The Difference Between Expectations and Agreements at Work

Why The Difference Between Expectations and Agreements at Work Matters
At work, clarity is often the difference between high and low performance. We know from organizational alignment research that strategic clarity accounts for 31% of the difference between high and low performing companies in terms of revenue growth, profitability, customer loyalty, leadership effectiveness, and employee engagement. While many organizations invest in new manager training and leadership development, too few pause to understand an area that derails too many teams: the difference between expectations and agreements at work.

We know from action learning leadership development programs that unclear goals and accountabilities lead to misalignment, dysfunction, and underperformance. Understanding and deliberately managing both expectations and agreements, however, can greatly improve accountability, trust, and strategy execution.

Expectations at Work: Unspoken Assumptions
We define expectations at work as the unspoken assumptions and beliefs about how something should happen. Work expectations are typically formed based on a combination of past experiences, personal preferences, leadership behaviors, business practices, team norms, and organizational culture. For example, a new manager might expect a task to be completed by the end of the day at a certain level of quality without ever explicitly stating it. The employee, unaware of the unspoken deadline and quality parameters, might plan to deliver a different scope next week. The result? A breakdown in trust, despite both parties having good intentions.

We know from organizational culture assessment data that expectations are often one-sided, not communicated, not mutually agreed upon, nor tracked. This makes them risky in environments that demand precision and collaboration. Unmet expectations can lead to disappointment, resentment, and blame, especially when accountability is enforced based on invisible standards.

Agreements at Work: Mutual Clarity and Commitment
Agreements at work, on the other hand, are explicit, two-way commitments. They involve a shared understanding and consent about who will do what by when. Unlike expectations, agreements are clear, specific, and agreed upon. To get them right, they typically require dialogue, constructive debate, and ownership.

Consider the difference when a manager says, “Can you commit to delivering the report by end of day Friday, match the level of quality of last week’s report, and be sure to include the following areas?” and the employee replies, “Yes, I can deliver that by 4 PM Friday.” That’s an agreement that is trackable, measurable, and mutual. Both parties are now aligned and can follow up with accountability or adjustments as circumstances dictate.

The Difference Between Expectations and Agreements at Work: Why the Distinction Matters

• Clarity Reduces Conflict
  We know from people manager assessment data that clarity around roles, responsibilities, and deliverables improves team performance. When leaders rely on unspoken expectations instead of agreements, they create ambiguity. Strategic ambiguity fuels misunderstandings, which erode trust and create unnecessary interpersonal conflict.
• Agreements Drive Accountability
  According to a study by the Corporate Executive Board, organizations that effectively manage performance accountability see up to a 25% increase in employee productivity. Agreements create a foundation for holding people accountable without micromanaging. Because the terms are mutually understood and openly accepted, following up feels fair, not punitive.
• Expectations Often Live in Hierarchy; Agreements Foster Partnership
  We know from project postmortem results that expectations often come from a place of authority — “I expect you to do this.” While sometimes necessary, this dynamic can breed compliance rather than commitment. Agreements, in contrast, honor autonomy and enable shared responsibility.
• Agreements Make Performance Conversations Easier
  We know from performance management training that when something goes wrong, managers often struggle with how to address performance issues. If expectations are never clearly articulated, conversations become murky. But when agreements are in place, the focus is on honoring commitments or revisiting them — making performance conversations more objective, developmental, and fair.

Building a Culture of Agreements
As organizational psychologist Dr. William Schutz emphasized in his work on interpersonal behavior, “Unexpressed expectations are premeditated resentments.” The key to preventing this dynamic is a shift from assumed expectations to explicit agreements. Moving from expectation-driven to agreement-driven work cultures requires effort, but it pays off in measurable ways. Here’s how to start:

1. Make Expectations Explicit
   Before assuming someone knows what you want, ask yourself if you’ve clearly communicated it by asking, “Is your mission clear?”
2. Invite Commitment
   Don’t demand agreement — request it. This creates space for pushback, negotiation, and stronger alignment. Ask, “Does this make sense to you?”
3. Write It Down
   Document key agreements, even informally. This creates a shared source of truth and reduces memory-based conflicts.
4. Follow Up
   Agreements are only meaningful when followed by accountability and feedback. Don’t set and forget.

The Bottom Line
Expectations live in the shadows of assumption. Agreements thrive in the light of clarity. The difference between the two can make or break team dynamics, execution, and trust. To lead high performing teams, leaders must intentionally convert expectations into explicit, two-way agreements.

To learn more about managing high performing teams, download 7 Immediate Management Actions to Create Alignment with Goals