The traditional view of a contract is a legal safety net to be filed and forgotten until a dispute arises. A relational contract, however, functions as an active 'playbook' for the partnership. It outlines the shared vision and guiding principles, serving as a practical, frequently referenced guide for collaboration and problem-solving, rather than a weapon.
Related Insights
A key "aha moment" was realizing the goal is to be seen not as an outside seller, but as a contributing member of the client's own team. This mindset shifts the relationship from transactional to a collaborative partnership focused on shared success, fundamentally changing the sales dynamic.
When long-term contracts become imbalanced due to unforeseen events, the disadvantaged party subconsciously engages in 'shading and shirking'—subtle acts of non-cooperation to restore fairness. This deteriorates the relationship and creates hidden costs, as seen in the Dell/FedEx partnership before they adopted a relational model.
To avoid an adversarial relationship, actively reposition gatekeeper functions like legal and compliance as essential partners. Their role is to ensure the company's long-term success by keeping it safe. This partnership mentality leads to more creative and collaborative problem-solving.
Don't let the cofounder dynamic run on autopilot. Proactively establish "vows"—commitments on decision-making and conflict resolution. Then, create a regular relationship rhythm for check-ins. This practice of stepping "onto the balcony" to observe the relationship is crucial for long-term health and success.
Counterintuitively, the more complex a deal—spanning multiple countries and legal systems—the more suitable it is for a relational contract. Instead of attempting to codify every eventuality, this approach establishes a shared corporate culture and flexible principles that can adapt to unforeseen challenges, effectively trumping national or legal differences.
Instead of being unenforceable concepts, guiding principles like fairness and loyalty become a formal part of the contract. During a disagreement, parties can explicitly reference these agreed-upon norms ('you agreed to be equitable'). This reframes the conflict, reminds partners of their commitments, and provides a shared language to resolve issues without litigation.
The most effective client-agency partnerships are not the easiest, but the most honest. They are characterized by clarity, mutual trust, and a willingness to have frank conversations. This directness, rather than constant agreement, is what leads to breakthrough creative work.
Companies are trapped by the dogma of creating 'bulletproof' contracts, a process driven by legal precedent and risk aversion ('nobody got fired for having the lawyers look at this'). This institutional inertia, codified in policies requiring standard terms, prevents the adoption of more flexible, relational contracts, which are often dismissed as 'fluffy' despite being 'radical common sense.'
Instead of just emailing a contract and hoping for a signature, schedule a specific, short "Signing Day" meeting on the calendar. This creates a clear closing event, adds a sense of ceremony, and prevents the deal from stalling in the final step.
The biggest unlock for a successful long-term partnership is to stop keeping score. Instead of tracking contributions and demanding reciprocity, one should define their own standard for being a good partner and live up to it. This approach avoids the bias of overvaluing one's own contributions, preventing transactional resentment.
