5: Why Explicit Contracts May Work Better Than Your Current Approach to Relationship Issues
Everybody has their own approach, good or bad, to engaging their partner and seeking to solve a relationship issue they have with them. And some individuals, as well as couples, are far more skilled at doing so than others, even if they lack a formal technique for doing so. Can it be shown, however, that even where healthy and highly successful solution-oriented couples are concerned, Explicit Contracts are nonetheless a more effective problem-solving tool than such partners’ current approach?
Let’s have a look see, shall we?
First, let’s consider how effective not using an Explicit Contract might be, even in healthy partnerships;
According to John Gottman, world-renowned marriage and couples researcher, the majority of relationship problems never get resolved. Over many decades of studying couples, he found that sixty-nine percent of problems are “perpetual” and are unsolvable due to personality differences! (thriveglobal.com)
Sixty nine percent?? Such a study- even if we allow for a considerable margin of error- provides compelling evidence that most couples never solve truly solve the majority of their problems, and both partners’ differences in character are the cause.
Yet don’t we see this play out every day? Couples fighting for years about issues you’d assume they would’ve solved years ago, as well as fighting in a manner that reflects two vastly different ways of approaching such issues?
Let’s suppose for the moment that Gottman’s (we’ll say it again; decades-long) research at least confirms what many of us have experienced repeatedly in our family of origin or in our own relationship experience. If we were to attempt to solve a relationship problem in a typical manner, what might such a an attempt look like? How is the subject broached? How is a solution agreed upon? What are its rules and guidelines, and what is often the outcome?
Let’s take a veritable classic, that cause for divorce Hall of Famer; taking out the trash. Who’s job is it, who notices it needs to be taken out, and who always ends up doing it? The endless creation of kitchen trash is a constant in any home which requires constant maintenance, sometimes twice a day. So who should do it, and when? And why is determining this always such a headache?
A typical approach to a solution might resemble the following;
Like many conversations regarding partner responsibilities, the initial one regarding the trash is likely prompted by one partner feeling it’s not being done in accordance with what they thought was a prior mutual understanding or agreement. Thus, there’s likely going to be some trace of annoyance. And exacerbating this feeling is the likely irritation at being put into the position of having to be the one to mention it. Such a feeling, entirely justified, will likely impair their ability to communicate their intended message optimally.
This annoyance will, in all likelihood, be discerned by the other partner, which in turn will make them defensive, thus further negatively impeding communication that would lead to an effective solution.
And should a solution indeed be proposed (provided it’s not in the form of a demand or ultimatum), the frustrated party’s partner might not fully hear, fully understood, or fully endorse it; other issues might come up, and unmet expectations in other areas might be voiced by both. Subsequently, optimal communication breaks down and the only evidence that suggests that the conversation was productive is that the trash is in fact taken out in the days that follow.
Problem solved, right?
Not so fast. Because over a certain period of time, be it days, or perhaps weeks, what do we find? The same problem returns; the trash, again, is not being taken out as agreed.
What the heck happened? A complaint was expressed (poorly), a solution was proposed (ineptly), and the trash- at least for a while- got taken out (grudgingly).
When again confronted- this time amid considerably greater irritation- the list of possible explanations for the breakdown could be quite long and varied;
they just forgot,
they’ve been really busy or distracted lately,
they claim some event or circumstance impeded their doing it,
they don’t recall there being such an agreement,
they don’t recall some particular aspect of the agreement,
they didn’t realize “what a big deal” the issue was,
they claim that if it’s so important their partner could’ve simply asked or reminded them,
they claim that if it’s so important their partner could’ve simply taken it out themselves,
they admit that yes, they stopped doing it (in which case they may or may not apologize, and may or may not be willing to discuss the issue further).
All valid reasons (where they’re concerned), none of them accounted for when they made the agreement, and therefore no reason to suppose it won’t happen yet again.
..Sound at all familiar? What happened?
It would appear that, in keeping with Gottman’s findings, the problem was assumed or implicitly thought to be resolved, but wasn’t explicitly done, and therefore truly resolved. So what will likely follow? At this point, probably an argument (or at least a still more tense, conversation, now during a moment of greater frustration, revealing a greater resentment). The same solution will yet again be proposed (or insisted upon), and the person who sought to have the problem fixed again supposes the issue is solved when they yet again observe the trash being regularly removed. But yet again, over time, days, weeks, the issue returns yet again, and for reasons just like the last time.
This is what the cycle of an unresolved issue looks like in a relationship even where what was perceived to be established was a very clear agreement.
..Surely this method can be improved upon, yes?
----
The following will hopefully illustrate why it is Explicit Contracts make much more practical sense than even the very best “approach” between partners in solving a relationship problem;
1) When you and your partner make an Explicit Contract, such a Contract is MUTUALLY created, MUTUALLY endorsed, and the terms are specifically articulated. If thoroughly created, such a Contract isn’t prone or susceptible to the various deflections, distractions, tangents, miscommunication and poor listening of any typically tense conversation, nor is it made amid the chaos and confusion of an argument or fight. Depending on how clearly you and your partner devise an Explicit Contract, that’s how clear any subsequent discussions regarding the Contract will be.
2) Given that both partners are the architects of an Explicit Contract, there is a virtually no excuse for misunderstanding- or pretending to misunderstand- what the precise terms of the agreed-upon approach to the relationship issue were.
3) You’ll recall that John Gottman attributed his high rate of unresolved relationship issues to personality differences. With an Explicit Contract, no one partner’s personality determines the manner in which the relationship issue will be handled. The Explicit Contract, mutually-forged and functioning quite literally as an objective third-party, prevents personality styles from jeopardizing the solution process.
4) When an Explicit Contract fails (as they certainly may, just like any approach), both partners can better determine why it failed given the specificity of the contract, the agreed upon terms of the contract, and because both partners did endorse it completely. So typically lost details like how the agreement broke down and why it broke down can be determined much more quickly and more precisely than if it was merely an informal, somewhat vaguely-constructed, conventional approach.
5) (Access to your partner’s WHY.) Because the Explicit Contract always represents a specific area in a relationship where both parties have stated they’re willing to be accountable as well as be held personally accountable by their partner, both parties have acknowledged that they are expected, required, and GENUINELY WILLING to be TRANSPARENT about any and all of their actions related to the specific contract, so their partner is absolutely free (as well as invited) to ask highly specific questions as to why it failed, what was going on in their partner’s mind regarding its failure, and their partner is obliged to answer. (One isn’t likely to get this level of access to their partner’s thoughts, motives and reasoning in a conventional agreement.)
6) (Specificity that can be continually improved upon.) Let’s suppose that such an Explicit Contract failed not because of a failure in accountability, but due to a simple, genuine misunderstanding. Both parties are free- if they both so choose- to revise the Contract to better and more precisely fit and attend to the problem, thus achieving greater and greater insight into the formerly concealed issues that are informing, impacting, and impeding the success of the Contract. With a revised Contract, more awareness and more specificity can be brought to the attempted solution. (Something you’re almost assured not to get in a conventional approach.)
7) (Value in success or failure.) Eventually, one of two outcomes will occur; either the issue will be solved and you and your partner will have an even stronger alliance as well as be more empowered to solve future issues, or you will get an accurate assessment of the exact nature of your partner’s accountability with regard to that specific issue, the relationship, and you.