“Just do a good job.” “It should be obvious if you think about it.” “Ask if you’re unsure.” These are easy things to say when assigning work.
But when they are followed by “Don’t go ahead without asking,” “I’m busy right now,” or “Get it to me quickly, but don’t compromise on quality,” the person receiving the instructions may have no idea where to start.
Are they supposed to use their own judgment or seek approval? Is an initial proposal enough, or do you need a finished result? Without clear conditions, the task becomes a game of guessing the right answer in someone else’s head.
Before asking “Why can’t they do it?” and drawing conclusions about their ability, it is worth checking whether they have the information they need to get started.
The goal, what the first submission should cover, deadlines, decision criteria, and someone to consult: providing these will not resolve a shortage of time, staff, knowledge, or authority. Even so, the person giving instructions can make changes that reduce the burden of not knowing what to do.
1. Give People the Conditions for Making Decisions, Not Just Detailed Orders
Clear instructions do not necessarily mean specifying every step. If you want to delegate, explain which decisions the other person can make and where they need to check with someone.
Start by checking the following:
- What is the purpose, and what needs to be true for the work to be considered complete?
- How much needs to be ready for the first review?
- When are the first draft and the finished version needed?
- Who makes the final decision?
- What takes priority, and which decisions can the person make independently?
- What is outside the scope this time, and what must not be done?
- What is likely to cause confusion, and what criteria should guide decisions?
- When should progress be shown, and to whom?
For example: “Please show me a proposed schedule before you finish the whole thing on your own.” Even this makes the first deliverable more concrete.
The important part is to genuinely treat a draft as a draft after saying that one is enough. If every unfinished detail attracts criticism, the person will find it harder to share early next time. An interim review includes explaining what is on track, what needs changing, and what can be decided later.
2. Explain What the Work Will Be Used For, Not Just What to Make
“Please put together a handover schedule” does not explain what decisions the schedule should support or who will use it.
In a hypothetical handover, for example, you could say:
“Please draft a schedule showing who will hand over which responsibilities, and when, so the handover can be completed by mid-August. The people involved will use it to check whether the arrangements are workable. Dates that have not yet been agreed should be clearly marked as proposals, rather than presented as confirmed.”
The goal is more than filling in a table. It is to let everyone involved check responsibilities and dates so that work can continue without interruption.
Understanding the purpose may help the person notice that missing tasks or responsible people need checking before the table’s appearance is polished. Explaining who will use the result and what needs deciding makes it easier to discuss priorities.
A schedule alone does not complete the handover, however. Sharing procedures, checking whether the work can actually be performed, and arranging the necessary access or authority each need an agreed owner and approach.
3. Define the Minimum as What Is Needed for the First Submission
Do you need a finished product, or do you first want to see the overall picture? If that is unclear, the person has to guess how far to take the work.
“For now, it is enough to show the task names, who is handing each task over, who is taking it on, and the proposed dates. We do not need detailed procedure documents or polished formatting for this review.”
This lets them focus on the schedule first. It reduces uncertainty about whether procedure documents, detailed time estimates, and carefully refined wording all need to be ready at once.
Be clear about what “rough is fine” actually permits, though. Even in a first draft, it does not mean presenting unknown dates as confirmed, filling in unsupported figures, or including personal information that does not need to be shared.
State the requirements that still apply, such as “Mark unverified items as unverified” and “Treat this as an internal review draft for now.” Distinguish the minimum needed for the first draft from the requirements for the final version.
4. Set Separate Deadlines for the Draft and Final Version, and Reserve Review Time
Agreeing on an interim review time as well as the final deadline creates an opportunity to notice a mismatch in direction.
For example, after checking the workload and both people’s schedules, you could agree: “Show me the proposed schedule at 10 a.m. on Monday. I’ll review it by 11 a.m., then we can discuss the changes and aim to finish by 4 p.m.” This is an example of scheduling, not a requirement to finish every task in a day.
A submission deadline alone will not keep things moving if the reviewer has no time to look at the work. The person assigning it should also check when they can respond and whether they are the right person to make the final decision.
