Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

What to agree on before an executive accepts your offer

Before an executive accepts your offer, agree on the mandate, decision authority, available support, and how performance will be reviewed. Record the operating expectations in a mutual memo and resolve material disagreements before acceptance. Leave contractual terms and the memo’s legal treatment to qualified employment counsel.

A psychological contract is an individual’s belief about reciprocal obligations between that person and an organization. This paraphrases the formulation in Denise Rousseau’s 1989 paper. The concept concerns perceived obligations. It does not establish that the two parties share the same interpretation or that a particular promise has a particular legal effect.

An expectations memo and an employment contract serve different purposes in this advisory method. The memo makes working assumptions visible for discussion. Counsel must determine how it relates to the offer and other documents; calling a memo informal does not settle its legal treatment.

Start with the work the company needs

State why the role exists now and which outcomes the executive will own. Use the current business phase. Avoid describing a broad transformation mandate when the actual assignment is to stabilize one function within fixed constraints.

OPM’s job-analysis guidance describes the connection between tasks and required competencies. Use that established approach to examine the assignment before translating it into a personal commitment.

The executive hiring decision playbook addresses how you gathered evidence for the appointment. This conversation checks whether the company and candidate understand the same role. A strong assessment cannot compensate for an assignment that changes silently between interview and offer.

Ask the candidate to describe the mandate in their own words. Listen for a difference in scope, authority, or expected pace. Record the difference directly rather than interpreting enthusiastic agreement as a shared understanding.

Separate outcomes from authority

For each expected outcome, identify the decisions the executive may make. Which resource changes require approval? Which commitments remain with the CEO or board? Use the company’s actual governance arrangements.

A person can be accountable for coordinating work while lacking authority over every dependency. State how that dependency will be resolved. Avoid promising complete autonomy when you intend to retain a recurring operating decision.

If the candidate expects to change the team, clarify what process applies and what authority the role holds. Do not improvise employment promises about specific people during a candidate conversation. Consult employment counsel and the appropriate people function before defining related terms or actions.

Use the cofounder decision-rights agreement guide when an existing ownership relationship makes authority unclear. Resolve that company-side boundary before requiring the candidate to accept it through inference.

Use the mutual operating-expectations memo

The mutual operating-expectations memo is an advisory method proposed here. It is not a validated psychological instrument or a legal template. Have qualified counsel review its wording and relationship to the offer before anyone relies on it.

  1. Describe the mandate. State the work the company needs and the operating outcomes the executive is expected to own. Identify material limits and unresolved questions.
  2. Map decision authority. Specify what the executive may decide and which matters require another owner. Include an escalation route for conflicting instructions.
  3. State the support. Identify the information, resources, and access the company will provide. Distinguish approved support from a request still under consideration.
  4. Agree on review. Describe the evidence and process used to discuss performance. Avoid implying a guaranteed result from conditions nobody controls.
  5. Record reciprocal expectations. Ask what the executive expects from you and what you expect from them. Keep operating obligations separate from private assumptions about availability or loyalty.
  6. Resolve material gaps before acceptance. Assign a decision owner to each disagreement. Do not move a consequential unresolved point into onboarding merely to secure a quick acceptance.
  7. Connect the memo to entry. After appropriate legal review, use the agreed operating account to prepare onboarding. Identify who will update it if the mandate changes.

Both parties should be able to explain what remains unsettled. A document that makes every issue sound resolved can be less useful than a short account with one explicit decision still pending.

Make support a company commitment

Ask which inputs the executive needs before their first consequential decision. Who supplies the records? Who introduces the relevant stakeholders? Which existing obligations will they inherit?

Do not describe resources as available because you expect a budget discussion to go well. Mark approval status accurately. If the mandate depends on a resource decision that remains open, explain the consequence for scope or timing.

The company should also identify what it will stop doing. If the role is meant to remove a decision from the CEO’s queue, state the boundary and honor it. A private habit of reopening routine choices can contradict the operating authority offered in the memo.

