Expectations and definitions of 'good'

Most performance friction with autistic reports (and frankly with anyone) comes from vague expectations. Write them down. Use examples. Update them as the work shifts.

The Management Center's piece on Setting Expectations for How Staff Approach Their Work argues that managers underinvest, badly, in writing down what they mean by 'good'. The cost is highest for staff who can't pick it up from indirect signals — which is most autistic colleagues, but also most junior staff, most new hires, and most staff from cultural backgrounds different from the manager's. Writing expectations down isn't a special accommodation; it's basic equitable practice.

Three places to write down 'good':

• The role. What is this job for? What does success in this role look like in 90 days, 6 months, 12 months? Three specific outcomes, not a vibe.
• The project. What is this project for? What does a great deliverable look like? Show an example of a great one and an okay one if you can.
• The interaction. What does a good Slack response look like? A good meeting prep? A good status update? You think these are obvious. They are not.

One technique that helps everyone, and helps autistic colleagues especially: show examples, not just rules. 'Three bullets, plain language' is a rule. 'Here's a status update from last quarter I thought was great; see how it pulls the conclusion to the top, names risks, and asks for one specific decision' is an example. Examples carry more information than rules.

And update them. The job that existed when you wrote the JD a year ago is not the job your report is doing now. Re-write the 'what success looks like' bullets every quarter, with your report, in the shared 1:1 doc.