Measuring Trust: A Framework for Condo Manager Accountability

The Problem No One Talks About

Every condo has one. A property manager who seems to hold the building together—or so it appears. Behind the scenes, though, tension simmers. Some residents think the manager is too slow. Others say they’re too harsh. Board members feel stuck between complaints and contracts. But here’s the real issue: most condos have no real system to evaluate a manager’s performance.

The result? Mistrust. Gossip. Power struggles. And ultimately, a fractured sense of community.

What If There Were a Better Way?

This isn’t about pointing fingers or making management harder. It’s about introducing accountability that works for everyone. What if, once a year, both the board and the owners could weigh in on how well the manager is doing? Not through emotion, but through a transparent, fair process. That’s the idea behind a simple tool below I have called the Confidence Assessment Matrix—a model designed to measure how much trust the community has in its manager.

How It Works

The concept is simple: give both the board and the owners a role in evaluating the property manager, but weight their influence differently.

Board directors should typically hold around 70% of the say, given their direct oversight and working relationship with the property manager. This majority weighting reflects their responsibility and proximity to day-to-day operations. However, this percentage isn’t fixed—it can be adjusted by each board to suit their governance style or the unique dynamics of their community.

Owners collectively hold the remaining 30%, though this influence is scaled by participation. For example, if only half of owners submit feedback, their effective weight becomes 15%. This ensures that owner input is meaningful but not overpowering, and that low participation doesn’t distort the overall evaluation.

Let’s say 60% of owners respond to the survey, and half are unhappy with the manager. That equates to a 9% weighted score against. If two directors (28% – assuming a five member board) also vote against the manager, that brings the total opposition to 37%.

Boards can then set a benchmark—say, anything over 40% triggers a formal review. It doesn’t mean automatic dismissal. It means sitting down, talking about the concerns, and deciding how to move forward.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just a numbers game. It’s about bringing structure to what is usually a messy, emotional debate—one often dominated by anecdotes, hallway whispers, or the loudest voices at an AGM. A consistent framework like this helps boards make informed decisions based on real participation, not reactive noise.

Boards gain clearer insights rooted in measurable sentiment. Owners feel genuinely heard, not just tolerated. And managers benefit too—from structured, balanced feedback that gives them a chance to respond and improve without the weight of rumor or bias.

Most importantly, it draws a sharp line between perception and reality: loud voices aren’t always majority voices. With this system, everyone sees where true support—or real concern—actually lies.

Why Due Process Protects Everyone

Too often, a manager’s future hinges on whispers and moods. One board member voices doubt. Another remembers a complaint from six months ago. Suddenly, there’s momentum—and no structure to slow it down. The manager is dismissed, a new one is hired, and the cycle repeats. Projects stall, costs rise, and owners lose faith. The truth is, while boards make the final decisions, they do so based on the quality of information and continuity a manager provides. When that stability is gone, so is the building’s forward momentum. That’s why a clear process like this doesn’t just protect managers—it protects communities from knee-jerk governance by acting as a firewall against self-sabotage.

What the Owner Survey Really Means

The owners’ portion of the assessment isn’t binding. It doesn’t override the board’s authority, nor should it. Instead, it acts as a guidepost—a structured way for directors to gauge community sentiment before making decisions that affect everyone. High levels of owner dissatisfaction don’t force action, but they raise a red flag that the board would be wise to investigate. Conversely, if only a handful of owners participate or complain, it may suggest that the unrest is localized or exaggerated.

The goal isn’t to turn governance into a referendum, but to provide context—a broader view that informs, rather than dictates, board decisions.

Choosing the Right Threshold

The ideal threshold for triggering a formal review depends on your community’s temperament. In most cases, 35–40% weighted opposition is a healthy range:

• Set it closer to 35% if your ownership base is mostly rational, engaged, and stable.
• Go with 40% if you know you’ve got a few serial emailers who think every hallway smell is a scandal. (Stay tuned for the lunatic filters.)

Too low, and the tool becomes a trigger-happy mess. Too high, and it becomes meaningless. Pick a number that reflects your building’s reality—not just what looks good on paper.

Flexibility Is the Point

Not every condo is the same. Buildings vary in size, culture, and management dynamics—so a one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t work. That’s why this model is intentionally flexible. Boards can set their own thresholds for concern, adjust the weighting between directors and owners, and decide how often evaluations occur. Some may choose a 70/30 split; others might prefer 60/40 or a fixed owner cap regardless of turnout. What matters isn’t the exact formula—it’s the presence of a framework that captures sentiment, encourages transparency, and reinforces good governance without creating instability.

While the model is flexible, some boundaries should be set in advance. The board’s chosen threshold for triggering a formal review should be adopted as policy—not adjusted after results are in. Otherwise, the tool risks becoming a political weapon, used to protect or remove a manager based on who’s making noise at the time. Set the bar early, stick to it, and let the numbers speak for themselves.

Conclusion: More Than Just a Metric

This isn’t just about evaluating a manager. It’s about rebuilding something condos lose too easily: trust. Trust in the board to act fairly. Trust in the process to reflect real community sentiment. Trust that issues will be heard—not buried or politicized.

It also encourages the right kind of accountability. When managers know there’s a fair, structured evaluation in place, they’re more likely to stay proactive, communicative, and performance-focused. It raises the bar without turning the relationship into a battle.

If more buildings adopted tools like this, maybe we’d all spend less time whispering in hallways and more time improving our communities.

So the next time someone asks, “How do you know if your property manager is doing a good job?” — you’ll have more than an opinion. You’ll have a process.