What to Expect of a Manager

Look at the job description for almost any manager in your organization. You will probably find a list of deliverables, technical requirements, and maybe a line about "leading a team."

What you will rarely find is a clear statement of what the manager is actually expected to do as a manager -- how they should lead, what relationships they should build, how they should impact team performance over time, and what they are accountable for when things go wrong.

That gap is not a minor oversight. It means managers are hired, evaluated, and fired against standards that were never written down. It means managers and their teams are both operating without a shared definition of the job.

This article gives you language to fix that -- first for the job description, then for the performance review.

We also highlight areas where the firm must step up to support managers -- because it's unfair to task managers with delivering something, without also providing a method for delivering it.

What belongs in every manager's job description

Revise your managers' job descriptions and add the following to the Responsibilities section. Replace "Unit" with whatever term your organization uses -- team, department, group, or function.

• Take 100% responsibility for everything done in and by the Unit -- and for everything that fails to be done -- whether they know about it or not. This includes building the relationships, systems, and visibility needed to stay informed. (A manager who doesn't know about a problem has failed the role, not escaped it.)
• Ensure the Unit delivers excellent results to its customers, and improves results over time.
• Provide management and leadership for the Unit and its staff. Ensure morale and culture are excellent, that all staff master the duties of their roles and grow their skills over time, and that staff manage their conflicts constructively and professionally.
• Build highly trusting relationships with each direct report.
• Ensure that all subordinate supervisors in the Unit are managing with excellence.
• Maintain constructive, highly trusting working relationships with peers and with one's own manager.
• Raise concerns to one's own manager in a timely way when unable to resolve an issue directly, if that issue affects anyone's delivery on any Responsibility. (Why: a team functions as a system, not a collection of independent contributors. The obligation to escalate is triggered by awareness of a problem, including outside of one's "lane." Everyone is expected to have each other's backs.)

A note on the trust expectations

Two of these bullets use the language about building and maintaining "highly trusting relationships". This is only fair to put in a JD if the organization provides proven methods for doing this. Requiring the outcome without supplying the means is a double bind. It signals that the organization does not mean what it says, which destroys exactly the trust it is asking managers to build.

Put the trust-building expectation in a job description only if you are also prepared to give managers the tools: structured one-on-ones, feedback practices, and other explicit trust-building methods. Without those, the JD sends a disheartening message: the firm expects managers to deliver a result but is not providing a method.

What belongs in every individual contributor's job description

Non-managers carry a shorter, parallel set of expectations:

• Maintain constructive, highly trusting working relationships with peers and direct supervisor.
• Manage conflicts with peers constructively and professionally.
• Raise concerns to one's own manager in a timely way when unable to resolve an issue directly, if that issue affects anyone's delivery on any Responsibility. (Why: awareness of a problem creates an obligation to act, regardless of who formally owns the affected responsibility. This is what having each other's backs looks like in practice.)

The same note applies here. Requiring trust from individual contributors without giving them the means to build it sends the same mixed signal downward -- that the organization does not take its own expectations seriously. Provide the tools.

How to assess a manager against these expectations

Once the job description is clear, assessment follows the same structure. The framework below uses three levels:

• Numbered items are the primary expectations, stated in generic terms.
• Lettered sub-items are observable categories you can use to assess each one.
• Roman numeral sub-sub-items are example metrics. Customize these to your organization.

Throughout, "Unit Head" means any manager or supervisor, and "Unit" means the team or group reporting to them.

1. The Unit Head is 100% responsible for everything done in and by the Unit -- and for everything that fails to be done. Part of that responsibility is building the systems, relationships, and communication practices that ensure the Unit Head stays informed. Not knowing about a problem does not reduce accountability -- it is itself an instance of the problem.

2. The Unit delivers its results to the organization.

a. Results are timely.
b. Results meet or exceed the quality bar.
c. Results are of sufficient quantity.

3. The Unit functions with internal cohesion and minimal drama -- morale is good.

a. HR complaints between Unit members are low or zero.
b. Complaints between the Unit Head and Unit members are low or zero.
c. The Unit Head's manager holds skip-level meetings (without the Unit Head present) and uncovers no major concerns.

4. The Unit functions smoothly with other units, with minimal drama.

a. The Unit Head maintains positive working relationships with peers.
i. Number of times the Unit Head's manager is notified after the fact that the Unit Head resolved a problem directly with a peer -- a measure of healthy self-sufficiency.
ii. Number of times the Unit Head's manager is pulled in to referee disputes between the Unit Head and peers.
b. Smooth collaboration with [specific other units -- fill in per context].
c. Complaints from other Unit Heads to the Unit Head's manager are low or zero.

5. Each member of the Unit is doing their job well and growing in that job over time.

a. Each staff member is trained for their role, given growth opportunities, and seen to be progressing.
b. The Unit Head holds structured 1:1s with each direct report following Manager Tools guidance (manager-tools.com) -- a management podcast and framework built around four core practices: weekly one-on-ones, regular feedback, coaching for performance, and delegation.
c. The Unit Head uses the Manager Tools Trinity and cascades it down.

6. The Unit Head represents the Unit externally and to management.

a. Hosts site visitors as appropriate.
b. Attends management meetings and advocates for the Unit's needs.

7. The Unit Head acts with professionalism and maintains positive working relationships with all relevant stakeholders.

a. Complaints about professionalism to the Unit Head's manager are low or zero.
b. The Unit Head's manager is pulled in to referee disputes rarely or never.

8. The Unit Head raises concerns to their own manager in a timely way when unable to resolve an issue directly, if that issue affects anyone's delivery on any Responsibility.

a. Number of times the manager fails to resolve an issue and fails to escalate it appropriately -- a "miss."
b. Number of times the manager escalates a concern prematurely, before attempting to address it directly -- a "false alarm."

A few things worth noting

The 100% responsibility claim is precise, not hyperbolic. It does not mean managers are accountable for outcomes they could not have influenced. It means they are accountable for building the systems and relationships that keep them informed. Ignorance of a problem is not an exemption -- it is itself a failure of the role.

The skip-level meeting in item 3c is structural, not punitive. Its purpose is to check whether the Unit Head's self-report matches what their team actually experiences. Done well, it surfaces problems early and gives the Unit Head a chance to correct course.

The miss / false alarm distinction in item 8 names both failure modes of escalation. Under-escalating is the more common problem, but over-escalating -- pulling the manager in before attempting to resolve something directly -- is also a real cost. The framework tracks both.

This is a starting point. Customize the metrics to fit your organization's size, industry, and language.

Thomas B. Cox coaches and consults with business owners and executives through B3 (Becoming a Best Boss) and TXL (Transformative Leadership Lab).