What "Try" Taught Me About Measurable Agreements

Twenty-five years ago, I entered a three-year transformational mind dynamics program that changed my life.

At its core, the program was about learning how the brain works, how much of our behavior and communication happens unconsciously, and how to wake up the conscious mind so we can become more deliberate in the way we think, speak, listen, and respond to others.

It was also about learning how to communicate in a way that creates more joy, more understanding, more connection, and less unnecessary conflict.

During those three years, I was taught to eliminate five words from my vocabulary:

I have been implementing that training ever since.

For the past 25 years, I have listened for these words in my own communication. When I catch myself using one, I stop and restate what I mean. I have carried this practice into my relationships, my leadership, my work, and the thousands of conversations I have had throughout my career.

Each of the five words taught me something different.

The word try taught me to listen for something much bigger:

Because when someone says:

"I'll try to get it done this week,"

that is not an agreement.

It is information.

And over the past 30 years in business and leadership, I have seen an enormous amount of workplace conflict begin in exactly that space.

• The work was not completed.
• The deadline was missed.
• The leader became frustrated.
• The employee became defensive.
• Someone was blamed.
• Someone was accused of underperforming.

And when you went back to the original conversation, there was often no measurable agreement to begin with.

There was an expectation.

There was an assumption.

There may even have been hope.

There was no actual commitment.

That distinction matters enormously.

If I Am the Leader, Creating Clarity Is My Responsibility

If I ask someone to complete something and they say:

"I'll try to get it done this week,"

and I accept that answer, I have accepted uncertainty.

I do not get to turn that uncertainty into a promise inside my own head and later become angry when the work is not done.

That is on me.

As the leader, it is my responsibility to keep the conversation going.

• Can you commit to Friday?
• What is preventing you from committing to Friday?
• What can you commit to?
• What would have to change for Friday to become realistic?
• What other priorities are competing with this one?

The goal is not to force a yes.

The goal is to get to the truth.

Maybe the answer is no.

Good.

Now we have reality.

Maybe the deadline changes.

Maybe the scope changes.

Maybe another priority moves.

Maybe more resources are needed.

Maybe Friday truly cannot move and a different conversation has to happen.

Now we are working with facts instead of assumptions.

That is leadership.

Measurable Agreements Prevent Conflict Before It Starts

Over the years, I have seen people come into my office angry with one another over what they believed was promised.

The leader believed the employee agreed to a deadline.

The employee believed they only agreed to make an effort.

The leader felt let down.

The employee felt unfairly blamed.

Both people were reacting emotionally to different versions of the same conversation.

That is exactly what measurable agreements are designed to prevent.

A measurable agreement creates shared reality.

It answers basic questions:

• What exactly is being done?
• Who owns it?
• When will it be completed?
• What does completed actually mean?
• Are there barriers, dependencies, or competing priorities?
• When will we communicate if something changes?

The purpose is not bureaucracy.

The purpose is clarity.

There is a tremendous difference between:

"I'll work on it this week."

and:

"I'll send you the completed first draft by noon on Thursday."

There is a difference between effort and outcome.

There is a difference between intention and commitment.

And there is a difference between having a conversation and having an agreement.

Leaders Have a Responsibility to Document Agreements and Keep Them Current

I believe the responsibility for creating and maintaining measurable agreements sits first with the leader.

Leaders set priorities.

Leaders assign work.

Leaders evaluate performance.

Leaders hold more positional power.

That means leaders also carry the responsibility to make expectations clear, document agreements, and keep those agreements current as work changes.

And yet, many leaders do not do this.

They give verbal direction.

They assume everyone heard the same thing.

They change priorities without formally updating expectations.

They ask for new work without revisiting old commitments.

Then, when something is missed, the original agreement is difficult to reconstruct.

That is where confusion, frustration, blame, and power enter the conversation.

And authority does not turn an unspoken expectation into a commitment.

Measurable Agreements Also Protect People From Unfair Uses of Power

This matters because leaders have more power.

A leader can influence someone's compensation, performance review, advancement, assignments, reputation, confidence, and continued employment.

That power comes with responsibility.

Without measurable agreements, power can become the stick.

A leader can say:

• "You failed to deliver."
• "You disappointed me."
• "You are not accountable."
• "You are underperforming."

Yet none of those judgments is fair if there was never a clear agreement in the first place.

The person with less power is now defending themselves against an expectation that may never have been clearly stated or mutually agreed upon.

That is why measurable agreements matter so much to me.

When agreements are clearly stated, documented, and kept current, there is far less room for blame to be assigned incorrectly.

There is far less room for emotion to replace facts.

There is far less room for positional power to rewrite history.

Everyone can return to the same agreement.

