Agency operations workshop / 5 MIN READ
Resolve the conflicting instruction before the team executes it
Clarify scope, authority and chronology when client directions do not agree.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources checked 2026-11-06
Conflicting instructions need a visible resolution before they become contradictory work. The agency should preserve the client’s intent while identifying the choice that the authorized client owner must make.
What you will leave with: An instruction reconciliation note with the conflict, consequences and confirmed direction.
Use this when
- Two client stakeholders give incompatible directions.
- An informal message appears to reverse an approved plan.
This is not permission to ignore a valid urgent correction or to choose the instruction most convenient for the agency.
Describe the conflict precisely
Atlassian’s working-agreements guidance makes collaboration expectations explicit. Use the agreed instruction and approval route as the starting point for resolving a conflict.
Compare the actual statements, their dates, the material they concern and the people who issued them. Two comments may apply to different versions or audiences and therefore not conflict at all. Identify the smallest genuine contradiction, such as whether an event remains invitation-only. Avoid characterizing the situation as client indecision before checking the context.
Check authority and what has already changed
Identify who is authorized to decide this issue and whether either instruction has already been executed. Review the current approved scope, decision record and relevant working arrangement. A more recent message is important context, but it may still require a formal approval for a consequential change.
If an instruction concerns a factual error, safety issue or other serious problem, protect against continuing harm while routing the decision appropriately. Do not keep publishing something known to be misleading merely because the formal owner is unavailable. Record the protective action and its basis, and avoid using the conflict as an excuse to exceed your authority elsewhere.
Ask for a focused resolution
Send the authorized owner a concise account of the two directions, the current state and the practical consequence of each option. Quote only the relevant wording and avoid widening the audience unnecessarily. Ask a clear question that can settle the work.
State what is paused and what can continue independently. Do not stop unrelated tasks to create pressure for a response. If the choice affects cost, timing or external commitments, identify the separate review needed. Avoid silently combining incompatible instructions into an ambiguous compromise that neither stakeholder actually requested.
Confirm the direction and update execution
Record the resolved instruction with its scope, version and approver. Tell everyone who is acting on the earlier direction what changed and which work should stop. Update supplier briefs and dependent tasks through the authorized route.
Check for artifacts already produced under the superseded instruction and decide how to handle them. Close the conflict when execution is aligned, not merely when one person replies. If this pattern repeats, revisit the client’s consolidation and approval process. Keep the discussion about a better operating arrangement rather than personal blame.
Make the reasoning concrete.
A fictional client’s marketing lead approves a private executive event. A regional colleague later asks the agency to publish an open registration link, assuming the format has changed.
Follow the newest message immediately
Opening: Publish the link because the instruction arrived later.
Hypothesis: The agency appears responsive.
Risk: The new direction may conflict with venue capacity and the approved guest policy.
Reconcile the instruction
Opening: Check the current approval and ask the authorized owner to confirm the intended audience.
Hypothesis: The agency can implement a coherent plan.
Risk: Public registration work may need to pause while unrelated preparation continues.
The authorized client owner confirms the private format and clarifies the regional colleague’s goal. The agency updates the request record and offers an appropriate separate route for additional invitees.
Take the questions into your next brief.
Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.
Conflict
Which exact directions cannot both be followed?
Context
Do they concern the same version, audience and time?
Authority
Who can resolve this particular choice?
Impact
What is paused, already executed or safe to continue?
Alignment
Who must receive the confirmed direction before further action?
Watch for the wrong conclusion.
- Assuming every newer message overrides all approval requirements.
- Blending incompatible instructions into an unapproved compromise.
- Stopping unrelated work to force a decision.
Your next action
Write one conflicting request as two precise options and ask the authorized client owner which scope should govern execution.
Sources & scope
The workflow, worksheets and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only the identified principles. No measured business results or named human reviewer are claimed.
- Atlassian Team Playbook: Working Agreements →Primary framework-publisher guidance · Supports: Working agreements make collaboration expectations explicit and can be revisited when circumstances change; the agency application is original analysis.