accomplishes the necessary coordination is through the use of colored uniforms.

Although the conference I work on is nothing like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, effective coordination of it nevertheless requires being able to know who is who quickly, and in many cases, quietly.  We do that though name tags.

Recently the client we do the conference for said that a new person was going to be at the conference doing work for them.  “No problem”, we said, “what name tag will he wear?”  Rather than answer the question, they proceeded to explain what he would be doing at the conference and why it would be important and valuable.  They didn’t understand that we were asking a question about infrastructure and they answering a question about activity – they are not the same.

We didn’t want to know what he would be doing, we wanted to know how to “tag” him so that people at the conference could appropriately coordinate with him.  We explained that if he wears a conference participant nametag, he will be related to in one way, but if he wears a conference worker nametag, he will be related to in another way.  No one will ask (or even care) what activities he is engaged in other than as they relate to his name tag.

All this over a name tag????!!!!!  Yes, because that is the power of infrastructure.  It is one of the key elements we use in coordinating with the world and each other.  I suspect that there are far more breakdowns and upsets related to issues of infrastructure that many of us imagine.  In our case with the conference, the client had no idea they were violating a piece of infrastructure we rely on for coordination.  Instead, they believed we were being resistant to the person (“You don’t like him?” they asked) and what he would be doing.  Each time we would ask about the “name tag”, they would try to explain what he would be doing.  We were not communicating and both sides were upset, but for different reasons.

I am beginning to wonder how much things like “resistance to change” or “poor performance” are a function of infrastructure breakdowns rather than motivation, leadership, commitment, etc.  What do you think?

If you go into any workplace, what you will see is people doing things.  They are talking to each other, walking from one place to another, working on their computers, sitting in meetings, etc.  In short, what you see is people and their behavior.  What you don’t see are such context factors as the hierarchy of authority (titles and reporting relationships), workflow, accountability, trust, personal relationships, goals and objectives, or most of the other things that happen “in between” people.  People and behavior are in the foreground, context factors are in the background.

Why does this matter?  Because it leads to what is called the “fundamental attribution error” in which observers overattribute behavior to the dispositional factors (e.g., attitudes, emotions, motivations, skills, traits) of people rather than to contextual factors.  I can see you and your behavior, but I can’t see all the context factors or how they are impacting you.  As a result, when you do something – more often when you don’t do something – I look to you and you alone for the explanation.  I assume it has something to do with your commitment, your attitude, your motivation, your competence, whether you care, etc.  I don’t look to me and our relationship, or to the myriad things you have to deal with, or any of the factors going on between you, me, and others.  In short, your behavior is a function of you and you alone.

The impact of making this “error” is that if I want you to behave in some different way, for example, being more accountable, then I will try to alter your disposition in some way.  I might send you to training, talk to you about the value of being accountable in an attempt to motivate you to be more accountable, or any number of other things to change your disposition.  What I won’t do, however, is consider other context explanations, such as our conversations, and whether your being accountable is a function of the requests I make and whether I consistently follow up on them.

In my MBA class on management, I assign the book “Leadership and Self Deception” (I strongly recommend it).  Its and easy and engaging book in which the “hero” of the story discovers he has been interacting with people based on erroneous attributions, how and why he made those attributions, and the impact the errors have had on his leadership.  What I find particularly interesting is that students don’t want to talk about how they make similar attribution errors and how to overcome them.  They want to talk about how then can stop their boss or the people around them from making the error!

That was the second part of my insight – the fundamental attribution error is extremely persistent.  Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, people will continue making the same attribution error.  In other words, telling people, even demonstrating to people, that they are making an error, an error that has negative real life consequences, they will persist in the error.

For years I have wondered why it was that even though countless of articles and experts have said it is not possible to motivate others, that motivation is an internal state, managers persisted in wanting to know “How can I motivate them?” I now see an answer – they believe behavior is a function of disposition, not context, and anything said to the contrary is ignored.  That belief makes my job harder and reduces the opportunity for breakthroughs in leader effectiveness.