I was recently seated inside an aircraft waiting for takeoff.
The aircraft had pushed back and was positioned just outside the bay. The engines were running, yet we remained stationary, not yet on the taxiway.
The cabin crew sat at their designated stations. Silence emanated from the cockpit.
Passengers engaged in typical behaviors – checking phones, glancing at watches, shifting in their seats. Some sighed or speculated, but most accepted the situation quietly.
What struck me was not the delay itself, as such occurrences are common. Rather, I was struck by how naturally everyone accepted the lack of information. No one protested or demanded clarity. While there was mild discomfort, quiet resignation prevailed. Over time, we cease to expect explanations, and silence becomes routine.
As I sat there, my mind began to drift, as it frequently does in waiting spaces such as airports, railway platforms, hospital corridors, and occasionally, in a leader’s office.
I began thinking about organizations.
Over the years, in my work with leadership teams, I have often observed a similar type of silence. It is neither intentional nor careless; rather, it is simply assumed.
Most leaders I work with carry very clear pictures in their minds.
They know how they want people to think, behave, respond, and deliver. They know what “good performance” looks like. What “ownership” means. How “collaboration” should feel. They know the difference between “compliance” and “accountability”. They know what “commitment”looks like.
However, that vision is often restricted to the leader.
These expectations stay unspoken and unarticulated, yet they are strongly anticipated.
An implicit assumption often persists in leadership conversations: “People should know.” When this expectation is unmet, disappointment quietly replaces curiosity.
I sometimes wonder how many organizational frustrations stem not from performance, but from differing interpretations. Expectations reside in one mind, while interpretation occurs in another.
Policies, manuals, and Key Result Areas (KRAs) exist, yet organizational culture rarely transmits through documents alone.
Culture is transmitted through conversations and stories, as well as through leaders who explain not only what needs to be done, but also why it matters and how it should be accomplished effectively.
When Expectations Stay in the Leader’s Head
However, clarity in the leader’s mind does not automatically translate into explicit communication or clarity in the system. There is often an invisible script playing:
- People should know.
- This is common sense.
- It’s written in the policy.
- They have enough experience to figure it out.
- And when outcomes fall short, the narrative becomes:
- Why are people not taking ownership?
- Why is there no initiative?
- Why is accountability missing?
The uncomfortable question – If there is an expectation, where is the communication?
Performance Gaps or Clarity Gaps?
In our Organisation Development work, we diagnose problems as skill gaps, attitude gaps, or motivation gaps. Sometimes they are. But very often, there are clarity gaps.
Let’s see this. For over two decades, Gallup has studied employee engagement across millions of employees worldwide through its State of the Global Workplace reports and Q12 framework. The very first question in that framework is simple: “Do you know what is expected of you at work?” Gallup’s data repeatedly shows that clarity of expectations is one of the strongest predictors of engagement, performance, retention, and even safety outcomes.
In recent findings, only about 45-46% of employees strongly agree that they clearly know what is expected of them – those who do report significantly lower burnout and higher well-being. Gallup also finds that managers account for nearly 70% of the variance in team engagement, largely because they shape clarity around goals, priorities, and performance standards. In other words, communication of expectations is not a soft leadership act; it directly influences business. In other words, when expectations are taken for granted rather than articulated, individuals interpret them differently.
A perceived“lack of accountability” by leadership may, from the perspective of employees, be experienced as a “lack of clarity.”
Communication Is Not Instruction
Here is where leadership communication is often misunderstood.
Communicating expectations goes beyond issuing instructions or restating policies; it involves building a common understanding.
It involves:
- Reiterating the purpose of the expectation – why we do, what we do
- Explaining what success looks like in practical terms.
- Clarifying what “good” means in context.
- Sharing examples of behavior that correspond with values.
- Reinforcing messages using shared narration and conversations until alignment becomes visible.
Neuroscientific research indicates that repetition and contextual storytelling help encode expectations into behavioral memory. A single town hall announcement does not create alignment; a continuous narrative achieves this. The most effective leaders I have observed are deliberate in making implicit expectations explicit.
They talk about expectations in meetings, connect strategy to daily behaviors, clarify the intent behind decisions, and solicit questions rather than assuming alignment. They do not assume understanding; instead, they verify it and encourage conversations that are actively engaged and meaningful.
Back to the Cockpit
In an aircraft, a pilot’s explanation does not necessarily shorten the delay. Weather remains weather. Traffic congestion remains congestion. However, communication alters the cabin atmosphere. Speculation diminishes, anxiety lessens, and individuals feel included in the trip rather than excluded.
The same applies in organizations.
When leaders communicate expectations clearly and consistently, individuals understand their priorities. Feedback becomes more effective as everyone operates from a common understanding. Ownership develops naturally when expectations are explicit. Over time, organizational culture becomes more consistent as alignment replaces uncertainty. is about clearly narrating direction so others can move confidently.
A Simple Reflection
Before we conclude that people are not performing, not stepping up, or not owning outcomes, it may be worth asking:
- Have we clearly articulated what “good” looks like?
- Have we explained the why behind the what?
- Have we created space for questions?
- Have we repeated expectations enough for them to become a common understanding?
When expectations remain confined to leadership, employees will still act, but they will do so based on their own interpretations of the intended destination.
This gap between assumed clarity and shared clarity is often the origin of many organizational challenges.
Authored by Sanjay Gupta. Founder and Principal Consultant at Leaping Frog Consulting Services.
Leaping Frog, a new-age consulting firm, is an enabler and co-creator in enhancing people and organisational effectiveness. We love doing work in the areas of “Driving Organisational Change and Development”, “Learning and Development, “HR Systems and Talent Strategy”, and “Leadership and Life Coaching”.
Connect and share, for work and more.
Mail: comm@leapingfrog.in
Website: www.leapingfrog.in
Follow Us: https://lnkd.in/d7TQbsia
