How to Use a Shammy

We Must Explain What We Expect: The Communication Standard Every Construction Leader Needs

There is a moment every experienced construction leader can remember where they gave an instruction that seemed perfectly clear, watched someone execute it completely wrong, and felt the frustration of a result they did not want. The natural response in that moment is to wonder how the person could have misunderstood something so obvious. The more useful question is to ask whether what felt obvious was actually communicated. Because in construction, as in life, the gap between what was assumed and what was explained is where most quality problems, safety incidents, rework, and wasted time actually live. The instruction that felt complete usually was not. And the person who got it wrong was not failing the expectation. They were failing to read a mind.

The Pain That Shows Up Everywhere on the Project

The concrete superintendent who told two workers to move the column cages and pointed in a direction was doing what most construction leaders do most of the time: communicating the minimum and trusting that professional judgment would fill in the rest. Sometimes it does. But sometimes the column cages end up somewhere other than where they needed to go. Sometimes the forklift is not inspected. Sometimes the rigging certification is assumed rather than verified. Sometimes nobody fills out the pretask plan because nobody said to. And when the outcome is wrong, the leader’s frustration is real and the worker’s confusion is equally real, because from where they were standing, they did exactly what they were told.

The System That Normalized Incomplete Instructions

Construction has a long tradition of expecting experienced people to figure it out. The assumption is that a journeyman electrician or an experienced equipment operator does not need to be walked through every step of a familiar task. That assumption is often correct at the task execution level, but it misses the point. The specificity that matters is not about whether the worker knows how to operate a forklift. It is about whether they know which forklift, which location, which certification to confirm, which paperwork to complete, which dunnage to use, what to do with the rigging when finished, and why all of that matters to the crane mobilization happening in thirty minutes. The who and the how are often assumed. The what and the where and the when and the why are frequently not communicated at all. And the gap between what was assumed and what was said is where the result falls apart.

The Chamois Story

When Jason Schroeder was thirteen or fourteen years old working for Conco Construction, his boss Ryan handed him an expensive chamois cloth and told him to wash the truck. Ryan loved that chamois. It cost twenty-four dollars, which was significant money, and it came in a nice case. Ryan threw it to Jason and walked back inside. Jason had never used a chamois before. He went to the supply closet, got a bucket and some Dawn dish soap, soaked the chamois in suds, and started scrubbing the truck with it. It was not working great, but he kept at it. When he told Ryan the chamois was not working well, Ryan came outside, saw what was happening, and went into a full crisis, spraying and rinsing the chamois, trying to save it from the soap that had saturated it.

A chamois is not a washing cloth. It is a drying cloth. You rinse the car first with a regular rag and then you drag the chamois across the wet surface to squeegee the water off. Jason did not know that. Ryan did not say that. Ryan said wash the truck and threw him a tool whose correct use he had never explained. The result was entirely predictable, and it was not Jason’s fault. It was a communication failure. And to Ryan’s credit, after the initial frustration, he could probably see that too.

What the Column Cage Conversation Actually Looked Like

Jason was a project director when he watched a concrete superintendent tell two workers to move two column cages that were blocking a crane path. The superintendent pointed and said move those. Jason pulled him aside, not to criticize, but to show him what the instruction should have looked like from beginning to end.

It starts by getting the workers’ attention properly: asking if they have a minute, transitioning them intentionally from one task to another. Then it covers the what: these two specific column cages need to move to this specific location. Then the why: the crane path runs through here and we cannot have them in this location when the crane mobilizes. Then the how: use the forklift, but first confirm that both of you have your rigging certification and your forklift certification and are trained for this task. Then the safety requirements: complete an equipment inspection on the forklift before you start, inspect the rigging, discuss together how to rig it safely with a tagline, complete the pretask plan with both signatures before you touch anything. Then the execution detail: make sure everyone is clear of the swing radius, nobody is at risk of being struck, and the path is clear before you move. Then the finish condition: set them on dunnage so rain does not bury them in mud, return the rigging to its storage location, and park the forklift back in its designated spot.

That instruction takes about ninety seconds to deliver. It prevents a dozen different ways the task could go wrong. And it respects the workers by giving them everything they need to succeed rather than leaving them to guess at what the leader actually wanted.

