In Words We Trust

It has become quite popular these days, it seems, to execute a pre-nuptial agreement (pre-nup) before you get married.  Especially if you have “stuff” that you are worried you might have to share someday in a nasty divorce.  Fair enough.  I understand that protecting your assets and doing some form of relationship risk management could be considered prudent.

But imagine two buddies who decide to buy some lottery tickets.  They are only investing a few bucks each.  And they start to talk about what might happen if they win.   Turns out they disagree about a few issues, the biggest one being whether they should take a lump sum when they win versus taking installments over 20 years.  They argue about it more and more, and end up becoming so entrenched in their positions that they stop speaking to each other.   And as they fight over something that hasn’t even happened yet, and has a 1 in 150 million chance of occurring, they ruin a perfectly good friendship.

I’ve been spending a fair amount of time over the last few weeks negotiating software contracts.  There are always clauses in them about liability and indemnification.  Basically, the words that describe who is accountable for really bad things that have a remote chance of happening.  I see the value of having that language in contracts since they are legally binding documents and the only things that would hold up in court, not unlike pre-nups.

But here’s my point.  Words don’t replace trust.    When you reach a point in a relationship where arguing about remote eventualities completely overshadows why you:

• started a relationship in the first place
• fell in love
• or became good friends

then you have replaced trust, a frail but very human construct, with “legally binding clauses.”  As a leader, make sure you can tell the difference between the two…

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized