Imagine a manager asks an analyst for a one-page summary for Thursday's meeting. The owner then asks the analyst directly to add eight sections. The manager still expects the original format on the original date. The analyst now has two instructions that cannot both be met.
This is a hypothetical example. Before asking the analyst to work faster, it helps to resolve one question: who is responsible for deciding the scope of this assignment?
The following approach is intended for routine, low-risk decisions. Adapt each step to the responsibilities and approvals already in place in your company.
1. Describe which instructions conflict
Start with the facts: what was requested, who requested it and what changed. Keep the conversation focused on the work, rather than comparing people or debating who has more authority in general.
In this example, the specific issue is the report's scope. The analyst could say: “The agreed deliverable is one page on Thursday, and I have a later request to add eight sections. I need to confirm which version is expected and whether the deadline changes.”
They can also identify work that can continue without having to be redone. If moving ahead creates a risk, means following incompatible instructions or commits anyone to a new deadline, they should check first.
2. Confirm who can resolve the difference
Check who is authorized to approve this kind of change. It may be the project lead, the department manager or another designated person. People requesting and doing the work need to know who has that responsibility.
Agree on what that person can decide, whom they need to consult and what requires a separate approval. Choosing the format of an internal report may fall within their authority; changing a client commitment, a budget or a control may require a different agreement.
If that responsibility has not been assigned, clarify it with the people authorized to do so. The team needs an explicit answer. They should not have to assume that the most recent instruction always takes precedence.
3. Agree on a deliverable the team can complete
The responsible person gathers the information needed: how the report will be used, which content is essential, how much work remains and which commitments would be affected by a change.
In our example, the manager and owner might agree to keep Thursday's summary and later consider whether the eight sections are needed. They could also change both scope and date. The point is to make a workable decision with the people whose approval is required.
Do not leave the analyst to negotiate separately with each person until they find an answer both will accept. The people who gave the conflicting instructions need to help resolve them.
4. Share the same agreement with everyone
Write down the agreed deliverable, its due date, who will prepare it and who can approve another change. Use a shared document or work tool that your organization authorizes and the team already checks.
Sample internal agreement, using fictional details:
“The manager and owner agreed to keep the one-page summary for Thursday's 10 a.m. meeting. The analyst will prepare it using the information already requested.
The eight additional sections are still under consideration. The team has not committed to delivering them.
The manager may adjust the content within the one-page summary. Expanding the scope or changing the deadline requires agreement with the owner before she confirms it to the analyst. New requests will be discussed with her, and the updated agreement will be shared with everyone involved.”
Ask the analyst to confirm what they will deliver. If someone still expects something different, resolve that difference before treating the matter as settled.
If you own the business, support the agreement
Before asking a team member directly for a change, check what they have agreed with their manager. You can raise a new need and discuss its effects with the people organizing the work.
If you change a priority within your authority, also explain which previous agreement changes. Leaving both instructions in place makes the team responsible for resolving a contradiction their leaders need to clarify.
Clarity about who decides should preserve a way to ask for help. If there is an urgent issue, a risk or an instruction someone cannot evaluate, they should raise it through the appropriate channel without waiting to prepare a recommendation. Safety, sensitive data and regulated activities require their own controls and specialist support.
Try a small experiment this week
Choose one low-risk internal deliverable involving two managers. Agree on who decides its scope, when to consult others and where a change is recorded. Keep the test small, with one assignment and a defined timeframe.
At the end of the week, review whether instructions conflicted, how any differences were resolved and whether the person doing the work knew what to deliver. If a question remains, adjust that agreement before expanding the practice.
Which assignment in your team needs a clearer agreement today about who can change what was decided?
Reference: HSE's guidance on role clarity calls for understandable responsibilities, compatible requirements and a way to raise uncertainties or conflicts. The sequence and example in this article are our own editorial proposal. The reference does not imply HSE endorsement or establish legal requirements for your company.
Educational content about leadership and work coordination. Share only appropriate information and preserve your organization's approvals. This is not legal, tax, financial or investment advice, or an offer of brokerage services.