Moving the Goalposts

Changing the criteria for success after they've been met, making satisfaction of the argument impossible. When evidence meets the original standard, a new, higher standard is imposed—rendering the original achievement irrelevant. In organizations, this manifests as shifting KPIs, redefining project scope mid-stream, or demanding additional proof after initial proof was provided. It's a form of bad faith that destroys trust and motivation.

When to use it

When someone consistently seems impossible to satisfy despite meeting stated requirements; when project scope keeps expanding after milestones are hit; when negotiation terms shift after agreement; when your own satisfaction threshold keeps receding.

How it can help

Detect it in performance reviews ('you hit your numbers, but now the real question is...'), negotiations ('we agreed on X, but actually we need Y'), and self-talk ('I'll be satisfied when I reach X'—then reaching X and immediately moving to Y). The antidote is defining success criteria explicitly and in writing before starting. When criteria need to legitimately change, acknowledge the change transparently rather than pretending the goalposts never moved.