Agree in advance on what good performance looks like
Performance conversations go badly because the standard was never made explicit — the reprimand is the first time it is stated.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Performance conversations go badly because the standard was never made explicit — the reprimand is the first time it is stated.
- Why it works: When the performance standard is ambiguous, every assessment is a surprise and every correction feels like a moving target. Pre-agreed standards remove the ambiguity: both parties can evaluate performance against a shared baseline, which makes feedback informational rather than judgmental. The mechanism is role clarity: clarity about what is expected is one of the most robust predictors of job performance and satisfaction in organizational research.
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Assuming that because you know what good performance looks like, the other person does too — the standard in your head is not the standard in theirs unless it has been spoken and confirmed.
Why it works
When the performance standard is ambiguous, every assessment is a surprise and every correction feels like a moving target. Pre-agreed standards remove the ambiguity: both parties can evaluate performance against a shared baseline, which makes feedback informational rather than judgmental. The mechanism is role clarity: clarity about what is expected is one of the most robust predictors of job performance and satisfaction in organizational research.
How to do it
- 1Before any significant assignment, agree explicitly: "Here is what success looks like for this. Does that match what you understood?"
- 2Put it in writing — not to be legalistic, but because writing forces specificity that verbal agreement often lacks.
- 3Revisit the standard when circumstances change rather than letting unstated new expectations create invisible failures.
- 4When you are about to correct someone, check whether the standard was explicitly established — if not, start there before the correction.
What the evidence says
ObservationalRole clarity — the degree to which people understand what is expected of them — is consistently associated with higher performance and lower role stress in meta-analyses of job characteristics research. Pre-agreed standards are the management practice that produces role clarity.
Honest caveat: Role clarity research is robust at the construct level; the specific practice of pre-written one-minute goals is Blanchard’s implementation. The causal direction (clarity causes performance, vs high performers create more clarity) is not fully separated in observational studies.
- — Jackson & Schuler (1985), A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Common mistake
Assuming that because you know what good performance looks like, the other person does too — the standard in your head is not the standard in theirs unless it has been spoken and confirmed.
IX Coach helps you articulate the implicit standard you are evaluating against and makes it explicit before any performance conversation — so your feedback is about a shared target, not your internal model.
Practice this with IX Coach →