Work & Theory · Field note
When Roles Overlap, Start by Examining the Work
Before treating role overlap as an individual performance issue, make the work, decisions, handoffs, expectations, and conditions visible.
When two roles appear to own the same result—or each person believes the other owns it—the visible friction can look like a performance problem. Before evaluating an individual, make the work and its operating conditions explicit.
Use the checks below to decide what to examine next. Start with one specific task, decision, or handoff and describe what you observed in neutral terms. This is a way to guide inquiry, not a diagnosis of a person or a recommendation to reorganize.
A short work-design checklist
Is the work itself clear?
What outcome or work product needs to be delivered?
- What does complete mean, and what is outside the scope of this piece of work?
- Is one outcome attached to both roles, or is a necessary task left between them?
If the expected result or boundary is unclear, clarify the work before treating overlap as evidence about either person.
Is decision authority clear?
Who recommends, decides, carries out, and needs to be consulted?
- Which decisions can each role make without approval, and when should an issue be escalated?
- Do two roles have an apparent veto, or is someone accountable without authority to act?
Unclear authority can leave people waiting, duplicating approval, or working from different assumptions about who has the call.
Are handoffs and interfaces clear?
Where does the work pass between roles, teams, or functions?
- What input is expected, who provides and receives it, and by when?
- What does the receiving role need to accept the handoff and continue the work?
A delay or missing input at an interface can make the last visible step look like the whole problem. Note where information, timing, or ownership becomes uncertain.
Are expectations explicit?
What does good work mean for this outcome, and how will it be reviewed?
- Are quality, timing, priority, and follow-through expectations stated and understood?
- Are the people involved receiving compatible priorities and feedback?
A performance judgment needs an agreed expectation to compare the work against. If expectations conflict or remain implicit, make that visible first.
Do capacity and context support the work?
Could this work be completed with the time and conditions available?
- Consider workload, competing priorities, access to information or tools, dependencies, and timing.
- Did the relevant conditions change during the period being discussed?
Capability, capacity, and context are different questions. A person may have the required capability while workload, dependencies, or access limit what can be done in a particular situation.
Then consider the person-level question
Once the work, authority, handoffs, expectations, and operating conditions are clear enough to assess, compare specific evidence with the capability and standard the role requires. Ask:
- What capability did this specific work require, stated in observable terms?
- What part of the work falls short of an explicit, relevant expectation?
- Did the person have the information, authority, time, and support needed to act—and what might their account add?
Keep the question open while you examine the evidence. A work-design concern and an individual capability or performance concern can coexist; the checklist does not establish either one by itself.
Keep the inquiry bounded
Use the checklist to choose what to examine next. It does not diagnose any person, assign fault, or recommend a structural change.
This sequence fits the WORK & THEORY methodology: understand Direction and Design before evaluating Talent and Performance, with Culture as the behavior that sustains the system. Read the WORK & THEORY methodology.