Causes and Cures for the "EXPECTATION GAP" Between Management and Association

In the Management business, as in life itself, one of the greatest areas that lead to personal frustration is the difference between what we feel is reasonable to expect from anyone, and what we actually do receive, or think that we have received.

For example, during negotiations with an Association, a Management Company states that they will make regular inspections of a property, in order to assure that the maintenance program is being followed, and the integrity of the community is being maintained.  The Board of Directors hears that their property will be inspected on a "regular basis".  Further, their minds tell them that a "regular basis" means two to three times per day.  The Management Company, in stating that the property would be inspected on a regular basis, has in its intention, inspections occurring at the rate of two to three times per week.  Thus, the very beginnings of an "expectation gap' has developed.  The true issue being two fold: First, the lack of establishment of a goal as to how many times are really necessary for inspection of the property to be assured that the maintenance program is being followed and the Community is being maintained. Second, the understanding of how many hours can be devoted to said Association in the form of inspections for the amount of monies received by the Management Company from the Association as their compensation.   

In actuality, the reason that management companies are in business is to make a profit and sustain themselves.  It is very doubtful that anyone would enter into the management business, particularly that of managing associations, for purely philanthropic motives.   

If we were to continue this example and assume that the Management Company and Association enter into a contract, we can see the beginnings of a breakdown in understanding and trust between Management Company and Association.  Mutually satisfying goals were never established, nor were objectives clearly defined, thereby leaving much too much of the "gray area" as to what is reasonable.  

Essentially, this boils down quite simply to ineffective communication.  Many other issues or points of friction can be used to highlight the same example, i.e., definition of supervision and/or communication.  Anytime we enter into a situation where we do not have complete and effective communication, it usually results in one party being in the position of being second guessed.  It limits one's ability to establish trust or understanding in what is being done.  

On the other side of that issue, the second party is in a position of being constantly frustrated and feeling that they are not getting satisfaction on any of the issues being addressed.  The Association must be made to clearly understand that the management business, as stated above, is a profit-making venture and cannot be expected to give more time than that for which it is being compensated.  The Association, bearing this in mind, must be able to clearly communicate its desires so that Management understands what its goals and objectives are and, more importantly, it must give the Management Company the freedom to achieve those goals.  One thing that both Management and Association must understand right from the beginning is that they are both players on the same team; the end result being the betterment of the Association, in its maintenance program, in the aesthetics of the grounds, handling of the finances, and in dealing with the interpersonal relationships within the Association. 

The responsibility for establishing this atmosphere of communication falls almost completely upon the Management Company. It is an issue that must be addressed from the inception of negotiations with the Association, stressing honesty and integrity, and not being afraid to address the issue in a straightforward manner. When Management listens to the Association speak, it must be clearly tuned in to focus on what it is that the Association wants as an end result.  Further, it does not serve anyone for Management to take a position just to prove that they are correct.  Rather, it would be more effective to listen to the constructive criticism being offered by the Association (even though sometimes a criticism does not come across as constructive), and to acknowledge the criticism, then proceed to effectively carry out and achieve the end result.   

If, in the beginning to carry out and achieve the end result, Management discovers that it has underestimated the time necessary to handle the project, it is the responsibility of Management to come back to the Association, to explain the difficulty and the reasons behind not being able to complete the project in the time frame allowed, then come to an equitable solution for both sides.   

All too often Management assumes responsibilities that they had not originally intended, and are not able to give the appropriate service.  This, in turn, frustrates the Association and leads to a parting of the ways.  This type of situation can easily be avoided by truly honest and effective communication with the Association.  

One other point that is vital for any Management Company to understand and express to an Association, is the fact that a professionally, well-run management organization is truly the key to continuity of any Association.  Without the continuity, it is virtually impossible for the Association to continue to run effectively and efficiently.  

THE PRECEDING IS AN ARTICLE AUTHORED BY BERNARD S. MEYER WRITTEN FOR THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE (CAI) FOR PUBLICATION.