• What did we commit to?
• Did circumstances change?
• Was that change communicated?
• Was the agreement updated?
• What actually happened?

Now we are discussing facts.

Not hierarchy.

Not memory.

Not assumptions.

Facts.

When Leaders Do Not Create Measurable Agreements, Manage Up

The leader should be doing this.

Many do not.

So what do you do when your manager does not create measurable agreements?

You manage up.

Instead of saying:

"I'll try to get that done this week,"

create clarity.

Say:

"I can commit to having the first draft to you by Thursday at noon."

Or:

"I can complete this by Friday. I also have two other priorities due this week. Can we agree on which one comes first?"

Then document it.

Send a simple email or message:

"Just confirming our agreement: I will complete the first draft by Thursday at noon. If the client escalation changes that timeline, I'll let you know immediately so we can update the agreement."

Now there is shared clarity.

Not because you are being defensive.

Not because you are building a case against your boss.

Because you are creating a better way to work.

A Measurable Agreement Has to Be Managed

Creating an agreement once is not enough.

Work changes.

Priorities shift.

New information appears.

Client needs change.

Resources disappear.

Emergencies happen.

A deadline that was realistic on Monday may no longer be realistic on Wednesday.

That does not automatically mean someone failed.

It means the agreement needs to be updated.

This is one of the most important things about measurable agreements:

If something changes, update the agreement.

Do not wait until the deadline passes.

Do not assume the other person remembers the context.

Say:

"The original agreement was Friday. The client issue took priority Tuesday and Wednesday. I can now commit to Monday. Are we aligned on that change?"

Then document it.

Now both people are working from the same reality.

That is accountability.

Accountability is not pretending nothing changes.

Accountability is making sure the agreement changes when reality changes.

The problem is not always a missed deadline.

Sometimes the real problem is that circumstances changed and nobody updated the agreement.

Managing Up Is a Communication Skill

Managing up is often misunderstood.

It is not manipulation.

It is not politics.

It is not telling your boss what they want to hear.

At its best, managing up means creating enough clarity that both people know what is expected, what has been agreed to, what has changed, and what happens next.

That protects the work.

It protects the relationship.

It protects trust.

And yes, it also protects the person with less positional power from being blamed for an expectation that was never clearly agreed upon.

The leader should be doing this.

When they are not, you still have agency.

You can ask:

• "What exactly are we agreeing to?"
• "What is the deadline?"
• "What does complete mean?"
• "What priority should move if this becomes urgent?"
• "When should we revisit this if something changes?"

Then write it down.

Share it.

Keep it current.

Because a measurable agreement that is never documented is easier to remember differently.

And a measurable agreement that is never updated eventually stops being a useful agreement at all.

"Try" Is One of the Signals That More Conversation Is Needed

This is why the word try has stayed with me for 25 years.

When I hear:

"I'll try to get it done this week,"

I do not hear failure.

I do not hear laziness.

I do not hear a lack of accountability.

I hear a signal.

There is more to discuss.

That signal works in both directions.

If you are the leader, keep talking until there is a measurable agreement.

If you are the person being asked to deliver, do not leave yourself inside a vague commitment either.

Create clarity.

Make the agreement measurable.

Document it.

And when reality changes, update it.

That one practice can prevent enormous amounts of unnecessary conflict.

It can reduce unfair blame.

It can limit the ability of power to rewrite what was actually agreed upon.

And it can create a much healthier way for people to work together.

Before You Blame, Go Back to the Agreement

The next time someone does not deliver what you expected, pause.

Especially if you are the leader.

Go back to the beginning.

What was actually agreed to?

Not what you hoped for.

Not what you assumed.

Not what you privately expected.

What was actually agreed to?

• Was it measurable?
• Was it documented?
• Was it kept current?
• Did circumstances change?
• Was that change communicated?

If there was never a measurable agreement, start there.

That is one of the greatest lessons I carried forward from my transformational mind dynamics training.

The classes taught me to listen differently.

The last 25 years have given me endless opportunities to apply it.

And the word try continues to remind me of something simple and powerful:

There may be more conversation needed before there is actually an agreement.

Clarity reduces conflict.

Measurable agreements create fairness.

And when everyone knows exactly what was agreed to, there is far less room for blame, misunderstanding, or power to distort the truth.

I have come to believe the same thing is true at the level of an entire workforce. When nobody has documented who owns what, where the time is actually going, and what changed since the last conversation, leaders end up managing assumptions instead of facts. That is the same failure I hear inside the word try, only larger, and it is why turning workforce visibility into decisions starts with getting the real picture on the table before anyone is held accountable to it.

---

This is the second in a series about the five words I was taught to remove from my vocabulary 25 years ago, and what they have taught me about communication, leadership, accountability, empathy, and human connection.