It is often conflict that leads to discovery, creation, and innovation; because conflict challenges us to overcome our conditions and our impediments. But conflict can equally as easily impede our progress and development when all players are playing defensively; either in business, law, technology, or society. Each player is often at risk from every other player for each move made within the environment; the first movers disadvantage of a defensive and non-productive reaction from all other parties.

More specifically; within 6 months of running midventures I have witnessed first-hand the impact of ambiguous investment, over-defensive entrepreneurs, overly litigious clients, factions that stand to disrupt the efficacy of a new venture, the politics of lawyers and capital that cloud a mission statement. Talented people with great ideas are lost in the fray of negotiations, capital, and factionalism.

Part of me wants to play equally defensively by hoarding ideas and assistance around a small team of trustworthy people. When the faction is small enough, factionalism is difficult. But another part of me wants to put it all out in the open and let the networks and crowds sort it out. What if the terms behind contracts were publicly posted to your network of contacts, and your partner’s network of contacts? In other words, when terms are agreed to, both party’s networks are aware of the terms of the deal. And if the deal goes sour, the networks themselves become arbitrators an references in the proceedings.

What if 2 businesses entered into a public contract over linkedin – or a similar business networking website? Contract is the wrong language, it would be more like a microblog of mutually approved and constantly updated terms and conditions; allowing the relationship to evolve organically. And more parties could be invited into the ‘conversation’ than the initial ‘signers’.

FIrst, I would be able to track the history of terms and relationships behind a new vendor, client, employee, or partner. This allows me to more confidently enter ad hoc deals than previous iterations of binary exclusive lawyer consultations. Second, when I enter the terms of a relationship, both my network and the network of the other party can contribute terms and advice to the micro-contract like messages on a facebook wall. Third, more micro-agreements would organically sprout from the initial terms as sub-contractors, revised scope, and advisors are brought to bear.

In one sense, this enables ‘rapid contracting’ in the same sense that development firms engage in ‘rapid prototyping’. One-time initial contracts only work for waterfall method projects planned in advance, a new type of law is required for ad hoc agile prototype development. It also enables ‘rapid resolutions’ by bringing the networks and the crowds to bear on direct business ramifications. You will lose clients, vendors, or business if your online case goes sour.

Additionally, this brings more parties and more attention to bear on creeping scope, on corporate leverage, on outside negotiations, and on back-office strategy. The key is to make small entrepreneurs, investors, contractors, vendors, clients, and service providers comfortable to enter into ad-hoc organic online agreements because they have a mutually shared contact network and a permanent online track record for holding both parties accountable while lending a voice of reason.

The crowd of advisors, expert contacts, lawyers, consultants, and even on-lookers become a voice of reason early on in the micro-contracting process. This enables me at midventures to avoid the typical 2 hours a day I spend drafting, emailing, faxing, signing, and discussing paper contracts- and it also enables me to leverage the crowds in the event that relationships deteriorate. The crowd itself is a counter-leverage in online business; it may be time to develop a platform that turns my professional network into my distributed law firm.