WorldCC Things That Matter Webinar 3: Going Deeper

On 18th November 2024, as part of WorldCC‘s Thought Leadership webinar series, Stephen Bruce talked further on the ‘Things That Matter’ – in particular how the process relies on online diagnostics to make it possible to negotiate what matters in the widest possible sense.

The webinar looked at “How to effectively negotiate what really matters” and this led to some excellent questions and comments from attendees:

“Given this slide on Relationship Management, do we really need such complex contracts?”

(For reference, the slide in question was showing this graphic:)

The relative sizes of the circles show that contracts remain the most pervasive tool for managing relationships, even if their shortcomings are mostly well-known and widely acknowledged.

You can read about these shortcomings in more detail here, and it’s worth noting that this page also points out that one response we see is for contracts to “[t]ry and ever more exhaustively cover every potential eventuality.“

And that’s definitely one of the reasons that contracts are often becoming more and more unwieldy…!

To now answer the question raised – even if it was rhetorical – the answer is both “no” and “yes”.

“No”, in that contracts can’t ever adequately capture everything that’s needed to manage a relationship:

  • They’re not well-suited to crucial “softer” considerations, which increasingly dominate the Things That Matter.
  • They can’t anticipate everything.
  • They can’t effectively track the inevitable changes that come at you.

So, no, we don’t need contracts to get ever more detail, which is what I think is meant in the question’s use of “complex”.

However, the answer is also “Yes”, because whilst “complex” and “complicated” are used interchangeably to mean “something that has a lot of intricacy and detail” – which I think is the case here – contracts are actually “complicated“, and this is the ultimate and overarching reason why they’re failing.

What we actually need is more Complexity-aware contracts and contracting approaches – contracts that recognize their inherent limitations, to leave room for contracting approaches that try to focus on the relationship (which is, ultimately, the main determinant of whether the contract’s objectives are fulfilled).

This is what the slide was illustrating, but as the webinar emphasized, the existing relationship management approaches all have much to contribute, but need to be harnessed under the Things That Matter, as those:

  • Capture the real essence of the relationship.
  • Make clear what the priorities are, which clarifies how to use standards, toolkits, etc.
  • Enable you to identify and respond to change.

So, recognizing that contracts are increasingly off-track is a great start, but you need to fill the gap that they leave effectively!

“Our surveys are consistently pointing to the problems caused by complexity, urgent need to simplify”

Couldn’t agree more! Complexity isn’t just one of the challenges facing us; it’s the root of all the challenges, and Simplicity is absolutely the goal in response.

But it needs to be right “kind” of simplicity.

This article explains this in more depth, but you’re looking for two things: 1. Simplicity the other side of Complexity; not an attempt to control or “dumb” it down; 2. operating primarily on general principles and processes, rather than specifying methods and outcomes too precisely. This article hopefully explains what I mean!

“People see negotiation pre contract and think it sits with those who finalised the contract to signature. Relationship negotiation should be an ongoing activity that sits away from the contract terms to drive behaviours between both parties.”

Absolutely agreed that negotiation should be an ongoing activity; not something considered as just a pre-contract activity that is the sole responsibility of those getting the contract to the point of signature!

The webinar made the point that negotiation is essential throughout the contract lifecycle (the original lifecycle diagram is WorldCC’s):

The only things I’d comment further are:

  • If the comment reflects that the (negotiated) contract currently incentivizes undesired behaviours, then I’d agree that negotiation should be considered separate as far as possible.
  • Ideally, though, the contract would leave “room” for “negotiation” in the wider sense – reaching agreement on the Things That Matter and on how to progress them – and at that point would remain an essential part of the overall “toolkit” for managing the relationship.
  • Whilst it may just be a turn of phrase, we see “behaviors” as emergent properties – they reflect the “dialog” between underlying cultural/values and what is prioritized – so they’re not so much “driven” as “guided”. At the moment, with a lack of clarity about the Things That Matter, and a disproportionate focus on objective, hard outcomes and measures, behaviors are frequently then “poor”… but whilst there will always be bad actors (and we’re not saying that e.g. behavioral training has no place) this situation can largely be “reset” by the Things That Matter approach, because it makes engages people, motivates them and empowers them to make change.

Contact Stephen to follow up anything else from the webinar, including to register your interest in the WorldCC diagnostic being developed.

A full version of Stephen’s slides – including speaker notes – can also be downloaded here.

More resources: