In most organizations, leaders typically rely on one of two levers to make sure work delivers results: processes or agreements. They may look similar on the surface—both aim to keep work on track—but they operate on entirely different principles. One focuses on the how, the other on the what. And if you care about outcomes over optics, you need to understand the difference.
A process is a predefined, repeatable set of steps designed to move work toward a goal. The logic is straightforward: if the steps are followed, the result will happen. Processes provide consistency, reduce decision fatigue, and scale well when the work is repeatable. But they can also drift into performance theater—activity without impact. When novelty or complexity enters the picture, rigid processes become brittle, slow to adapt, and prone to producing compliance instead of results.
An agreement spells out exactly what will be achieved, the criteria for success, the responsible parties, and the dependencies—up front and in writing.
An agreement, in the Collaborate by Contract (CBC) sense, is something else entirely. It’s a documented, negotiated commitment made before any work begins. It spells out exactly what will be achieved, the criteria for success, the responsible parties, and the dependencies—up front and in writing. Work doesn’t start until everyone has signed off. This forces clarity, aligns stakeholders, and keeps the focus squarely on the finish line rather than the choreography along the way.
The difference comes down to the lever you’re pulling. Processes try to ensure outcomes indirectly by controlling how work is done. Agreements aim to ensure them directly by locking in the outcome before a single step is taken. One measures compliance; the other measures success. One tells people what steps to follow; the other tells them what result they’re accountable for delivering.
Neither is inherently better in all cases. Processes shine when the work is low-variance and the proven steps reliably produce the desired outcome. Agreements are superior when the work is complex, cross-functional, or high-stakes—where the cost of misalignment is high and adaptability matters. The smart leader uses both, but in the right order: set the what and why with agreements, then support the how with processes when specific steps are truly critical.
The lesson is simple: a process without an agreement is motion without proof of progress. An agreement without a process is a promise without a plan. But if you have to choose, choose the agreement. You can always change the steps. You can’t change a missed outcome.
