Why Most SLA’s Suck

By Chip R. Bell and John R. Patterson

Truck drivers know a gas gauge is completely indifferent! A full tank of fuel does not make the gas gauge any happier than a bone dry tank. And, when the fuel level drops below “E,” the uncaring gas gauge registers absolutely no anxiety. Gauges are even known to be coldly unsympathetic when the fuel-deprived engine they monitor eventually sputters and stops.

Service Level Agreements ( SLA’s) are just as indifferent! They are lifeless measures that show zero compassion for the quality of service nor the authenticity of the agreement. Worse, they can seduce their users into thinking they have a partnership when in fact they have a sneaky tool to play “gotchya!’ Most SLA’s end up in a notebook reviewed annually or occasionally surfaced in anger when an aggrieved partner seeks to prevail in an argument.

No truck driver would attempt a cross country journey without a means to measure the level of fuel under the hood. Likewise no partnership can be successful without a meeting of the minds on expectations of all partners, assurances of understanding, and a means to both measure progress and ascertain accountability. So, what’s wrong with Service Level Agreements? In a phrase--they are typically too much about “Level” and not enough about “Relationship.”

Making the concept of “level” (a.k.a. measurement) the centerpiece of SLA’s, prompts parties in the agreement to put their energy into the arithmetic of collaboration. Accountability is a vital part of healthy relationships. But, counting is less about calculating the math and more about connecting around what really counts. Partnerships, like athletic events, are successful because of how they are played, not how they are tallied. If level is simply a sub-set of performance, it helps shift the focus from how we will measure to how we will work together.

The Rx for Great Partnerships

Partnerships are first and foremost power-free relationships. In the best cases, they represent a “marriage of equals” with each partner applying unique talents to the pursuit of a common vision – and all assuming accountability for results. Masters of partnerships warn that the seeds are sown for breakdown in the early stages of a relationship. Looking back after the demise of a promising partnership, one senior executive lamented, “We were so eager to put in ‘countability’ we failed to talk enough about ‘responsibility.”” He described meetings to agree over metrics without effort spent agreeing on practices.

Children at play are an inspiration to partnerships! They not only show us what we used to be, they tell us what we naturally are if one could scrape away the faulty side of corporate socialization. Children at play effectively organize without an org chart or a pecking order. They work with discipline and efficiency devoid of a strategic plan. They are quick to trust, assume innocence, and generally resolve differences without a quarrel. They instinctively share without giving a second thought to possession or promotion. And they collaborate with no concern for credit.

What children at play teach us is this: partnerships succeed or fail because of three critical components: communication, discipline, and trust. Without a frank discussion leading to clear agreements around these three areas, partnerships start out on a shaky foundation. Without identification of the means for clear accountability around these three areas, partnerships risk ending in discord.

Too often organizations focus on an initiative to develop SLAs when the real purpose of their efforts is to create internal service metrics as a “cure all” for accountability issues around internal service disappointments that impact their customers. These misguided initiatives typically end up creating documents which contain one sided metrics not developed in collaboration with the other involved parties. This type of document deals with service but is hardly an agreement and there is nothing “level” about it! What then should dominate the discussion about partnership? Below are ten key discussion points drawn from the communication-discipline-trust architecture of partnerships.

Communication: Interface with Reliability

Every survey on relationships—whether friendships, parenting, or marriages—report the number one cause of their demise is faulty communication. Communication is the tool to clarify expectations, provide early warning on brewing discord, and unravel misunderstandings. Communication is the relationship instrument for understanding and growth. Without effective communication, partnerships can deteriorate into suspicion, confusion and miscues.

1. Make a Commitment to Candor

Partnerships start with a pledge to promote honest exchange. Taking candor for granted can be a mistake. When partners speak a vow of frankness, openness and truthfulness, they establish a standard of clean dealings. It can be as uncomplicated as offering examples of the level of honesty expected. “George, if I am not giving you my undivided attention, I am counting on you to immediately bring it to my attention.” “Sue, if my gut tells me something is not right, I make this promise to you: I will put it on the table then and there.” Partnerships require frankness.

2. Decide on How to Connect

Candor only happens when there is an environment for communicating honesty. Great partnerships decide on how they will communicate, how often they will communicate, and by what means they will communicate. Ambiguity and hope lead to disappointment and disharmony. Great partners calendar check-in dates and times. They allocate enough time to review plans, promises and progress. Then they add 25% for the unexpected. It is better to allot more time and conclude early than the reverse. They never, ever take communication for granted but instead assume it will welt and die if not constantly cared for.

3. Agree on Communication Cues

Great communication relies on feedback. Successful interpersonal relationships identify effective ways to provide each other with signals and early warnings—cues that alert a partner of impending dissonance. It means an upfront discussion of the form that cues will take and how they can be communicated in a fashion most easily heard and valued. A colleague with a drinking problem might resist “you are drinking too much,” but hear and heed a warning of “you need to rest.”

Discipline: Order without Supremacy

We work in settings laced with competitiveness. We use combative, athletic language as if all of work was a contest. It means we are often ill-prepared to function well in work relationships that are completely free of power. As achievers most of us are quick to dominate when listening might be more effective. It means partnerships must stay on the alert for subtle signs of derisive power.

