“That’s not what I wanted”: when your manager changes the criteria after the work is done

The report was ready. The criteria changed after it was handed in

Olga handed Jacek a report on the delays in a project. Last Friday they had agreed that she would describe the three main causes and propose actions. The report ran to six pages and included data from the system and recommendations. Jacek looked through it and said: “But where are the cost calculations?”

“We didn’t agree on a costing,” Olga replied. “Surely it’s obvious the board will ask about money,” Jacek retorted. Olga felt that a week of her work had just been written off as wasted. Her boss, for his part, believed that without figures the document would be no use at the meeting.

At the end of the day, Olga showed him her note of what they had agreed on Friday. There was indeed nothing about costs in it. Jacek admitted that the additional request had only come from the board that morning. He still needed the calculations, though. The dispute was no longer just about the report; it was now also about who would do the extra work and which other tasks would have to give way.

What really happened

Olga did the work according to the scope that had been written down, while Jacek assessed it against a new expectation. These are two different problems. The first concerns the quality of the report in the light of the agreed criteria. The second concerns an expansion of the scope ahead of the board meeting. As long as the boss says “it should have been obvious”, the employee hears an accusation of insufficient competence. When she replies “it’s not my fault”, he hears a refusal to help. The new need may have arisen entirely in good faith, but nobody said who was responsible for it or which tasks had to be moved. You do not need to settle whether Jacek was “deliberately changing the rules after the fact” in order to improve the way they work. It is enough to name the original agreement, the new need, the cost and the deadline. Only then is it worth discussing why it had not been clear earlier whom the report was meant to serve.

What research says about unclear requirements

Locke and Latham’s goal-setting theory highlights the role of specific expectations, feedback and the conditions under which a task is carried out. A meta-analysis by Tubre and Collins, in turn, shows a link between role ambiguity and job performance, although it is not an experiment on changing requirements within a single project. It is also worth bearing in mind the distortion of judgement after the event known as hindsight bias: once we know the outcome, the original expectation can seem more obvious than it really was. Roese and Vohs describe this mechanism in a review of the research, but they do not prove that this is what happened to Jacek. The practical conclusion is more modest and more useful: neither side’s memory or intuition should take the place of agreed criteria. A specific note made at the start of an assignment is a better basis for the conversation than an argument over who remembers the conversation better.

Why this turns so quickly into a conflict about respect

Jacek may see the request for calculations as a simple clarification. For Olga, however, it is a change in the criterion used to assess work that has already been done. If the boss says “anyone should have seen that coming”, he is judging not only the document but also the employee’s professionalism. At that point the dispute about figures turns into a defence of her competence. Olga, meanwhile, may hear “do more” and respond with “you’re treating me unfairly”, even though the problem could be solved by dividing up the work. It is worth separating three questions: did the original report match the agreed scope; is the new calculation genuinely needed; and who has the authority to change the order of tasks. A helpful question for the boss is: “Are we talking about a mistake in how the work was done, or about a new need?” If the two sides do not keep these matters apart, the employee will start preparing excess material just in case, and the manager will get more information but take less responsibility for defining the scope of the task.

How to approach it

Olga might say: “On Friday we agreed on three causes of the delays and recommendations. A cost calculation wasn’t part of the scope. I understand the board needs it now. Let’s agree exactly what I need to calculate and by when.” In this way she reminds him of what was agreed earlier and shows a willingness to cooperate. A further question is: “Which task can we move back so that I can do this properly?” Jacek might reply: “The requirement only came up today. We need one more day, and I’ll move the presentation.” After the meeting, Olga sends three sentences: the scope of the additional calculation, the deadline and who will confirm the result. For the future, they prepare a short task description: why the task exists, how they will judge whether it has been done well, and by when and by whom it is to be approved. Changing requirements is acceptable; the problem arises when people pretend the requirements were the same from the start.

How to change requirements without undermining work already done

A short task card can include the audience, three acceptance criteria, a deadline and the person who approves the work. There is no need for a multi-page form. A single message in your team chat will do: “Report: three causes of delays, recommendations, no cost calculation, by Friday, signed off by Jacek.” When a client or the board changes their expectations, the boss adds: “New requirement: cost of each option by Tuesday; we’re moving analysis B back.” For complex tasks, it is worth introducing an early review – for example, once a fifth of the work has been done – before the cost of a change becomes high. Olga can also ask at the outset: “What decision is this report meant to enable?” That question often brings a missing dimension of the task to light without expecting the employee to be a mind-reader. If the deadline cannot be moved, the manager should decide on a smaller scope or additional resources, rather than pretending the priorities do not clash.

In this story, there is no need to pick someone to blame in order to set a boundary. A report produced according to what was agreed earlier can be considered finished, and the additional calculation can be commissioned separately. All it takes is clear criteria, confirmation of the change and a conversation about the deadline and priorities. This protects both the quality of the work and the relationship, even when business requirements genuinely change.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Olga describes to Em the original agreement, the new comment and her own worry that the conversation will once again end with an accusation that she lacks initiative. Em helps her prepare two versions of the opening: a short one for a chat in the corridor and a fuller one for a meeting. She practises the sentence: “I’m happy to add the costs, but I want to keep the new requirement separate from corrections to the report we agreed earlier.” She then asks for three questions that will help pin down the scope and the rescheduling of other tasks. If the relevant context of her working relationship with Jacek is available, Em can also help her tailor the way she presents her concerns, without guessing at his intentions. Before the next project, Olga comes back to Em to check that the initial task description includes the audience, the expected outcome and the sign-off point. This is preparation for a real conversation, which she still has to have herself. The most important result is not finding someone to blame, but drawing a clear line between work that has been done and work that has just been requested.