What Makes a Working Agreement Effective

Before diving into the process, understand what separates effective agreements from performative ones.

Specific and Observable

Vague agreements fail because they mean different things to different people. "Be respectful" sounds nice, but what does it actually require? Does it mean no interrupting? Does it mean responding to messages within a certain timeframe? Does it mean raising concerns privately rather than publicly?

Effective agreements describe observable behaviors. You can tell whether someone followed the agreement by watching them work.

• Vague: "Communicate effectively"
• Specific: "Post decisions in the team channel within 24 hours of making them"
• Vague: "Show up prepared"
• Specific: "Read pre-read materials before meetings or decline the invitation"
• Vague: "Be responsive"
• Specific: "Respond to Slack messages tagged 'urgent' within 2 hours during your declared work hours"

The test: can someone violate this agreement without realizing it? If yes, it's not specific enough.

Addresses Real Friction

Aspirational agreements ("we will be a high-performing team") don't change behavior because they don't target actual problems. Effective agreements emerge from honest conversation about what's actually slowing the team down right now.

This means the facilitation process needs to surface real frustrations, not imagined ideal states. The question isn't "what values do we want to embody?" It's "what specific behavior change would make our work smoother?"

Enforceable Without Requiring Heroism

Reliability shouldn't require bravery. If enforcing an agreement feels like an act of courage or requires a "difficult conversation," the agreement is broken. Nobody wants to be scared if they say "hey, you violated our working agreement about meeting punctuality" to their manager. It should feel normal... which would be a sign of high levels of psychological safety.

Effective agreements include explicit enforcement protocols that make violations addressable rather than awkward. The team decides upfront: when someone violates an agreement, what happens? Who says something? How do they say it?

This isn't about punishment. It's about creating permission to notice violations and a shared language to address them without making it personal.

Visible and Accessible

If the agreements are hidden in a Drive folder, they don't exist. Memory is a terrible mechanism; visual cues are better.

• Digital: Pin them in your primary Slack/Teams channel with a title like "How We Work."
• Physical: Print them large on the wall.

The Mechanism: When a violation happens, you want to be able to point to the wall, not the person. Pointing to a document is neutral; pointing to a person is accusatory.

Connected to Work, Not Personality

"Don't be a jerk" isn't a working agreement. It's a character judgment. Effective agreements focus on work behaviors and processes, not personality traits or interpersonal dynamics.

This distinction matters because behavioral agreements can be followed by everyone regardless of personality.

• Personality-based: "Be enthusiastic in meetings"
• Behavior-based: "Share your perspective when you disagree with a proposal"