Signs That Your Instructions Are Not Complete Enough

Most construction leaders have developed a communication style that works reasonably well most of the time. The gaps show up at the edges. These are the patterns that signal instructions are not landing as intended:

• Workers complete a task but in the wrong location, the wrong sequence, or without the required safety paperwork because none of those specifics were stated
• The same correction has to be given more than once because the standard was communicated but the reason behind it was never explained, so it does not stick
• A new employee or a new foreman makes a mistake that an experienced person would not have made, and the response is frustration rather than recognition that the instruction was written for an experienced audience
• A task is completed correctly but the cleanup, the storage of materials, and the return of equipment are left undone because the instruction ended at the execution and not at the finished condition

None of those are worker failures. They are all communication failures. The standard that Jason holds himself to is that if the outcome was not what was expected, the first question to ask is whether the expectation was clearly stated, not whether the worker was paying attention.

Why Over-Communication Is Not Condescending

The construction culture tends to treat detailed instructions as an insult to experienced workers. If you have to explain every step, the implication is that you do not trust the person to know their craft. But the instruction that Jason describes in the column cage example is not about whether the workers know how to operate a forklift. It is about alignment: everyone on the same page about the specific task, the specific location, the specific safety requirements, and the specific finish condition, before anyone touches anything. That alignment does not insult the worker’s expertise. It respects their time by not making them guess, respects the safety system by confirming certifications and paperwork before the risk exists, and respects the project by ensuring that the first attempt produces the right result rather than a result that has to be corrected.

As Chris put it in the comment Jason references on the LeanTakt channel: it is hard for you to understand what I expect from you if I do not tell you what I expect from you. That sentence is not complicated. It is just consistently true. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

Make the Expectation Visible Before the Work Starts

The practical shift that comes from this episode is simple: before a worker or a crew begins a task, the instruction should cover all of the following. What exactly needs to be done and where the finished result should be. Why it matters to the sequence, the schedule, or the safety of the work happening around it. How to do it, including what equipment, what rigging, what certifications, and what safety documentation are required. When it needs to be done and what defines done, meaning not just the execution but the cleanup, the return of equipment, and the condition in which the area should be left. That is the complete instruction. Everything shorter than that is leaving something to chance.

This is not about micromanaging. A senior journeyman doing a familiar task does not need to be walked through every certification they already hold. But the new foreman who was just hired does. The worker who is transitioning to a task they have not done recently does. Anyone working in conditions they have not worked in before on this project does. The question to ask before giving every instruction is: does this person have everything they need to succeed, or am I assuming something I have not stated?

Edwards Deming taught that a bad system will beat a good person every time. The communication system on most construction projects is designed to communicate the minimum and trust that experience fills in the rest. A better system communicates completely, confirms understanding, and treats the gap between the instruction and the task as the moment where quality, safety, and production are either protected or exposed. Build the habit of complete instructions. The chamois story and the column cage story both end the same way when the instruction is complete: the right result, the first time.

On we go.

FAQ

Why do experienced construction leaders still give incomplete instructions?

Because experience creates the illusion that what feels obvious to the instructor is obvious to the person receiving the instruction, and construction culture has normalized the minimum rather than the complete. The gap between what was assumed and what was said is where most preventable failures happen.

What should a complete instruction include before a worker begins a task?

A complete instruction covers the what, where, why, how, safety requirements, certifications needed, paperwork to complete, and the finished condition including cleanup and equipment return. Anything shorter leaves something to chance.

How is detailed communication different from micromanaging?

Micromanaging is controlling how someone does work they already know how to do. Complete communication is making sure everyone is aligned on the specific task, location, safety requirements, and expected outcome before anyone starts. The distinction is alignment versus control.

What is the lesson from the chamois story for construction leaders?

Ryan assumed Jason knew what a chamois was for. Jason did not, and the expensive tool was nearly ruined. The person who gives an instruction owns the clarity of it, not the person who receives it.

How does complete communication connect to safety on a construction project?

Most safety incidents happen in the gap between the instruction given and the task performed. Confirming certifications, requiring pretask plans, and explaining the rigging approach before anyone picks up a tool are what close that gap before the risk becomes a consequence.