Intro

Perhaps the most fundamental and important step in coaching, counselling and
treatment is the contract, or the act of contracting. Defined by Eric Berne (1966), as an,
“explicit bilateral commitment to a well-defined course of action”, the contract is the
fulcrum of treatment and change, if utilised correctly. However, despite common client
belief, contracting does not exist separately as an introduction to treatment, rather it is the
vital first step in beginning said treatment. Yet, for all the gravity a contract carries, it is also
arguably the most precarious, having serious implications and ramifications in the ongoing
future work between the client and professional should it be carried out ineffectively or
incorrectly. A poorly worded or hastily drawn-up contract can create a situation in which
script-based or game-based behaviour is allowed to continue or, in certain cases, validated,
thereby, in turn, invalidating later work, regardless of supposed good intentions. Indeed, as
stated by Cornell et al. (2016, p.192), poor contracting commonly results in, “a change
process becoming stranded in good intentions and fake change or no change at all.” Thus, as
can be clearly seen, contracting needs to be taken seriously by all parties in order for the
change journey to begin on sound footing.
But how can a good, well-formed and egalitarian contract be formed? Berne
distinguished three different types of contracts – the Procedural, wherein the agreements
on the reasons for intervention, the course of action to be taken, and the cost reside, the
Professional, in which agreements are made to the goals of intervention and, finally, the
Psychological, where any potential obstacles, hidden or overt, and associated road blocks
are openly discussed. Although each of these holds import, the Psychological contract is
perhaps more vital given, as Berne believed, many clients seeking help are perhaps
unknowingly hoping to learn how to play their own games better or seeking to maintain
their script, albeit at a more comfortable level. It is due to this that Julie Hays (2007)
suggests adding two sub-contracts to the Psychological – the Perceptual and Political –
when contracting with organizations. The Perceptual deals with how relationships are
viewed whilst the Political considers the socio-political forces at play, described by Cornell et
al. (2016, p.191) as taking, “account of the way that power is expressed in an organisation.”
The importance of this when dealing with organizations and businesses can be
clearly seen – especially given how contracts within these entities are rarely three-cornered.
Fanita English (1975) posited that contracts with organisations are rarely, as suggested by
Berne, bilateral and instead described them a three-cornered, meaning that there is a
contract between the organization and facilitator as well as the facilitator and client. This
added layer of complexity demands that all three parties must enter in to the same
contract. Julie Hay (1992) takes this one step further and suggests that organizational
contracts are multi-cornered, where Cornell at al. (2016) explain that when, “working in
psychotherapy, counselling, teaching, or organisational work, those standing in the corners
may be explicit participants in the change process”. Indeed, if these hidden participants are
overlooked in the contracting process, it can have detrimental and damaging effects on all
concerned.
 As to how to form a good contract, care must be taken regarding the language used.
According to Stewart and Joines (1987, p.262), an “...important function of a contract is to
make the covert agenda explicit” and therefore a contract must be phrased in positive
words. By avoiding so-called ‘Stop or Not’ contracts, such as ‘I want to be stop being so
reclusive’ and rephrased in the more helpful ‘I will talk a new person every day’, for
example, Stewart and Joines (1987, p. 263) posit that a facilitator can “shift the focus of
attention away from the problem and centre on the goal of change”. To draw up an
effective contract, Steiner (1974), recommended including mutual consent, valid
considerations, competence and, finally, lawful subject. By ensuring both parties agree, a
reasonable form of compensation will be issued, that both the client and facilitator are
competent to perform the agreed upon actions and that the actions for change are legal, a
strong and well-defined contract can be created.
The benefits of a positive and correctly drawn-up contract will be further discussed
here in a case study taken from personal experience. <*begin case study inroduction>*