Why “When do you need it by?” signals deeper leadership issues—and how clarity, deadlines, and accountability improve team follow-through.
Dr. Maureen Snow Andrade | Business Impact Lab | Utah Valley University
“When do you need it by?”
It seems like a simple question. But in leadership, it can signal something deeper.
In one of my early leadership roles, I held regular one-on-one meetings with my team. I came prepared—with notes, follow-ups, and clear next steps from our previous conversations. Each week, we would review those items together.
And each week, I began to notice a pattern.
Some tasks hadn’t been started. Others had minimal progress. And occasionally, I would hear: “When do you need it by?”
What stood out was that many of these tasks were not complex. They could have been completed in a few days or a week. And in some cases, there were deadlines or agreed-upon steps.
But even then, progress was often limited—or stalled altogether.
I found myself wondering: What are people actually doing with their time?
Over time, it became clear that the issue wasn’t capability. It was something more subtle—and more common: urgency, prioritization, and follow-through were not consistently translating into action, even when expectations were discussed.
Research in organizational behavior helps explain why this pattern is so common.
Foundational work on goal-setting shows that people are far more likely to follow through when goals are specific, time-bound, and paired with feedback (Locke & Latham, 2002). When expectations are open-ended, they often fail to create momentum.
Similarly, temporal motivation theory explains that urgency increases as deadlines approach (Steel, 2007). Without a clearly defined or meaningful timeline, even important tasks are easily delayed.
Research on implementation intentions adds another layer: follow-through improves when individuals specify when, where, and how they will complete a task (Gollwitzer, 1999). And meta-analytic evidence shows that monitoring progress and revisiting commitments increases goal attainment (Harkin et al., 2016).
More recent research sharpens this understanding.
Delays are now widely understood as a self-regulation challenge, particularly when urgency and priority are not clearly defined (Sirois, 2023). In complex work environments, employees are constantly managing competing demands, and tasks that are not clearly prioritized are often postponed—even when they are relatively simple (Leslie et al., 2022.
At the same time, research on hybrid and modern work highlights the importance of visible accountability systems. Verbal agreements made in meetings are often insufficient; written commitments, shared tracking, and clear follow-up structures significantly improve follow-through (Allen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021).
Finally, motivation research continues to show that visible progress and small wins are powerful drivers of engagement and action (Knight et al., 2021).
This is where leadership design matters. A few adjustments—grounded in research—can significantly improve follow-through:
Clarify not only when something is due, but how important it is relative to other work.
Asking “What timeline works given your current priorities?” increases ownership and realism.
Move beyond “let’s follow up next week” to defining when, where, and how the work will happen.
Reinforce commitments through written summaries, shared trackers, or brief progress updates—not just conversation.
Smaller checkpoints create momentum and make progress more tangible.
Help team members understand where a task fits among other priorities—this is often what they are really asking. d
Leadership is often framed as motivating people. But the evidence suggests something more precise:
Effective leaders create clarity—around priorities, timelines, and progress—in ways that make follow-through more likely.
When those conditions are in place, conversations shift from “Why isn’t this done?” to “Here’s what’s next.”
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2021). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(3), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211051431 View Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M.'s How effective is telecommuting?
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493 View Gollwitzer, P. M.'s Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025 View Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P.'s article about monitoring goal progress
Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2021). Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 158–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2510 View Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J.'s Building work engagement
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2022). Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of Management Journal, 65(4), 1401–1429. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0447 View Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A.'s Flexible work practices
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 View Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P.'s Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation
Sirois, F. M. (2023). Procrastination and stress: A conceptual review of why context matters. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221121515 View Sirois, F. M.'s Procrastination and stress
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 View Steel, P.'s The nature of procrastination
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290 View Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K.'s Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic
