Decide the authority before assigning the work
A board can ask a manager to obtain proposals without authorizing a purchase. It can approve a project without authorizing every later change. Confusing those steps creates frustration on both sides. A useful working relationship starts with a written assignment of decisions, execution, and escalation. The following matrix is an illustrative planning tool, not a statement of legal authority for every association.
A practical decision and delegation matrix
- Routine maintenance within approved scope: the manager coordinates the work only within documented authority. The board sets the applicable boundaries. Work outside those boundaries returns for the required decision.
- New vendor appointment: the manager assembles comparable proposals and identifies missing information. The authorized decision-maker selects and approves the engagement through the applicable process. The manager then communicates the approved scope.
- Invoice processing: management checks supporting documents and prepares the item for the agreed approval workflow. The designated approver handles approval. A disputed charge stays visibly unresolved rather than disappearing into a payment queue.
- Community policy: management can organize background information and implementation options. Policy adoption belongs with the body authorized by the governing documents and applicable requirements, with professional advice when needed.
- Owner complaint: management records and routes the concern. A request for a policy exception or disputed interpretation is escalated to the appropriate decision-maker rather than answered with an improvised promise.
- Changed project scope: the manager documents the proposed change, effect on schedule, and cost information. Approval follows the recorded authority for changes, even when the original project was approved.
Attach boundaries to every delegation
For each recurring assignment, write down the trigger, permitted action, limits, supporting evidence, and escalation contact. Avoid a bare instruction such as “handle landscaping.” A usable instruction distinguishes routine contracted visits, replacement proposals, owner complaints, and changes to the landscape design. Those activities may require different decisions.
Review the matrix against the agreement and governing framework before using it. An informal chart should not be treated as expanding authority that the documents do not provide. Where an authority question remains unresolved, identify it explicitly and obtain appropriate advice rather than filling the cell with an assumption.
Keep individual requests separate from board direction
Choose a communication contact to consolidate routine questions, but distinguish that coordination role from authority to decide. If one director asks a vendor to add work while another asks management to stop it, the manager needs a clear escalation process. Record the conflict, pause the affected discretionary step when appropriate, and seek direction through the community's authorized process. Do not convert the most recent email into a board decision automatically.
Review exceptions together
At a working review, examine assignments that stalled. Was the information incomplete, the authority unclear, or the decision overdue? Revise the workflow only after identifying the cause. Keep a dated version of the matrix and introduce it to new directors and replacement staff. This makes continuity less dependent on personal memory.
See the broken-light working-day example for execution after authority is clear, and cross-team handoffs for routing work between departments.