Explicit Expectations: The Key to Trust in Partnerships

In our nonprofit world, partnerships fuel our daily work and missions. We think about them a lot — we’ve written recently about partnerships that inspire us and how to build trust through microfeedback. 

But partnership doesn’t come just because we share a mission. Strong partnerships are built on trust, and trust is built over time, through reliability: doing what you say you’ll do. And reliability rests on clear, shared expectations. 

As researcher Frederique Six put it, “Both trust and trouble deal with patterns of expectations. With trust the pattern is confirmed; with trouble the pattern is disrupted.”

In this guide, we’re going to show you how to build trust through explicit expectation-setting. 

When Assumptions Break Trust

Imagine this: A new employee joins the team and meets their manager. The manager assumes the newbie (who’s been tasked with creating the role) will jump into the shared drive, watch the onboarding videos, check Asana, and start to put together a plan. Meanwhile, the new employee — fresh to the organization — assumes there’s a step-by-step onboarding plan, regular check-ins on the calendar, and that assignments will show up with clear priorities.

Two weeks pass. Crickets.

If they each had cartoon thought bubbles over their heads, they wouldn’t match. The new hire feels ignored (“Did I make a mistake coming here?”), while the manager is wondering where the initiative is (“Hmmm…thought I’d hear something by now!”). This isn’t a particularly dramatic moment, but trust may have gotten “wobbly” (a favorite SWIM term for talking about trust), not because anyone was careless, but because expectations were mismatched.

This type of expectation-mismatch happens every day in nonprofits and coalitions. We expect things, but don’t ask. We make up stories in our head about someone’s motives or priorities. We leave it to chance that our thought bubbles match. We don’t take the time to create shared expectations — a downpayment on trust.

The 3 Dimensions of Expectations

Since 2012, I’ve studied trust — how to build it, extend it, and sustain it. The work began in my Ph.D. research focused on trust between employees and their institutions — not just with a manager, but with the organization itself. I found that institutional trust acts like a down payment on future performance: It raises people’s willingness to take risks and innovate. Since then, I’ve focused on the benefits of trust and the conditions that accelerate or inhibit it.

Trust runs on expectations. Matched expectations are like a well-marked runway helping you take off; mismatched expectations are like fog surrounding the air traffic control tower on final approach.

We find that developing shared expectations in three dimensions can help leaders clear the fog and help people work together with trust. Below we provide examples of these dynamics in the context of organizational planning.

1. Power

Who gets to make decisions? 

The scenario: At a national conference, members respond to a live poll about the future. “Scale the current model” gets the most votes; an “innovation pilot” gets fewer. Six months later, the national office announces the pilot and shares no update on scaling. How people read that move may depend on their expectations and the feedback loop.

If participants believed they were “voting” on the strategy, trust may dip. If they understood the poll as input, trust may stay steady, especially if leaders explain how the input was used.

The solution: Try setting expectations before the poll: “We’ll use this poll — and the input of other stakeholders — as input. The executive team will make the decision by June 15 and will report back.”

Then close the loop after the decision: “The pilot is moving forward now because we heard from former clients, and especially people we’d hope to serve but haven’t signed up for our program, that they need another option. At the same time, we know you’re looking for resources to scale the existing model. Here are our next steps.” 

Clarity about who decides — and what a vote or poll actually means — does most of the work to keep trust intact.

2. Time

How much time do you have? How much time will you commit to this?

The scenario: Two partner organizations agree to co-create a toolkit. Partner A assumes a quick, two-week sprint and plans 15 hours of staff time. Partner B assumes a slower pace, about 2 months, with 3 hours available weekly. Partner A expects a near-final draft by Friday; Partner B expects a rough outline in two weeks. No one says these assumptions aloud. 

By the second week, A feels let down; B feels pushed. Trust frays, not because anyone is unwilling, but because the time picture was never shared.
The solution: Here are three questions to ask each other to create shared expectations:

• Effort & timeline: What time can each of us realistically commit (hours per week and date range), and what milestones will we hit when?

• Quality & responsiveness: At each milestone, what does “done” look like (e.g., outline = bullet points, draft = full sentences), and how quickly will we respond to comments or edits (e.g., within 2 business days)?

• Changes & resets: If one of us slips, how will we let each other know and how will we reset the dates together?

3. Money

Who controls how money is spent? Who is bringing money to the table?

The scenario: A grantmaker attends a coalition meeting. Because they’re in the room, several partners assume a grant is imminent. Trust hinges on whether the funder sets expectations about purpose, process, and timing.

It’s human (and hopeful) for community partners to assume funder presence begets funding. But that’s not always the case for all kinds of reasons: the funder is interested but needs to know more, they want to provide funding but they have to convince someone else in their organization, or maybe they’re trying to get a bigger picture of the community. 

This doesn’t mean funders should sit in their offices, but it does mean that they should be careful to share their intentions and make expectations explicit. 

The solution: If there is an opportunity, make the process and timeline clear: “I hope you might consider an application in our December cycle.” 

If there is not a clear opportunity yet, make that clear too: ”I’m here to listen and learn about how this coalition works. I’m not looking for grant projects or making funding decisions today.”

Lay the Foundation of Trust

Trust isn’t something you can will into existence. It’s an operating principle. By being explicit about expectations, you create a solid foundation where trust can grow — and partnerships can flourish.

We can help your organization improve their relational habits for more effective work. Schedule a free discovery call with SWIM today.