Imagine your leadership team agrees to bring a launch forward. Another piece of work will have to wait. Everyone in the meeting understands why, and the decision seems clear.
Two days later, a colleague asks for the work that was supposed to arrive on Friday.
“Didn't someone tell you?”
It's a hypothetical example, but it raises a useful question: who actually knows what we've changed?
Making a decision is one job. Helping the people affected understand what it means is another. This article is about that second job: communicating a priority change once the decision has been made.
Check the story you're telling yourself
“We announced it” can mean several things. You mentioned it in a meeting. Someone posted it in a channel. A new date appeared on a project board.
None tells you whether the people relying on the old plan know what to do differently.
Before you send another message, ask yourself: what am I assuming people already know?
Perhaps you assume their manager passed it on. Perhaps you expect them to connect a broad announcement to their own deadline. Or perhaps you're treating a change in one team's plan as if it has no effect anywhere else.
You don't need to anticipate every possible consequence. Start with the commitments you know you've changed.
Follow the promise, not just the organisation chart
Who was expecting something from this work? Who needs it before they can start their part? Who has already made a promise based on the original plan?
Those people may not have been in the decision meeting.
Make a short list with the person closest to the work. Include the person doing it, the person waiting for it and anyone who will need to explain the change to someone else. For a client-facing commitment, use the authorised communication route rather than sending conflicting updates from several people.
This doesn't mean copying the whole organisation into everything. It means finding the people whose next action or expectation needs to change.
Ask a practical question: “Who would be surprised if we followed the new plan tomorrow?”
Explain the consequence, not just the priority
“The launch is our top priority” may be accurate. It still leaves a colleague wondering whether their Friday deadline stands.
Give them enough information to act:
- What has changed from the previous agreement?
- Why was that choice made, in terms you're able to share?
- What will happen instead?
- Who owns the next step?
- When will they hear more if something is still uncertain?
Keep the explanation proportionate. You don't need to share private deliberations or confidential client information to be clear about a changed commitment.
And don't turn an estimate into a promise because a firm date feels more reassuring. If the replacement date isn't known, say that and give a realistic time for the next update.
Here's a hypothetical example:
“We've agreed to put the launch review ahead of the internal report this week. That means we won't deliver the report on Friday as planned. I'm checking the revised timing with the team and will update you by Thursday afternoon. Is there a decision you're making before then that depends on those figures?”
The last question matters. It gives the other person a chance to point out a consequence you may have missed. It doesn't pretend they have approved the change simply because you told them about it.
Own the message when you own the decision
If you decided to move the work, be clear about that. Don't leave the person delivering it to look unreliable for following your instruction.
You can agree who will send the update, but give them a truthful explanation they can use. “We've agreed to change the sequence” is different from leaving them to say, “I'm sorry, I haven't finished.”
Take care with the tone. The person waiting for the work may have a perfectly reasonable objection. They might have booked time, promised a customer or arranged another team's involvement.
You don't need to defend the decision before you've heard what it affects.
Try: “What does this change on your side?” Then listen for information, not just acceptance.
If that information shows the plan needs another look, take it back to the person with authority to decide. Being clear doesn't mean insisting that the first revised plan must be right. Sometimes you need to change your mind as a leader.
Put the same agreement where the work happens
After the conversation, update the place people use to coordinate the work. That might be a shared plan, a task record or an agreed email thread.
Record the current commitment and the next review or update. Keep enough history to explain what changed, rather than quietly replacing a date and leaving people to wonder whether they remembered it incorrectly.
Check for another version of the old promise. Is the team working from an earlier brief? Is a client-facing schedule still showing the original date? Does someone else own a dependent task that needs attention?
You won't always control those records. In that case, agree who will update them. Don't assume a message in one place has changed every place that matters.
Check understanding without demanding agreement
“Everyone happy?” isn't the only way to close the conversation.
Ask what people will do next and what remains unresolved. For example:
- “What will you tell the team about Friday?”
- “Is there anything still showing the old date?”
- “Who else needs to know before we start?”
- “What are we still waiting to confirm?”
These questions make room for a misunderstanding or a practical problem. Acknowledging a message isn't the same as agreeing that the consequences are manageable.
Clear communication doesn't create extra capacity
A well-explained change can still leave someone with an impossible workload. Don't treat their concern as a communication problem simply because your message was clear.
Safe Work Australia's job-demands guidance recommends consulting workers, taking workload concerns seriously and planning sufficient time and skilled people for work to be completed safely. It identifies severe, prolonged or frequent high demands as a hazard, rather than treating every busy period as one.
That's workplace-health guidance, not evidence that a particular message template prevents harm. If the change creates a safety or workload concern, follow the appropriate workplace process and address the work itself.
Before you close your next priority-change meeting, try asking:
“Who is still working from the old promise, and who's going to tell them?”
Then give that action an owner. The decision isn't fully communicated just because the people in the room understand it.
If your leadership team wants to explore the assumptions behind everyday decisions and conversations, find out about Andy Nunn's leadership keynotes and workshops.