Why Do Big Bosses Often Go Back on Their Word?

Justin D. Lee

In the workplace, many people have encountered this confusion: yesterday, the big boss firmly announced at a meeting that Project A would be pushed forward; today, he suddenly declares full commitment to Project B. A raise promised last week quietly disappears this week. A strategic direction set at the beginning of the year is completely overturned by mid-year.

Why do big bosses always seem to "break their word"? Is it because they have terrible memory, or is it a character flaw?

Resources are always scarce

The biggest challenge a big boss faces every day is not "what they want to do," but "what they can actually do."

A company's resources—money, people, time—are always limited. When the market environment changes, the competitive landscape shifts, or an internal project encounters unexpected difficulties, the big boss must reallocate resources.

A commitment made today may be shelved tomorrow because of something more urgent or important. This isn't going back on one's word; it's an unavoidable choice under limited resources.

The natural chasm of information asymmetry

The amount of information a big boss possesses is completely different from that of ordinary employees.

They attend higher-level decision-making meetings. They know the shareholders' thinking, the board's direction, potential investment or acquisition opportunities, and even the trajectory of macroeconomic policies. This information causes their understanding of situations to change constantly.

When you hear a commitment, it's based on the information you have at hand. When the big boss makes that commitment, it's based on the information he has at that moment. Once he gains new information, adjusting decisions becomes his responsibility.

And as the employee on the receiving end of that commitment, you silently bear all the consequences: the countless sleepless nights you spent on Project A that has now been scrapped, the vacations you gave up, the other opportunities you turned down—all gone down the drain. What's even more painful is that you can't even argue—because the boss can simply say, "The market has changed," and all your efforts become meaningless.

The boss is also a "sandwich layer"

Many people assume that the big boss is the freest person in the company, able to do whatever they want. The opposite is true—the big boss is the biggest "sandwich layer" of all.

Upward, they must meet the expectations and pressure from the board and shareholders. Downward, they must manage the needs and development of thousands of employees. Outward, they face demands from clients, partners, and regulators. Inward, they must balance conflicts of interest among different departments.

When these forces come into conflict, the big boss has no choice but to adjust previous statements. This isn't changing course on a whim; it's seeking dynamic balance within a complex system.

Trial and error is the norm in decision-making

There's a saying in the startup world: "Fail fast, iterate fast." This is not only a product development method but also a decision-making method for big bosses.

Often, when a big boss makes a decision, they are not completely certain. They need to run small-scale pilots, then decide based on the results whether to fully roll it out. Along the way, some attempts will prove to be wrong, so naturally, the direction will adjust.

This kind of "trial-and-error decision-making" looks like "flip-flopping" to outsiders, but it's actually the most rational way to deal with uncertainty.

Different audiences, different emphases

A big boss might have seven or eight meetings in a single day, facing completely different audiences.

Talking to the sales team, they will emphasize revenue growth and market expansion. Talking to R&D, they will emphasize product innovation and technological breakthroughs. Talking to finance, they will emphasize cost control and efficiency improvement.

These differently focused statements, when repeated across departments, turn into "the boss is saying different things." But in reality, the boss is simply highlighting different aspects in different contexts.

In conclusion

Understanding these reasons is not meant to excuse the big boss's "going back on their word." Rather, it's to help us view this issue more rationally:

Don't take every word from the boss as an unbreakable "rule" or a "promise"—especially those statements full of rosy expectations. To gauge whether something will truly move forward, observe whether resources are genuinely being directed that way: have the people been allocated, has the budget been assigned, how much of the boss's own energy is being invested to drive it.

More importantly, if you find yourself affected by the boss's "fickle" decisions, try proactively communicating: "Boss, our original plan was A, but now the direction has shifted to B. How should I adjust my priorities?"

But if this kind of "repeated upheaval" becomes the norm, then it's no longer just about frustration. Being repeatedly let down by broken promises will gradually erode your ability to make sound judgments and feel in control of your work, eventually turning you into someone who dares not make long-term plans or truly commit. And that, precisely, is the most insidious yet most致命 damage to a career.

Instead of passively complaining, it's better to actively adapt. After all, in this rapidly changing era, the only constant is change itself.

Let this be our shared encouragement.