Agreements

Agreements are what keep a role from feeling controlling. A responsibility says "you do this." An agreement says "here are the boundaries around doing it." Without them, taking on a responsibility can feel risky from both sides: one person worries about overstepping, the other worries about being managed.

Agreements make the boundaries explicit so neither person has to guess.

Two kinds of agreements

Agreements serve two different functions. Both are useful, and a role can have both kinds.

1. Granting exclusive authority

This kind of agreement says: you have sole decision-making power over this domain.

"The Car Lead has exclusive authority over all vehicle-related decisions, including maintenance, repairs, and insurance."

This makes it crystal clear. This person owns this entirely. The other person doesn't need to weigh in.

2. Denying exclusive authority

This kind of agreement says: you do NOT have sole decision-making power over this specific thing.

"The Car Lead manages vehicle maintenance and repairs, but insurance changes require joint agreement."

This carves out an exception. The role owns most of the domain, but one specific piece stays shared. Both partners have a say.

Either pattern is valid. What matters is that the boundary is explicit — not left to guesswork.

What a good agreement looks like

A good agreement is:

• Specific. It names the exact boundary.

• Clear. Both people know when it applies.

• Memorable. You can reference it later without looking it up.

Concrete thresholds help:

"Discuss any home repair costing over €100 before committing shared money."

No ambiguity. Under €100? Go ahead. Over? Talk first.

"Wellbeing conversations are invitations to share, not demands for disclosure or immediate solutions."

Addresses two common pressure points: feeling forced to open up, and feeling pushed toward fixes when you just want to be heard.

"Each person's need for rest takes priority over optional shared plans and does not require justification."

Gives permission. Removes guilt. This kind of agreement — where one person doesn't need to explain or justify — is often the most valuable.

What a weak agreement looks like

"Both people should communicate openly."

This isn't wrong, but it's vague. What specific behaviour does it prevent? When would you reference it? A good agreement should feel like something you can actually use.

"The role should respect the other person's feelings."

Too vague to be useful. Respect means different things to different people.

Using thresholds

Money thresholds work well because they remove ambiguity:

• €50 → mention it before it's a surprise

• €100 → discuss before spending shared money

• €200 → requires joint agreement

Time thresholds can work too:

• "Agree before committing more than 2 hours of shared time"

• "Anything requiring more than one weekend day needs a conversation"

The numbers need to be realistic for your life. Too high and they're meaningless. Too low and they create friction over every small thing.

Things to avoid

• Corporate language. These are agreements between partners, not company policies.

• Repeating the responsibility. The agreement is about boundaries, not about restating what the role does.

• Generic statements that apply to every role. If it could go on any role, it's probably not specific enough.

• Forgetting both directions. You can grant authority over something, or you can explicitly deny it. Both are useful tools.