Team agreements
Commitments a team makes about how it communicates, disagrees, and repairs.
The six agreements
Disagreement is expected – the goal is synthesis through examination. When there's conflict, we search for why each position makes sense and what alternative perspectives are available.
When someone has a problem with another person or another team, we help them raise it themselves rather than raising it for them. This treats people as capable of handling their own relationships, and keeps the conversation with the people it belongs to.
Alignment means understanding why we differ, not eliminating the difference.
We name our limits directly and do not interpret them as weakness or lack of commitment.
Before attributing intent, we generate non-pejorative, phenomenologically empathic explanations that are:
- grounded in observable data
- consistent with the individual's context
- free of unnecessary judgment
We will all break these agreements. When we do, we name it directly and address it without avoidance. The goal is to return to effective behavior quickly and continue the work.
How to adopt them
Why it's helpful
Disagreement, limits, and error happen on every team. Agreed in advance, they get named early instead of managed privately.
Structure holds when individual capacity doesn't.
Adapted from the consultation team agreements in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (Linehan, 1993).