Management Tip: To Defend a Decision, Highlight Its Flaws

Sometimes the best way to defend a decision is to point out its flaws.

Let’s say you have decided to pursue “Plan A”. As a manager, it is part of your job to defend and explain that decision to folks who work for you. So when someone marches into your office to explain that Plan A sucks, and that Plan Z would be much better, what do you do?

My old instinct was to listen to Plan Z, say what I don’t like about it, and to describe as best as I can why Plan A is better. Of course, the person has already seen these same arguments in the e-mail I sent announcing the decision, but since they don’t agree, they must not have heard me clearly, so I’d better repeat them again, right? I can report that this seldom works very well.

It works much better if I start out by agreeing: “Yep. Plan Z is a reasonable plan. Not only for the reasons you mentioned, but here are two more advantages. And Plan A – the plan that we choose – not only has the flaws that you mentioned, but here are three more flaws.” The effect of this technique is amazing. It seems completely counter-intuitive, but even if you don’t convince people that Plan A is better, hearing you explain its flaws, and the benefits of alternate plans, makes people much more comfortable.

Here’s what I think is going on. When a decision comes down from on high, it can be scary, because people wonder whether management understands the consequences of their choice. If you understand the pitfalls of your plan, it reassures them that you didn’t make the decision blindly. If you knew all that stuff, and still chose Plan A, perhaps it’s not as they thought. Ideally, being open about pros and cons leads to a conversation in which you can convince them that Plan A really is better. But whether that happens or not, they’ll definitely leave feeling better than if you simply pretended that your plan was perfect and that the alternative was completely stupid. (Of course, if the person raises flaws or alternatives that you hadn’t considered, then you may need to reopen the decision. When to reopen decisions is a whole nother topic.)

This is part of a larger philosophy. I want an environment where it’s okay to openly discuss the pros and cons of ideas and plans. Every idea has advantages and disadvantages. I shouldn’t take it as a personal attack when someone points out a flaw. When you choose a plan, you choose it flaws and all. The best way to succeed is to be open about the flaws, and work to avoid them.

It helps to avoid a strong link between ideas and people. If I think of an idea as mine, then when you insult it, you are insulting me. If I think of an idea as a hypothesis that we can investigate together, and maybe modify together, then we can discuss flaws and alternatives without making it personal. When ideas are a joint project with multiple people contributing, you end up with something better than anyone would thought up on their own.

Comments

[T]

Hello Dave,
Neat psychology - would probably work in any generic interpersonal scenario ! I intend to try this out.
Cheers,
T

[Michael L. Parks]

Hi Dave,

Your blog points out a truth that is apparent in so many facets of life: there is no "right" answer to most decisions in life. There is good and bad in everything, you pick the best or most tolerable set of compromises and work to make it the best you can.

[Shibin Zhang]

I used to work for a company with beautiful slogans. I contributed a lot to them. I helped people a lot. I ever solved problems that blocked the entire developing team weeks. However, I got a very low score at review. Because I brought up a different approach to the architecture, I was told that I did a lot but I failed on “how to do it”.

Last year, my wife interviewed in a company with slogans like “leadership innovation”. During interview, one high level person clearly told her “we don’t want smart people, we only want nice people”.

My point here is that it’s always harder to implement things, but I believe Netapp is different.

Thanks Dave for this excellent post! I once worked with a senior engineer who used this approach very effectively but my (obviously incorrect) perception, at that time, was that he did not have a definitive stand on either Plan A or Plan Z. How do you rally troops to support a plan while admitting to its flaws? I've had people tell me to go back and think more just because they would rather prefer not to do anything versus apply themselves to something that is imperfect. Or, someone would propose a 'flawless' alternate and wave away any concerns raised making management feel more confident about the person if not the plan, resulting in a sub-optimal choice.

[David Maldonado]

To paraphrase Dale Carnegie; a person's opinion is their own. It is their's and no one else's. They will defend it as they would defend themselves. No well crafted argument will forcefully pry it away from them. The only true way to make them adapt your idea, is to convince them they thought of it first.