The Jolly Contrarian

Sign Here: The Enterprise Guide to Closing Contracts Quickly: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Sign Here: The Enterprise Guide to Closing Contracts Quickly (view source)

Revision as of 17:55, 21 September 2021

49 bytes added ,  21 September 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:


Of course, commercial harmony it is not all down to the lawyers — indeed, it’s barely anything to ''do'' with the lawyers: like bad parents, they can only screw it up. Once a contract is inked, sensible business people will not cast it a backward glance.<ref>I have a theory, that I haven’t quite nutted out yet, that a ''draft'' contract plays a totally different role in commercial life to an ''executed'' contract. A draft contract is all about ''signalling'' to your counterparty: commitment, thoroughness, dominance: it is intended primarily to ''persuade''. An executed contract is like a will and testament; instructions on what to do should one or other party unexpectedly die or become incapacitated. In any other case of doubt, the parties should speak to each other.</ref> Well-managed relationships do not descend into acrimony; if you prudently manage the portfolio while the relationship is ongoing, you can distribute the risk of loss should that unwanted eventuality arrive. The way to manage risk is through your ongoing behaviour, not legal documentation, that is to say. Don’t [[Over-engineering|over-engineer]] your contracts. Don’t design your plane to be waterproof in case it falls into the sea. ''Design it so it doesn’t crash.''
Of course, commercial harmony it is not all down to the lawyers — indeed, it’s barely anything to ''do'' with the lawyers: like bad parents, they can only screw it up. Once a contract is inked, sensible business people will not cast it a backward glance.<ref>I have a theory, that I haven’t quite nutted out yet, that a ''draft'' contract plays a totally different role in commercial life to an ''executed'' contract. A draft contract is all about ''signalling'' to your counterparty: commitment, thoroughness, dominance: it is intended primarily to ''persuade''. An executed contract is like a will and testament; instructions on what to do should one or other party unexpectedly die or become incapacitated. In any other case of doubt, the parties should speak to each other.</ref> Well-managed relationships do not descend into acrimony; if you prudently manage the portfolio while the relationship is ongoing, you can distribute the risk of loss should that unwanted eventuality arrive. The way to manage risk is through your ongoing behaviour, not legal documentation, that is to say. Don’t [[Over-engineering|over-engineer]] your contracts. Don’t design your plane to be waterproof in case it falls into the sea. ''Design it so it doesn’t crash.''
===The agency problem looms large===
 
Much of the cut and thrust of a commercial negotiation is not at all about the interests and benefits of the principals, but is an elaborate pantomime performed by their agents to justify their own appearances. The fear of [[redundancy]] — in the board sense of not having enough to do, but in the narrow sense of losing one’s job, too drives much negotiation behaviour. This [[iatrogenic]] peripheral fiddling serves the agent’s immediate need — to look busy — but at a long term cost of drip-feeding complication, confusion and bad engineering into templates, processes and roles.  
===The [[agency problem]] looms large===
Much of the cut and thrust of a commercial [[negotiation]] is not at all about the interests and benefits of the [[Ultimate client|principals]], but is an elaborate pantomime performed by their [[agent]]s to justify their own appearance. The fear of [[redundancy]] — in the broad sense of ''not having enough to do'', but in the narrow sense of ''losing one’s job'', too drives much negotiation behaviour. This [[iatrogenic]] peripheral fiddling serves the agent’s immediate need — to look busy — but at a long term cost of drip-feeding complication, confusion and bad engineering into templates, processes and roles.  


The challenge for innovators is getting a handle on how to stop the [[Barnacle|barnacles]] forming, and not inadvertently making the process worse, as much [[legal tech]] does. The problem runs deep; no-one has managed it so far.
The challenge for innovators is getting a handle on how to stop the [[Barnacle|barnacles]] forming, and not inadvertently making the process worse, as much [[legal tech]] does. The problem runs deep; no-one has managed it so far.
Line 29: Line 30:
Ask process runners, “do you think there is a problem?” and “if so, ''what'' do you think is the problem?” Many are so siloed by their own organisations and terms of reference that there may not be a problem locally, even when there is globally. Thus, if your remit is “manage credit risk at all costs” then the cost/benefit of the tools you bring to bear is not your problem.
Ask process runners, “do you think there is a problem?” and “if so, ''what'' do you think is the problem?” Many are so siloed by their own organisations and terms of reference that there may not be a problem locally, even when there is globally. Thus, if your remit is “manage credit risk at all costs” then the cost/benefit of the tools you bring to bear is not your problem.


===Contracts and scalability===
===Contracts and [[Scale|scalability]]===
Hamilton compares the traditional approach to contract negotiation with his “RADICAL” approach — I can take or leave mnemonics, but this one isn’t bad— in what they do to help ''scale'' your legal operation: to what degree you can be sure individual client contracts will conform with each other to provide a robust platform across your business, allowing you to concentrate on building and managing your customer relationships.  
Hamilton compares the traditional approach to contract negotiation with his “RADICAL” approach — I can take or leave mnemonics, but this one isn’t bad — in what they do to help ''scale'' your legal operation: to what degree you can be sure individual client contracts will conform with each other to provide a robust platform across your business, allowing you to concentrate on building and managing your customer relationships.  


Traditionally you go out with an “optimal” position — meaning one that is practically outrageous, however much the concept might make your risk officer’s heart sing — and presume you will have to negotiate away from it. The theory is even, sometimes, to have something you can easily give a customer so it feels like it has won something.  
Traditionally you go out with an “optimal” position — meaning one that is practically outrageous, however much the concept might make your risk officer’s heart sing — and presume you will have to negotiate away from it. The theory is even, sometimes, to have something you can easily give a customer so it feels like it has won something.  
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/59236"