Suppose my team recommends an option I don't support. We've tried something similar before, and I remember consequences the analysis hasn't accounted for.
I send it back: “What has changed since then? Why do you expect a different outcome? Check whether we could run into the same problems.”
Those are legitimate questions. In one professional discussion, a consultant describes a client raising precisely this objection: similar initiatives had been tried before, with adverse consequences. The consultant acknowledges that the client knows the industry far better than the consulting team.
My experience may help the team spot something they've missed. But “we've tried this before; it won't work” also needs to be tested. Some conditions may have changed. Past experience gives me a reason to ask the question. It doesn't settle the answer.
What Happens After the Review
Now suppose the team has addressed my concerns, revisited the earlier attempt and explained what is different this time. Some risks remain, but the recommendation hasn't changed.
I can still disagree. I may see a flaw in the response or decide that the consequences of a mistaken decision would be unacceptable. New information may justify further checks.
But at this point, I can return to my original concern: what has the team established, and how has it affected my assessment? Does my next request take their answer into account?
A change in criteria doesn't automatically mean I'm looking for confirmation. Circumstances may change and new constraints may emerge as the work progresses. What matters is why I'm introducing new requirements and how I assess competing options.
For example, I might accept a forecast supporting my preferred option as a sufficient basis for action, yet dismiss a forecast supporting an alternative because it rests on assumptions. There may be good reasons for treating them differently. Are those reasons the quality of the data, the consequences of error or my ability to contain the risk? Or does my preference for one option influence my judgement?
My position may remain unchanged after a thorough review. The findings about the risks and limitations of the option I choose still belong in the decision record.
What the Team Learns for Next Time
In another professional discussion, the author describes a leader whose requirements and questions about the assumptions only emerge once a proposal has been prepared. The author accepts that the feedback is usually valid. Yet the team struggles to understand expectations that change from one version to the next.
So my comments can be well founded and still leave the team unsure what to aim for in its next piece of work.
People notice which arguments I consider, which I dismiss out of hand and which risks I'm willing to discuss. If findings supporting my preferred option are accepted more readily than those that challenge it, the team may begin to factor that into how it prepares the analysis.
I may never ask anyone to confirm my view. But next time, some objections may not reach me because people don't expect a substantive discussion.
To me, this can look like a team working well. The analysis is convincing, the team agrees and the decision has support. My confidence grows, even though I may no longer be seeing some of the information that matters.
I Can Still Stand by My Decision
An analyst's recommendation does not determine my final choice. I may take broader objectives into account, accept the risk the analysis identifies and continue with the project.
But there is no reason to seek a different analytical conclusion simply because I've decided to proceed. I can explain why we're going ahead, which risk I'm accepting and what needs to be monitored. The analysis remains on the record, and I take responsibility for the choice.
This also matters for the next discussion. A 2025 study in Negotiation and Conflict Management Research examined how employees responded when their suggestions were rejected. In two experiments based on workplace scenarios, participants felt safer speaking up about a different issue after receiving a specific explanation for a rejection than after a vague explanation. [1] The study did not assess the quality of business decisions.
To examine my own practice, I can revisit a recent discussion in which the team and I disagreed. I can trace what happened to my concerns after the team responded, and what happened to their objections after I made my decision.
What did people learn from that conversation about whether they can influence my position?
I can ask the team that question directly.
If you'd like to take a closer look at a situation like this in your own work, we can work through it in a one-to-one session. A specific discussion with your team is a good place to start.
Research Reference
[1] Qian, S., Hamstra, M. R. W., Jawahar, I. M., Schreurs, B., & Guzman, F. A. (2025). Disagreeing with Employees’ Constructive Disagreement: On Giving (Non-)Specific Explanations for Rejecting Employees’ Voiced Suggestions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 18(2).