A contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if you don’t enforce it. The same goes for CBC agreements. Too many leaders stop at the “agreement” step and let execution slide back into the swamp of shifting priorities, fuzzy accountability, and endless Jira tickets. This section is about what makes CBC actually work in practice: sticking to the agreement, not the vibes.

Stick to the Agreement as Written

• Once you and your direct report sign off, the work starts — and only that work.
• No “quick asks” sneaking in from Slack. No scope creep because “leadership changed their mind.”
• If something new comes up, it gets a new agreement or a renegotiation. Nothing piggybacks for free.

Contrast with OKRs/KPIs: OKRs thrive on moving goalposts mid-quarter under the banner of “agility.” CBC says: if the goalpost moves, we both agree to move it — explicitly, on the record.

Own the Commitments

• They own execution. If deliverables aren’t met, that’s on them.
• You own clarity. If the agreement was vague or impossible, that’s on you.
• This dual accountability keeps both sides honest and avoids the usual leader-IC blame game.

Scenario (1-1 with a direct report in a midsize business):
You agree with a senior engineer that they’ll deliver a new API endpoint with full documentation and tests in three weeks. Halfway through, they realize the data team is a dependency. Under CBC, the agreement forces them to raise it immediately because dependencies should have been captured at the start. If it wasn’t, that’s your failure in clarity — not theirs in execution. Both sides know exactly where the fault line lies.

Track Progress, Not Activity

• Progress check-ins should be short and tied to the contract: “Are we still on track with X deliverables by Y date?”
• No stand-up theater, no burndown charts that measure busyness instead of outcomes.
• If the answer is “no,” the next question is: renegotiate or escalate?

Contrast with OKRs/KPIs: KPIs measure motion (tickets closed, velocity points, uptime percentages) and pretend it’s progress. CBC only measures whether the agreed deliverables were produced to spec.

Close the Loop with Discipline

• At the end, you don’t pat people on the back for “trying hard.” You measure against the contract.
• Success = the work is done to spec, on time, as agreed.
• Failure = either mis-execution (their miss) or mis-definition (your miss). Both are data, not excuses.
• Closing the loop creates learning cycles without the spin of retrospectives that become therapy sessions.

Example: Startup Chaos vs. CBC

• Startup Without CBC: A founder tells a developer “We need this feature ASAP.” The developer half-builds it, pivots mid-sprint, and delivers a buggy version. Everyone argues whether the deadline was “real” or “just a stretch goal.”
• Startup With CBC: Founder and developer agree: “Payment integration with Stripe, working in sandbox, demo-ready by next Friday.” Anything outside that scope is either a new agreement or ignored until renegotiated. The result? A usable demo that investors can actually see, not promises buried in Notion.

The CBC Advantage

Execution discipline is rare because most leaders flinch when it’s time to enforce clarity. CBC gives you the backbone: if it’s not in the agreement, it doesn’t exist. That’s how you cut through noise, protect your team’s focus, and actually deliver outcomes instead of excuses.