Write down what "good" looks like for each person's role, and check it against what they think it is. The gap between those two lists is where most early friction comes from.
When "good" is never defined explicitly, teams are left to guess, and guessing produces misaligned priorities and friction that feels personal but is really just a definitions problem.
Step 1: Draft your definition of "good"
Before you meet, write down your own expectations for the role in three buckets: core deliverables (the tangible outputs they own), execution and quality (how the work should be done, not just that it gets done), and collaboration (how they communicate risk and work with others).
Step 2: Have them draft their own list, independently
Ask them to write down what "good" looks like in their role using the same three buckets, before you compare notes. If they see your list first, they'll just agree with it.
Step 3: Map the gap
Lay both lists side by side. Most misalignment falls into one of three patterns:
| Gap | What it looks like | How to close it |
|---|---|---|
| Priority | They're focused on something you consider low priority. | Re-establish which deliverables actually move the business. |
| Quality | Their "done" is your "rough draft." | Show them a real example of what finished looks like. |
| Autonomy | They think "good" means asking first; you think it means deciding and informing. | Define the actual decision boundary explicitly. |
Step 4: Document it, then revisit it
Don't let the aligned list live only in that conversation. Put it somewhere both of you can find later, and check it again in a future 1:1, expectations drift quietly if nobody rechecks them.