The Golden Rule of Partnership

uncaptionedOne of my friends will not commit to new social plans without consulting her husband. "Golden rule!" she says. "I have to check to make sure he doesn't object or have other plans already in place." In their relationship, both spouses must sign off on timing, company, and venue—before the date goes into the calendar, and both have the right to veto.

It's a good rule, like most rules that involve a little extra communication and consideration. And it's an excellent rule to adopt in your partnership.


You've got to build in some redundant communication habits because you can't take for granted that you know how your partner is going to feel about a particular question or topic, especially when it concerns money, shared resources or time. Even if you've discussed it before, a small change could trigger a change of heart, unbeknownst to you so you're better off running it by your partner one more time.

You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by checking in: it reinforces that your partner's input matters and it makes good use of open communication lines. It gives both of you a chance to reevaluate, change your minds, or debate the issue before you decide.

The best reason is that once you've secured buy-in, you can commit with confidence.

When does it apply?

The Golden Rule applies to all of the following:

  • Decisions that involve a lot of money
  • Decisions about nervous-making topics
  • Decisions that impact the health of your partnership or your business

Are there exceptions?

Sure. You and your partner can and should talk about situations that don't require consultation.  In other words, you have to consult with each other about not consulting.

Can you give me an example?

Earlier this week, negotiations on a space for the wine store fell apart at the very last minute. Our prospective landlord objected to one of our firm stipulations, the right to sublet the space while we wait for our liquor license, just as we were about to sign the lease. I was caught off guard. And when he offered some new terms, I felt uncomfortable agreeing to them without the benefit of talking to my business partner, even though some of the proposed options seemed workable.

The landlord and I agreed to delay the signing so he could talk to his lawyer while I took the terms back to my camp. Later that day, before I even had a chance to brief my partner, the landlord reneged on our verbal agreement and killed the whole deal. When I called him the following morning to find out why he changed his mind, he cited the fact that I wouldn't commit to his new conditions on the spot. He told me it was my fault the deal didn't happen and suggested that I owed my partner an apology for not acting unilaterally to save the contract.

All I could think was, this guy has never had a partner. Because if he had, he'd know that it's not unreasonable to take the time to let your partner know that major terms have changed before you sign a contract. Especially when those terms impact your company's bank account in a substantial way and you suddenly have a bad feeling in your stomach.

Here's the bottom line: I'd rather let just about any deal fall through than risk alienating my partner. In this case, the stakes were high, and the landlord didn't realize how much he was asking of us. And that's exactly why it was important for me to respect the Golden Rule.

Meantime, my partner was not only appreciative that I didn't go off the deep end on some unilateral power trip, but he also came up with two smart alternatives to offer in the negotiations, if we had a chance to continue. We know now that the deal wasn't meant to happen. I'm glad that I didn't risk my partnership for a person who lacks integrity and a deal that has no future.

I'd love to hear from you about your golden rules in the comments or you tell me via Twitter @furiouslymandy, with the hashtag #committed.


