A director, three months into a new role, told me about a situation I hear often.

She was hired to modernize procurement. In her final interview, the CFO gave her a clear mandate: reduce vendor costs by 15%.

Soon after she started, she learned her finance counterpart had budgets that assumed she'd cut two people from the team. 

She also learned her boss expected her to consolidate three legacy systems onto one platform by Q3. 

A project like that would need more resources, not fewer. 

And her peers in operations were waiting for her to fix a supplier reliability issue - which meant switching to vendors who actually delivered on time, even if they cost more.

Her boss thought the migration was the priority. Finance thought it was cost savings. Operations thought it was the supplier issue. 

Everyone believed their goal was the most important one.

Most leaders assume the job they accepted is the job they will do. It usually isn't.

What gets said in interviews is filtered. What's written in the job description is what HR felt comfortable posting. 

The real priorities - the ones the boss cares about, and the ones peers are waiting on, may never have been sorted out before anyone got there.

The misalignment only becomes visible once someone is inside, talking to stakeholders, and realizing they're each waiting for something different.

When leaders feel the gap between what they signed up for and what's actually expected, most just accept it and push through.

They don’t mention the conflicting priorities to their boss, because no one wants to look like they can't handle the job. 

Or worse, like someone who complains. 

They were hired to figure this out. And raising concerns two months in feels like weakness.

So they work harder. Stay late. Make progress on everything, even if it's inches.

Trying to meet conflicting expectations doesn't make them less conflicting. 

It just hides the problem until later.

The longer leaders deliver on every version of the job, the more everyone assumes no trade-offs are needed. 

The boss doesn't reprioritize because things seem fine.

Peers keep expecting delivery because no one has pushed back.

Then Q3 hits. The migration is 60% done. Cost savings are at 8%. The supplier issue is still there. 

Progress on everything. Nothing finished.

Now there's a review to explain why targets were missed. 

And the conversation isn't about competing priorities. It's about performance.

Name the misalignment early. Not as a complaint or criticism. Just as what you're seeing.

1/ Have a conversation with your boss:

“Now that I've had a chance to meet with the key stakeholders, I'm realizing X and Y can't both happen on these timelines. I’d like to discuss the priorities.”

2/ Be specific:

"I can hit the 15% cost savings by year-end, or I can get the system migration done by Q3. But I can't do both with the resources I have. If both are important, we will need X and Y resources."

3/ Do this early, ideally between Day 30 and 60:

You’re still seen as new. You are expected to ask questions.

After that, it starts to sound like excuse-making.

4/ Don't expect perfect alignment:

The goal is to reset expectations.

To get clarity on which trade-offs are okay, which ones aren't.

And if there is something that would make multiple initiatives possible - like extra resources - name that too.

5/ Document the conclusions:

People forget, especially when they're disappointed.

6/ And here's the part most people skip - keep checking in:

Priorities shift. What your boss cared about in month one might not be what they care about in month three.

Nothing kills credibility and trust like surprises. 

Have the conversation early.

Before it falls on you and people assume you just couldn't deliver.