“I can live with it.”

We were introducing a new pricing-approval process. I wanted to test it in one region first. Most of my colleagues wanted every region to launch in July. My boss backed the wider rollout.

I said I could live with it. Then my region missed the July deadline. We missed the revised August date too.

The reasons were real. The sales team needed training. An integration wasn’t ready. But I was finding reasons faster than I was finding fixes. I still thought we’d made the wrong decision.

In late August, my boss sent the leadership team an update. He confirmed that we would continue with the wider rollout. He also returned to my objection: a regional pilot would have helped us learn before expanding.

He explained how he was addressing that concern. We would review progress every two weeks. Regions could pause any step that wasn’t working.

I still preferred a pilot. But now I could see that my argument had changed how we would carry out the rollout. My region went live three weeks later.

Show what the disagreement changed

My boss’s note gave me a reason to support a decision I still disagreed with. It showed me what he had done with my concern.

David Garvin and Michael Roberto explore this in their Harvard Business Review article, What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions. They describe the importance of consideration: people need to know that their views have been taken seriously, even when their recommendation isn’t chosen.

Giving everyone a chance to speak is only part of that work. Afterwards, they may still wonder: did anyone actually consider what I said?

The way we explain a decision can help answer that question. We usually announce what we chose and list its benefits. We say much less about the objections, or why we proceeded despite them.

Try including the strongest objection in your account. Explain what it changed. If it didn’t change the plan, explain why.

That explanation has to reflect the discussion honestly. My boss had introduced safeguards that addressed the risk I’d raised. His note made those changes visible and helped me understand his reasoning.

A line often attributed to Cyrus the Great captures the aim: diversity in counsel, unity in command. We can disagree about the choice and still commit to carrying it out. Seeing how our counsel was weighed makes that commitment easier.

Read What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions »

In Dare to Disagree, Margaret Heffernan tells the story of researcher Alice Stewart and statistician George Kneale, whose job was to try to prove Stewart wrong. Watch how she describes their working partnership. Kneale’s challenges helped Stewart test her findings and gave her greater confidence in the evidence. It illustrates the diversity in counsel that helps people make better decisions.

Pick one decision you need to explain this week, especially to someone who recommended another option. In three or four sentences, explain what you chose, the strongest objection, and how you addressed it—or why you proceeded despite it. Ask a colleague who disagreed whether your account represents their concern fairly.

If this is also the note people will act on, include who owns the next step and when it will happen. Hit reply and tell us what your colleague’s response helped you notice.

The Dutch word uitwaaien means, roughly, “to blow out.” It describes heading outside for a walk in windy weather to clear your head. A stretch of windswept beach or an open path offers a simple way to take a break from whatever has been occupying your thoughts.  More on uitwaaien »