What you'll learn
- Tell a time collision from incompatible instructions for the same work.
- Agree one deliverable and withdraw the criterion it replaces.
- Check that both managers review the work against the revised brief.
Are these conflicting instructions, or too much work at once?
One manager asks for more detail; another has explicitly told the employee to leave that detail out. The employee changes the work, then gets corrected by the next reviewer. If you are one of those managers, resolve the contradiction with your colleague rather than treating another revision as proof that the employee did not understand.
The HSE Role Management Standard asks organisations to make requirements compatible and clear as far as possible, and to provide a route for raising conflicts. This is guidance about work design, not proof that a particular conversation will remove the problem.
If both tasks are reasonable but cannot fit the available time, decide what moves using the team overload guide. A different problem remains when the same report will be rejected for including detail and rejected for omitting it. Ranking the two requests does not change those acceptance criteria.
When the directions are too vague to compare, start with role clarity before judging performance. Here, assume you can identify the specific contradiction and the managers who can amend it.
Agree what this assignment must deliver
Consider this hypothetical internal report. The line manager wants a one-page decision summary for the founder, with no workstream breakdown in that circulation. The project manager says they will reject that same circulated report unless it includes the breakdown. Both instructions concern ordinary presentation preferences in this example.
First ask whether separate views would satisfy both needs: a concise decision summary and a detailed working note. Check whether the audience accepts that arrangement and whether creating both fits the employee's capacity. Different uses of the same information are not automatically a conflict.
Suppose the two managers agree that this circulation needs the decision summary. The project manager withdraws the breakdown requirement for that report, while still checking factual accuracy. Any separate working note gets an agreed owner and feasible date, or is explicitly deferred with its requester. A short format must still include material facts needed for the decision.
- 01
Name the current deliverable
Record what the employee will produce, its audience and date. Say which manager accepts that output and which specialist checks remain necessary. One brief can include more than one legitimate reviewer.
- 02
Withdraw the incompatible criterion
Identify the earlier instruction that is replaced for this assignment. Have the manager who gave it confirm the change to the employee and the other manager. Keep the history, but make the current direction easy to identify.
- 03
Account for work that moves
If the change adds effort or displaces another commitment, agree the revised scope or date with the affected requester. Do not quietly turn a format compromise into a second full deliverable.
- 04
Check the employee's understanding
Ask them to explain what they will deliver and how it will be reviewed. Invite remaining questions. Acknowledging the message is useful, but the completed work will show whether the brief was usable.
Research on dual leadership in a matrix organisation also examines the relationship between the two leaders. The 2022 study used perceptions reported by managers in one German logistics subsidiary; it did not test this revised-brief procedure or measure improved employee performance. It is a reason to look at the manager relationship, not a promise of an outcome.
If the managers cannot agree, give the employee a clear next step while they wait
For the hypothetical report, you might agree that the founder will resolve its format before circulation. The employee can prepare the neutral factual material both managers need, while waiting to send the report. Tell them when they will hear back and who follows up if the answer is late. Continue unrelated work rather than creating an indefinite pause.
If you are the founder who owns this decision, give an instruction the employee can act on: what is being delivered, which ordinary criterion applies and what happens to the other request. Sending the employee back with “work it out between you” leaves the contradiction intact.
Change the review criteria as well as the task
In the example, the project manager should not later mark the summary down for lacking the breakdown they agreed to remove. They can still raise inaccurate figures, missing material facts or another substantiated issue. Changing one criterion does not make all work acceptable or erase unrelated concerns.
Acas reviews and appraisals guidance describes reviewing agreed objectives, setting fair objectives that reflect tasks and workload, and sharing a written record with the employee. Explicitly retiring the incompatible criterion is the practical recommendation here; it is not an exact instruction from Acas.
Keep the note of what changed, who agreed it and which assignment it covers with the review evidence. If an earlier review already relied on the contradictory criterion, explain that specific issue to the authorised review owner through your normal process. Do not quietly rewrite a score or promise a different rating.
For a formal review, use the guide to assessing inherited evidence as a new manager. Keep the manager's changed instruction distinct from the employee's actual delivery and from evidence about other work.
Check the work after resolving conflicting instructions
Ask whether the employee still received incompatible corrections after the change. If so, speak to the other manager about the instruction that reappeared. For the next assignment, agree who may change the brief and how the other requester proposes an amendment before the employee starts another revision.
The agreement can be limited to this circulation. Say so: permission to omit a breakdown from one summary should not silently become a rule for every future report. When similar collisions keep recurring, review the managers' intake and approval responsibilities rather than asking the employee to become a better mediator.
In Cooperly, Fundamentals can bring expectations and role context into the conversation, alongside working profiles and team context. That can support preparation and follow-up; the managers still have to agree the brief and assess the actual work. Cooperly does not arbitrate their authority or change an employee's review criteria for them.