Do not assume that a delayed review will be made up for by the person doing the work staying late. If waiting for a response affects completion, discuss the deadline, scope, and priority relative to other work. It is also important not to treat a lack of response as approval.
Interim reviews do not automatically improve efficiency. Adding too many detailed checks to a small, familiar task can slow it down instead. Match the reviews to the size of the task, its uncertainties, and how difficult it would be to undo mistakes.
5. Point Out Likely Sources of Confusion in Advance
Someone experienced may see decision points that are not obvious to a person doing the task for the first time. Rather than saying afterward, “Of course you should have checked that,” share the issues you already know about.
- “Responsibility spans two departments here, so both need to be consulted.”
- “Previously, proposed dates have been mistaken for confirmed ones. Please make the distinction clear.”
- “This first draft does not need elaborate formatting.”
- “Tasks with no assigned owner must not be overlooked. Please mark the owner as undecided so those tasks are easy to spot.”
This will not prevent every mistake. The person giving instructions may not know all the difficult parts either. Leave room for additional questions when new uncertainties emerge.
In training and handovers alike, the points that caused confusion can help improve the next explanation. Rather than stopping at “I already told you,” check together which part of the explanation did not come across.
6. Pair Decision Criteria With Clear Limits on Independent Decisions
If “Think for yourself” is meant as delegation, the person needs to know both what to base decisions on and which decisions they are allowed to make.
For example:
- For work where safety comes first, use the established procedures to confirm when to stop and whom to contact.
- For a deadline-driven first draft, distinguish formatting that can be left out from content that must be included.
- For material intended for external use, decide who must review it and when external sharing is allowed. Internal material must also comply with approval and confidentiality rules.
- If the number of people affected is one factor in prioritization, explain the conditions that cannot be decided by headcount alone, such as safety or serious consequences.
- For changes that will be difficult to reverse, decide who must review them before they are carried out.
“Err on the safe side” or “Prioritize the deadline” can themselves be ambiguous. Make it clear who decides when priorities conflict.
You can also separate preparation from action: “You can develop two options independently, but any commitment to the client needs a review by the person responsible first.”
Providing decision criteria does not transfer all responsibility to the person receiving the task. The person assigning it still has a role in supplying missing information and answering questions that require a decision.
7. Separate “You Don’t Need to Do This” From “You Must Not Do This”
Both statements define the scope of work, but they mean different things.
“No decorative formatting is needed this time” and “We do not need a complete transfer of the old material” identify things that are outside the current scope. They show where time does not need to be spent.
“Do not share this externally until it is approved” and “Do not delete the original files without checking the required procedure” describe prohibitions or actions that need checking first.
“Check for missing tasks before refining the wording” specifies an order of work. Make sure it is not understood to mean that the wording never needs revisiting.
Explaining these distinctions lets the person discuss where to spend time before overworking everything on the assumption that doing it all is the safest option.
When deciding which work can be omitted, however, do not exclude mandatory checks or rules along with it.
8. Turn “Ask if You’re Unsure” Into an Agreed Opportunity to Ask
Being told that questions are welcome does not always make it clear when to ask, whom to ask, or how much work should be ready first.
“Spend the first 30 minutes listing the tasks, then show me what you have” or “Let’s review it once you have the proposed dates” provides a concrete point for sharing progress, based on time or a specific deliverable.
If you use a phrase such as “When it’s 30 percent done,” also agree on what will have been completed at that point. A number alone may suggest different stages to different people.
When uncertain, the person can organize the options and unanswered questions as far as possible, then ask for input. But avoid a blanket instruction to “Keep going even if you’re unsure.” Safety, confidentiality, commitments to outside parties, and changes that are difficult to reverse may all require a check before action.
If there is preparation that can continue in the meantime, agree on what the person is authorized to do independently. In an emergency, or when the usual contact is unavailable, use the workplace’s established contact procedures.
The reviewer should distinguish what fits the purpose, what needs changing, and what remains undecided, rather than criticize the work for not being finished. Agreeing on who does what next also makes the review more than simply showing someone the work.
