You proposed a solution and explained how it would be implemented. A few people nodded. Then the person on the other side of the table opened a document and showed where the problem was. The deadline cannot be met, the cost has been underestimated, and one of the assumptions behind the proposal is incorrect. They speak calmly, show the data, and explain the consequences. As you listen, you realise they have noticed something you missed. When they finish, everyone looks at you.
There is still time to put the decision right. You could ask them to explain what needs to change. Instead, you remember whom you have already told about the deadline, how confidently you defended the solution, and who heard you dismiss other proposals. You would have to tell those people that you misjudged something. While they wait for an answer about the work, you are thinking about how you will look in front of them.
You have understood the objection, but you are still trying to find a way to keep the decision unchanged.
Perhaps you will say that your colleague is looking at things too narrowly. You will remind them that there are circumstances they do not know about, or criticise them for raising the problem only now. Sometimes there is a valid reason for asking such questions. Still, if the data shows that the proposed solution will not produce the expected result, the data needs to be checked and the decision reconsidered. Your discomfort in front of the people present does not change what is written in the document.
At a moment like this, a person can quite consciously use their position to avoid admitting a mistake. They know enough to understand the warning and speak skilfully enough to steer the conversation elsewhere. Your colleague starts choosing their words more carefully, the others decide it is better to stay silent, and the meeting ends with the decision you had already made. Later, you may say that everyone agreed. You will remember that nobody continued to object. The people around the table will remember why they stopped.
Education should equip us to recognise the limits of our own knowledge as well. We learn to check claims, explain our conclusions, and distinguish an assumption from evidence. Then we are given a position and the power to end a conversation before our own claims have undergone the same scrutiny. Someone warned us about an oversight, and we had the authority to leave their warning unanswered.
That is why saying, “I do not know this. Call someone who does,” requires more than a willingness to say the words. We need to accept that the answer may change the plan. That the person we have called in may say the promised deadline needs to be pushed back, the solution changed, or the work stopped until something that was overlooked has been checked. Afterwards, we need to face the people to whom we promised something different and explain why we are now changing the decision.
That can be uncomfortable. Someone will ask why the check was not done earlier. Someone will be disappointed or angry. You will have to answer questions for which you do not yet have a ready answer. But all of that is part of the job you accepted when you were given the right to decide. Calling in an expert is not enough if they are allowed to speak only while confirming what you had already imagined.
An expert assessment can also be wrong. It needs to be checked, its reasoning requested, and its findings compared with other data. The person leading must also consider consequences that extend beyond a single field. But when you decide against an expert assessment, you need to explain the basis for doing so. People must be able to understand and check your reasons. Saying “I decide” tells them who has the authority. It tells them nothing about whether the decision is correct.
People also remember how you accept a better proposal. You can say, “Our colleague noticed an oversight. We will change the solution.” You have then explained what happened and acknowledged the contribution of the person who spoke up. If, after the meeting, you tell everyone separately that you had the same reservation yourself but simply did not voice it, you show how difficult it is for you when someone else reaches the right conclusion first.
The others will also watch what happens to that colleague over the following days. Do you invite them to important discussions again? Do they receive the information they need for their work? Can they raise another objection without being reminded of the previous disagreement? If you gradually exclude them, others will understand the connection even if you never put it into words. Next time, they may open the same document and skip precisely the page you need to see.
Meetings become more pleasant, and decisions less thoroughly examined. You ask whether there are any objections and are met with silence. The conversation about the oversight continues in the corridor, where people try to protect their part of the work or prepare for the consequences. You are pleased that everyone agreed. They have learned how much raising an objection can cost them.
When the consequences become visible, you need to explain how the decision was made. What did you know? Who warned you? Why was the warning not accepted? If something was missed despite a serious review, you need to understand why. If you understood the warning and rejected it because you could not bear being contradicted, your responsibility also includes how you treated the people who tried to prevent the problem.
At that point, “I take responsibility” needs to be followed through. What will be done, who is responsible for it, and when can the result be checked? A person whose time has been wasted, whose money has been spent, or who has been denied something they were counting on has the right to a concrete answer. Your good intentions and effort may be real. Their problem is no smaller because of them.
Questions from people who supported you can be particularly difficult. Perhaps you expected that at least they would wait, understand the circumstances, and spare you further discomfort. But the support you received was not advance agreement with every future decision. A person can want you to succeed and ask you to explain an oversight. They can value what you did before and believe you are making a mistake now. They do not have to withdraw their question to prove they are still on your side.
This tests the attitude towards criticism you advocated before you held the power to decide. Will you provide the document that allows your claim to be checked? Can you accept that the other person may remain dissatisfied after your explanation? Will you still answer them politely the next day, without telling others how they changed the moment you took on responsibility? Someone who has lost trust has the right to ask for evidence and time before trusting you again.
That is why I would return to the person at the beginning of the meeting. The document is still open. The warning has been spoken, and the decision can still be changed. You can ask them to show what they propose. You may have to withdraw a promise, have several difficult conversations, and bear the fact that others have seen your mistake. You can still do all of that before someone feels the consequences.
If you silence them now to avoid admitting your mistake, who will later pay for your need to be right?
Comments