You've learned to sequence your work strategically, mapping dependencies and using risk and impact to determine what comes first. But here's the reality: no plan survives first contact with changing circumstances. New data arrives, assumptions prove wrong, needs shift, or external factors reshape the landscape. The skill you need now is adaptive prioritization, or the ability to respond to new information without losing your footing or abandoning your core goal.

Adapting priorities isn't about being reactive or wishy-washy. It's about staying intentionally flexible. The best decision-makers hold their plans firmly enough to provide direction but loosely enough to adjust when the situation demands it. Throughout this unit, you'll learn how to recognize when your assumptions have changed, how to adjust your plan while keeping the destination in sight, and how to communicate those changes in a way that builds trust rather than erodes it.

Every plan rests on a foundation of assumptions—beliefs about what's true, what resources are available, what people want, or how the environment will behave. When those assumptions shift, your priorities may need to shift too. The challenge is recognizing when that moment has arrived.

Start by making your assumptions explicit. When you set priorities, ask yourself: What am I assuming to be true that, if wrong, would change this plan? You might assume that a key person will be available, that a delivery will arrive on time, or that demand will remain stable. Writing these down—even informally—creates a trigger list that alerts you when it's time to revisit your priorities.

A useful mental test is to ask: Does this new information change what success looks like, or just how we get there? If it changes the definition of success, you may need to revisit the goal itself. If it changes the path, you may need to re-sequence or swap out certain tasks. And if it changes neither, you can probably acknowledge the information and keep moving.

• Ryan: Did you see the message from Sam? They mentioned they might want to add something later. Should we start planning for that now?
• Natalie: Let me think about this. Does it change what success looks like for what we're working on right now?
• Ryan: Not really. They said "maybe down the road."
• Natalie: Then it's probably noise, not signal. Our core assumptions are still intact—we're finishing what we agreed to by the deadline.
• Ryan: So we just ignore it?
• Natalie: Not ignore—acknowledge it. I'd note it for future planning, but I wouldn't reshuffle our priorities based on a "maybe."

Notice how Natalie applies the mental test in real time. She doesn't dismiss Ryan's concern, but she helps him see that a vague future possibility doesn't warrant changing their current priorities. This kind of quick assessment prevents the constant churn that comes from treating every new piece of information as urgent.

When you do need to adjust, the temptation is to overhaul everything or, conversely, to make only superficial tweaks that don't address the real issue. The skill here is to anchor on your core goal while remaining flexible about tactics.

Think of your core goal as the "what" and your plan as the "how." The goal is your destination; the plan is the route. If traffic blocks your original path, you reroute—but you don't decide to drive to a different city. Keeping the goal visible and stable gives you and others a fixed point to orient around, even when the steps to get there are shifting.

When adjusting, be deliberate about what you're changing and what you're preserving. A helpful framework is to categorize changes into three areas: scope, sequence, and resources. Scope changes mean you're doing more or less than originally planned. Sequence changes mean you're reordering tasks or phases. Resource changes mean you're reallocating time, budget, or people. Often, the best adjustments involve sequence or resources while keeping scope intact—delivering the same outcome through a different path.

The goal of your communication is to help others understand three things: what changed, why it changed, and what happens next. A simple structure to follow is: Here's what's different, here's why, and here's what we're doing about it. This format respects people's time while giving them enough context to stay aligned.

When communicating, lead with the core goal to reassure others that you're still heading in the right direction. For example, you might say: Our goal remains finishing the project by the end of the month. However, we've learned that one of our key inputs will be delayed, so we're adjusting our sequence. Here's the updated plan. This framing positions the change as a thoughtful response, not a sign of chaos.

Be honest about uncertainty. If the new information introduces risk or ambiguity, say so. People generally prefer candid updates over overly optimistic ones that later prove unreliable. This kind of transparency builds trust over time.

Finally, invite questions and feedback. Priority changes can trigger concerns that others may not voice unless asked. A simple Does this raise any issues I should know about? or What questions do you have? opens the door for dialogue. Sometimes others have information you don't, and their input can further improve your adjusted plan.

In the upcoming role-play, you'll practice exactly this: receiving new information that disrupts your original plan and then explaining to a peer how you'll adjust priorities while keeping the main goal steady. This is where the concepts of re-evaluation, goal anchoring, and clear communication come together in a realistic scenario.