by Robert
Have you, at some point, felt the sting of unmet expectations? We all have and have been on both ends: the disappointed or the one having disappointed. Disappointment about unmet expectations can be due to our own performance not aligning with what was anticipated such as the execution of routine tasks. Say one or more inadvertently slipped your attention. So you let yourself or another party down even though you knew what was expected.
However, more often than not, the root of disappointment lies in a fundamental misalignment of expectations—a common predicament in the sender-receiver dynamic, especially prevalent when tasks are assigned by one person and accepted by another. For example, imagine you’re the lead author on a paper. You might send an email to all co-authors, stating your expectation to receive their feedback on a manuscript by week’s end to meet an impending submission deadline. The expectation on your side is that each co-author has to meticulously review their respective sections for content accuracy, offer comments on others’ contributions or on the manuscript’s style and substance, diligently hunt for spelling errors and typos, etc.. Moreover, it’s implied from your perspective that by responding, each co-author has thoroughly read and concurred with the entire manuscript. This seems straightforward, doesn’t it? Not necessarily.
It’s equally plausible for a co-author to perceive that certain expectations are the responsibility of the first author. A co-author might consider their role limited to reviewing and approving their own section, considering the rest outside their domain. The result? We end up with a manuscript that’s less than it could have been, missing the rich insights and careful eyes of our co-authors.
My former boss encapsulated this issue succinctly, albeit reflectively: “Looks like I once again failed to wish precisely enough!”
The crux of the problem, as illustrated above and in any task delegation scenario, is a lack of clarity about our specific expectations and the presumption that others align with whatever vague vision we have of the task. A mismatch between what you expect and what others understand you expect is common and the root cause of a lot of frustration and assumptions about other people’s intentions. We all have our own perspectives, and it’s rare for two people to see things in exactly the same way. Our objective should be to bridge this gap, aiming to be on the same page, if not on the same line even if we cannot synchronize our understanding down to the very word.
How do you achieve this alignment? Several straightforward tools can assist.
The cornerstone of project success: The Project Charter
Many project-related challenges are due to the vagueness of project plans. While they often encapsulate obvious elements like overall project objectives (e.g. submit manuscript A) milestones (complete figures, draft introduction, results, methods, discussion, etc), budget, and timelines, they leave substantial room for interpretation. What marks the actual achievement of a milestone? Is the figure draft complete when the first author drafted them or when key contributors provided feedback and the feedback was incorporated? Is documenting SOPs for novel methods to reference in the manuscript part of the project scope or is it a separate project? Such ambiguities can lead to inconsistent approaches. That’s why it’s so important at the start of any project to get as much down in writing as possible. Before leading any project, I meticulously clarify what falls “in scope” and what is “out of scope” and identify both the minimum objectives and the desirable outcomes. Furthermore, I continually refine the definitions of when a milestone is truly achieved, aligning them with the project sponsor (usually the team leader footing the bill for team salaries and research but it may occasionally be the funding agency directly). This leads us to the next universally applicable principle.
Clarify task completion before commencement
We need to clear up any confusion about what a completed task looks like before we even begin. The concept of Acceptance Criteria, a topic we’ve often discussed in our posts and LeadershipLabs, proves beneficial here.
Consider this personal example: When are my daughter’s homework assignments considered complete?
In her eyes, jotting down anything vaguely related to the tasks suffices. My wife and I might have a slightly different view. Consequently, we’ve established the following Acceptance Criteria with our daughter:
– All tasks are completed according to all specified requirements.
– It is correct (if this can be evaluated in a binary fashion like math homework for example).
– Spelling and grammar are accurate, and the expression is apt for her age.
– The handwriting is legible. (This is the aspect where we exhibit the most leniency to ensure timely completion.)
With these clear guidelines, our daughter can far more effectively meet the expectations than without such explicit directives. This principle is readily transferable to work, fostering mutual understanding and easing tensions. With that, I am precisely aware of the project sponsor’s expectations, and they, in turn, are assured of the quality of my delivery. We just need to take the time to spell out our thoughts and expectations clearly.
For routine tasks, it’s beneficial to document these criteria in checklists within an SOP once. For one-off tasks, a brief project charter outlining these criteria can save a lot of headaches. But remember, you don’t want this to become a huge task in itself. It should be about making life easier, not adding another layer of complexity.
In the end, this approach saves you and your team members time and frustration. You don’t end up doing more than is expected, and you don’t disappoint by delivering something that wasn’t what was needed. And you avoid the delays that come with having to redo work. But this only works if everyone involved makes a point of one crucial action: Communication.
Active engagement for reciprocal understanding
Delegating a task should invariably involve a negotiation of its contents. Whether you’re giving the task or receiving it, it’s essential to ensure that both parties share a congruent understanding of the task. Perfect alignment is a lofty ideal, but you can get close enough to ensure everyone’s happy with the end result. I accomplish this by actively inquiring into the other’s understanding and making sure it lines up with my own. Conversely, I transparently communicate my perception and solicit the other party’s concurrence.
By sticking to these simple rules, you can avoid many misunderstandings and prevent unforeseen deviations in task execution.
Moreover, I constantly remind myself that my way of seeing things might not be the same as someone else’s, no matter if we talk about tasks, projects or in general. However, precision in articulation, and an explanation of the reasoning aids in cultivating a more profound comprehension of my perspective in others.
If you’re keen to explore more about SOPs, effective process management, adept project management, or stress-free performance management, we have two remaining slots in our Research Management Mastery course. It’s an application-only program that packs in lots of management systems to help make research life successful and more relaxed. Feel free to schedule a non-binding strategy session with us.
And just a thought to wrap things up: When do you consider an experiment truly done? Is it after the work itself, the cleanup, the imaging, the data analysis, after creating the publication-ready figure, or once the results have been woven into the publication?
Answering this question as a team will establish acceptance criteria and serve as a first step for you to get on the same page.
– Robert