CASE STUDY: When Leaders Delay Setting Boundaries: The Cost of Missing Working Protocols in Complex Environments
Context
I was deployed into the critical start-up phase as the right hand to a first-time executive leading delivery within a large, 24/7 program across a complex public–private partnership alliance.
The environment was high-pressure from day one. Multiple partner organisations, local and international were involved, and several were co-located in the same building to drive efficiency and access.
On paper, everything looked solid. Contracts, milestones, and deliverables were clearly defined. But what wasn’t defined and what mattered most in practice, was how people would actually work together, day to day.
Early Warning Signs
It became clear very quickly that one of the major partner executives had a strong presence. The newbie executive felt it, a sense of being watched, tested, and expected to deliver more than what was formally agreed.
Requests started coming in: extra reports, daily and weekly updates beyond scope, and “Quick asks” that weren’t quick.
None of it sat within the agreed remit, but none of it was refused.
Advice Given (and Not Taken)
At this point, I strongly advised the newbie executive to establish working protocols immediately formal or informal MOUs that would define:
How requests are made and prioritised
What sits inside vs outside scope
How communication and escalation should work
The message was simple: “Set the boundaries now, it only gets harder later.”
But the timing was never “right.” There was hesitation, not wanting to appear difficult, wanting to prove capability, and a reluctance to push back on the largest partner.
So nothing was formalised.
What Followed
Without those boundaries, the environment shifted, slowly at first, then all at once.
Work expanded beyond control. Everything became urgent. Interruptions became constant.
The team (both senior and junior) felt it immediately.
High performers who were normally composed and structured started operating in survival mode. People were working long hours, but not effectively, constantly pulled off task, responding instead of leading.
There were moments where:
Senior team members were visibly distressed
Juniors were approached directly in hallways for minor partner requests
Clashes began to occur between teams and stakeholders
The line between formal obligations and informal demands had completely blurred.
At one point, I had to step in and push back on a request that would have required an additional full-time resource, which we neither had budget for nor strategic justification to support. Left unchecked, it would have embedded further misalignment into the program.
Escalation and Cost
As pressure built, issues that should have been small and manageable became complex.
Legal teams were brought in to interpret and untangle expectations
Time and money were spent resolving matters that should never have escalated
Friction between partners increased
And importantly, people started to leave. Some individuals walked away from the project entirely, not because of the work itself, but because of the environment created by constant, unmanaged demand.
The Reality
This wasn’t a failure of delivery capability. It wasn’t even a failure of contract. It was a failure to define how people work together beyond the contract.
Because in these environments, the real pressure doesn’t come from what’s written, it comes from what’s asked, informally, every single day.
What Should Have Happened
Working protocols, even light-touch, should have been established within the first 30–60 days, including:
A shared understanding of what is in scope vs additional
Clear triage of requests (urgent vs BAU vs non-essential)
Agreed communication pathways and escalation points
A simple RACI structure to define who owns what
A mechanism to surface and resolve friction early
This does not need to be heavy or legalistic, but it does need to exist.
A short, facilitated session with key executives, even just a few hours, would have set the tone, built trust, and prevented much of what followed.
Final Reflection
You either define how the partnership works, or it defines itself. And when it defines itself, it often does so through: power imbalance, informal pressure and the goodwill of teams who eventually burn out.
I’ve seen this pattern more than once in Australia and internationally. Where clear protocols exist, small issues stay small. Where they don’t, small issues compound into:
Rework
Duplication
Cost blowouts
And ultimately, people walking away, or capable people no longer able to perform at their best on what matters most
The lesson is simple: Set the rules of engagement early (not perfectly), but clearly.
Because in complex environments, protecting your team’s focus and capacity is not optional, it is leadership.