Ask existing leaders to confirm the dependencies assigned to them. The candidate’s acceptance does not create another department’s capacity or settle an unresolved relationship between executives.

A composite scene: the offer solves the vacancy

Consider a hypothetical composite. You finally have a preferred candidate and spend the evening preparing an offer while a family conversation remains unfinished. The vacancy has occupied your attention for months. The candidate says the opportunity is exactly what they want.

During the memo review, you ask them to explain the mandate. They describe authority to redesign the commercial organization. You intended a narrower assignment: improve operating coordination while retaining the existing structure until a later board review.

Neither account can safely remain implicit. You describe the current authority boundary and the conditions under which a redesign could be considered. The candidate explains which part of their interest depended on the broader mandate.

In this constructed example, the candidate may accept a revised role or decline it. Either result supplies information before the company relies on an agreement neither party fully understood.

The memo has served its purpose by exposing a material difference. Treating the disagreement as an unfortunate obstacle to closing the offer would leave the operating problem for the new executive to discover after joining.

Ask what motivated the candidate’s acceptance

Use a direct question: “Which part of this role matters most to your decision, and what do you understand the company is committing to provide?” Ask for the practical expectation behind the answer.

The candidate motivation interview guide addresses this inquiry in more detail. Keep it job-related and respectful of personal boundaries. Do not require unnecessary private disclosures to explain a professional decision.

A preference for broader authority needs a concrete discussion about decisions. A preference for building a function needs an account of resources and constraints. Avoid treating either answer as a personality label.

Rousseau’s concept is useful because an individual’s understanding can exist even when it has not been written down or shared. That is a reason to compare interpretations, not a basis for claiming that your memo will eliminate later misunderstanding.

Agree on how the role can change

A company may need to revise an executive mandate after entry. Describe the process for raising that change. Identify who can approve a new expectation and how the executive will receive an accurate account of it.

Do not promise that the business will never change. Do not assume that the possibility of change makes every present commitment optional. Ask counsel how the relevant documents and obligations should address your actual circumstances.

Use a proposed operating statement such as:

“If the mandate changes, we will state the changed requirement and its reason through the agreed review process. We will examine the authority and support it requires before treating it as an established performance expectation.”

Use that wording only if you can honor the process. Where formal terms govern the issue, make the operating explanation consistent with the legally reviewed documents.

Keep assessment and legal conclusions separate

The EEOC guidance on employment tests and selection procedures identifies concerns that can arise in hiring assessments. A well-organized hiring process does not determine the legal treatment of every question, record, or agreement.

Bring qualified employment counsel into the actual offer process. Relevant issues can include contractual terms, accommodations, privacy, incentive arrangements, and other obligations. This article stays general and does not provide jurisdiction-specific legal advice.

Avoid using the memo to collect private health information or to secure agreement to an undefined availability demand. Ask the appropriate adviser to handle sensitive information separately from the operating memo, which should explain the mandate, authority, and support rather than invite private disclosures.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, gives a research context for studying work expectations. It does not replace legal interpretation of an employment agreement. Keep those professional responsibilities explicit.

Check the memo against an actual decision

Choose a plausible first assignment and ask both parties to walk through it. Who sets the priority? Who approves the resource? What happens if another executive disagrees? A difference in those answers identifies a remaining mandate question. Resolve it through the authorized process before relying on the memo as a shared operating account.

Carry the agreement into onboarding

Use the new-executive onboarding plan to assign the company’s entry obligations. The memo should help the receiving team prepare the work, rather than remain in the CEO’s correspondence.

Confirm the first meaningful review and the evidence it will examine. Check whether promised access and resources have arrived before drawing conclusions about the executive’s performance. Preserve differences between a capability concern and a company-side dependency.

If an unresolved issue emerges, record the current understanding and assign the next decision. Do not rewrite the original memo to suggest that a later change was always part of the offer.

Before acceptance, the useful standard is a shared account that both parties can explain: the mandate, authority, support, and review process, with legal terms handled by counsel. Make that account clear enough to guide the first real decision after the executive joins.

Sources

Steady at the Top