Leadership and Communication: Discussing a Decision with Your Team

The manager of a cultural centre proposes changing event registration. She has prepared a presentation, explained the advantages, and asked whether everyone agrees. Several people nod. A week later, the team is still using the old process. During another conversation, it emerges that the administrator does not know who will answer telephone enquiries, while the coordinator worries about losing existing bookings.

This example shows the difference between a persuasive presentation and a shared understanding of the work. A leader can sound confident while important questions remain unasked. Attention to other people matters beyond securing agreement: sometimes an objection reveals a weakness in the proposal.

On Brian Tracy's official website, influence is connected with relationships, competence, and trust. These ideas can become questions about your work without treating every motivational statement as a scientific law or guarantee of results.

Instead of aiming simply to “become more influential”, check whether colleagues understand your decisions, can express disagreement, and see your promises fulfilled. Such observations provide more practical information than trying to assign a universal percentage of success to communication.

Before the meeting, write down the proposed decision: trying a new registration method at one event. Separately, note what remains adjustable: the review date, the person responsible, and how bookings will be transferred. The team needs to know whether this is a discussion, consultation before a manager's decision, or an announcement of a change already approved.

If a decision has been made, do not describe the meeting as an unrestricted choice. Explain honestly what is settled and where participation matters: “We are changing the service, but the transition process is still open. I want to hear where information might be lost.” People can now see what their answers will influence.

The four-P framework—positioning, performance, personal power, and politeness—can become a preparation check. What do people know about your work? What experience supports the proposal? Which resources and authority are actually available? How do you behave when someone asks an uncomfortable question?

Competence need not be merely performed through clothing or a confident voice. If the process is untested, say so and suggest a small trial. Formal managerial authority does not answer who will do the additional work or what they need. Courtesy matters after a refusal too, not only before one.

In Aristotle's Rhetoric, persuasion involves the speaker's credibility, the audience's state, and proof through the speech itself. This does not make logic the least important component. A working discussion benefits from leaving room for all three.

In our example, credibility concerns whether the manager respects earlier agreements. The emotional aspect includes worries about mistakes and workload. Arguments require concrete information: where duplicate bookings occur, how long checking takes, and what the trial should change. Liking the manager cannot supply missing information.

Prepare materials so that people can read them comfortably, and choose clothes suitable for the circumstances and your comfort. A suit, age, posture, or speed of reply cannot reliably establish the quality of an idea. An impression need not be settled permanently within a few seconds.

Check something more useful: are the relevant figures visible, are labels understandable, can people ask questions, and is a written version available? For someone seeing a new process for the first time, a clear example may be more helpful than an immaculate presentation style.

Albert Mehrabian explains that these proportions arose from experiments concerning feelings and attitudes. They do not apply to every message. A technical deadline, price, or instruction does not lose significance because words supposedly account for only seven percent.

Tone and behaviour still deserve attention. The manager says, “I want to hear objections”, then immediately interrupts the first reply. A specific action can change: let the person finish, clarify their meaning, and return to the question. You need not infer a hidden intention from one gesture.

A colleague might want a reliable schedule, a chance to learn, fair distribution of work, or enough time to do a task well. Different circumstances matter to different people. A two-motive formula cannot fully describe a team, and disagreement does not establish resistance to change.

Ask, “What about this option helps your work, and what would make it harder?” The administrator may support the new system while lacking time to teach visitors how to use it. That is a resource question. Threatening consequences or exaggerating advantages cannot provide the missing time.

After a reply, check your understanding: “Have I understood correctly that telephone bookings missing from the system are the main risk?” Being corrected provides useful information. A question should not be a device for steering someone towards a predetermined answer.

Recognition can be specific too: “Thank you for checking the old bookings. We found two groups of visitors I hadn't considered.” That names a contribution rather than creating an obligation to agree. Leave room for disagreement after a compliment as well.

For an initial explanation, identify the problem, propose a change, show the basis, name limitations, and request a concrete next step. For example: “We currently transfer the same bookings twice. I suggest testing the new process at one event. Here are examples of duplicates. Telephone requests still need a separate solution. Who can help check that stage?”

After discussing it, record who is responsible, the timing, and how the trial will be assessed. A pilot may not succeed; it may reveal that the proposal needs changing. An honest account of that experience is also part of leadership.

In the EQ journal, examine a moment when you began defending an idea rather than listening: what colleagues said, which explanation occurred to you, and what you wanted to reply. Writing can help prepare a clarifying question without requiring you to remain unruffled at every meeting.

In Insight Planner, record how the proposal will be tested: who takes the next step, when the team reviews results, and which questions remain open. The conversation then leaves more than a favourable impression. People have an understandable agreement they can carry out and reconsider.