When choosing sides for playground athletics, we used various rituals to ensure parity. The "play fair" side of effective partnerships includes a focus on equality--not the type that necessarily requires actual 50-50, but rather one that causes each party to assess joint dealings as balanced—the affected parties label the outcomes as "fair."

4. Outline Relevant Rules for Engagement

Productive meetings start with an agenda and effective training sessions open with learning objectives. Such examples point to the power of having guidelines to help govern how parties will work together. The discipline of partnership is bolstered by working out in advance the norms to manage the operation of the union. These need not be strict laws that bind and limit, but rather understandings that help govern and guide effectiveness. One partnership agreed on four rules for how they would work together: Leave politics for some other relationship, always be kind, help each other have fun, and never forget that being effective trumps being right! Whatever the rules, they must be explored and approved early.

5. Get Clear on Appropriate Roles

A true partnership is fundamentally a power-free relationship. This means that accountability for results must be shared. Leaders in such relationships must relinquish their proclivity to assume an “I’ll carry the burden” role. Everyone in the partnership must be responsible both for results as well as the quality of cooperation. Shared accountability only works if role definition and delineation is crystal clear. It begins with consensus on exactly what roles are necessary for success as well agreement on who will be accountable for each role.

6. Clarify the Power Rights of Each Partner

One of the most likely culprits for derailed partnerships is misunderstanding on who has the right to make certain decisions. Closely related to the role discussion referenced above is the identification of decision rights in the relationship. A couple reaches agreement on when joint decisions (consensus) is appropriate, who is in charge of the house maintenance, and who makes decisions on which contractor to hire. In the same way, work partnerships must clarify decision rights. While a true partnership has joint accountability for the expected outcome, the partnership will never function if decisions are not made or made ineffectively due to confusion or uncertainty about who should make the call.

Trust: Reliability through Certainty

Effective partnerships are grounded in trust. Partners don't spend energy "looking over their shoulder," but instead rely on a relationship which leaves partners feeling confident. Trust is the quality associated with reliability, assurance and faith. Partners who count on each other waste no time or energy feeling insecure about the likelihood that a promise made or implied will become a promise broken or ignored. Trust requires interpersonal risk taking which requires unguarded behaviors. It suggests the willingness to hear forthrightness in order to learn; to invite truthfulness to improve practice.

7. Make Only Promises You Intend to Keep

The word promise is defined as “assurance, guarantee or commitment.” Nothing disrupts trust more than unfulfilled commitments. The opposite of trust is anxiety, the predator of partnership energy. Trust begins when someone makes or implies a commitment. The trust gap is t hat space between expectation and outcome, between uncertainty and resolution. Once a commitment is made, we are sort of in limbo until the commitment is fulfilled. If we trust the promise-maker, we are unconcerned. However, if something (or someone) causes that trust to be threatened, we are left anxious. Consider the emotional energy expended by the child waiting after school on his mom to show up if she always arrives on time versus if she is too often late. The landscape of ineffective and failed partnerships is littered with unfulfilled promises.

8. Agree on the Provisions Each Will Provide

Partnerships depend on provisions—talents, skills, tools, networks, and resources. Many a party and partnerships has been derailed by the empty handed partner who was supposed to “bring the beer.” It means partnerships have upfront conversations about the “what” each partner in the relationships can bring and will bring. Discussions of partnership “provisions” not only is a useful checklist on what is available, who is providing what, but a great quality control on what is missing that needs to be sought outside the partnership.

9. Reaffirm the Key Principles for Grounding

Most organizations today enjoy trumpeting their core values. It is no secret shared values are vital to relationships being able to zig and zag in a similar fashion. The principles we live by guide us in how we make decisions when there is not direction. Partnerships are no different. Great partnerships are grounded in principles such as: assert the truth, account fairly, honor your partner, stay on purpose, expect the best, and assume innocence.

10. Craft Means to Measure Contribution

Now, we come to measurement. It is not accidental that we make it our tenth principle, not the first. Partnership yardsticks need to be a part of service level agreements. They provide an important means for accountability. They lend both objectivity and a focus on desired outcomes. There are two types of measurements vital to good partnership health; customer outcomes and partner commitments. The measurements of key customer outcomes guide the partnership toward achieving its ultimate goal of meeting and/or exceeding customer expectations. The measures of each partner’s success in meeting their commitments provide visibility for fulfilling critical partner obligations.

Putting the Right “Level” Back in The Agreement

Managing service Level Agreements includes the selection of the right tools. Just like the one in an automobile, an effective dashboard is comprised of a variety of types of metrics. We use “pounds per square inch” and tread depth to determine if a tire is in working order; weight and quarts to measure the right viscosity and quantity of oil. To say we have fifteen gallons of air in the auto tires would be interesting, but pointless. Measurement selection starts with a critical identification of the key success factors of the partnership.

Gathering data to transform into partnership metrics can be laborious. It is important to be selective and only make data as precise as is needed to achieve the purpose. Calibrating each dial to cover every conceivable contingency not only creates data overload, it leads to “working the math and missing the point.” Keep in mind that metrics are tools—a working language that paints a picture or tells a story. It is the picture or story that becomes a call to action, not the math.

Chip R. Bell and John R. Patterson are customer loyalty consultants. Their newest book is Take Their Breath Away: How Imaginative Service Creates Devoted Customers (NY: Wiley, May, 2009). They can be reached through http://www.taketheirbreathaway.com/.