9. If Clearer Instructions Do Not Get Things Moving, Check Other Conditions Too
Work can still stall even when you believe you have supplied the necessary information. Alongside how the explanation was understood, check the workload, available time, required knowledge or practice, accessible reference material, and authority to act.
Avoid rushing to “I explained it, so the rest is their problem.” Equally, there is no need to reduce everything to a single cause by saying, “The instructions were vague, so it is entirely the person assigning the work’s fault.”
You can ask the person to explain the purpose, the first deliverable, and the points that need checking in their own words. This is not a test in which they must guess the correct answer; it is a way to spot differences in understanding early. If there is a mismatch, the person giving instructions should revise the explanation too.
If you have struggled with vague instructions yourself, that experience can help you ask, “What could I share at the start so someone else does not face the same difficulty?” But that experience alone does not mean the same approach will suit everyone. Discuss the support needed: a brief explanation for someone familiar with the work, perhaps, or concrete examples for a new task.
Edmondson’s 1999 study examined the relationship between teams’ shared belief that interpersonal risks could be taken safely and their learning behavior, across 51 teams in one manufacturing company. It was a cross-sectional study and did not establish causation. It offers background for thinking about how questions and progress reports are received. Research on psychological safety and team learning behavior
A 2018 study by Mañas and colleagues, conducted in one service company based in Spain, reported associations between role ambiguity, positive emotional engagement with work, and helping behavior beyond assigned duties. It was a cross-sectional study using self-reports, not a test of the effects of rewriting instructions or of completion rates for assigned tasks. Original study on role ambiguity and engagement at work
The sample wording and review formats in this article are not universal solutions whose effectiveness has been directly demonstrated by these studies. They are suggestions to try, discuss, and adjust by asking what remained unclear and whether the reviews were too frequent.
10. A Detailed Template and a Shorter Version to Fill In
The examples below have blanks to complete for the particular task. They assume that anything still undecided will not be presented as settled.
When More Detail Is Helpful
- The purpose of this task is [purpose]. [Person or team] will use the deliverable to decide [decision].
- For the first review, it is enough to have completed [scope]. Please label unverified items as [label].
- Please show the first draft on [date] at [time]. [Reviewer] will review it by [date and time].
- We are aiming to finish by [date and time]. If the review is delayed or additional work is needed, we will discuss the deadline and scope.
- A likely source of confusion is [point]. The decision criteria are [criteria].
- You can decide [scope] independently. Before doing [action], check with [person].
- You do not need to do [out-of-scope work] this time. Do not carry out [restricted action] until approval is given.
- [Decision-maker] will make the final decision. If priorities conflict, consult [person].
- The interim review will take place at [time or milestone]. If the usual contact is unavailable or the matter is urgent, use [contact procedure].
- This is a first draft, so please show it before you finish the presentation and formatting. However, do not skip [required checks or rules].
When a Shorter Version Is Enough
- The goal is [goal]. First, please show [initial scope] as a draft.
- Use [criteria] to guide decisions. You can decide [scope] independently, but check before [action].
- We will review it on [date] at [time], and [decision-maker] will make the final decision.
- You can leave out [optional work] this time. However, [essential requirement] must not be omitted.
- Discuss difficulties or effects on the deadline with [contact].
For recurring work with the same person, there is no need to rewrite all the rules you already share at length every time. Do communicate any conditions that have changed since the last occasion, though. Being brief is different from leaving out necessary context.
11. Before Saying “It Should Be Obvious,” Check What You Have Shared
Giving instructions that help people get started does not mean micromanaging them, nor does it mean doing all the thinking for them.
It means sharing the goal, how far to go initially, what should guide decisions, and where to ask for help, while also checking the support and time needed.
Rather than expecting the person to guess the right answer on the first try, create a process in which differences can be corrected by looking at a draft together. Do not make people hesitate to ask when they run into difficulty. The person assigning the work also takes responsibility for making time to review it and answering the questions that arise.
When you find yourself thinking, “Why can’t they do it?”, start by asking, “How much of what they needed to get started had I actually shared?” That question can change how you make the next request.
