Imagine you've told your team to launch a new process on Monday.
On Thursday, someone shows you a gap in the testing. The process can't handle a customer situation you hadn't considered. You look at the evidence and realise the rollout needs to change.
Now there's another problem. You were quite confident about Monday.
What do you say?
You could quietly move the date and hope nobody asks. You could defend the original plan because everyone has already worked so hard. Or you could explain what you've learned and make the next decision clear.
That last option still takes care. “I've changed my mind” tells people something about your thinking. It doesn't tell them what to do with the work already underway.
Here's a practical way to handle the conversation. It isn't a tested script or a promise that everyone will welcome the change. It's a way to make your reasoning and the next steps easier to follow.
First, check what has actually changed
Before announcing a new direction, finish this sentence:
“I previously thought ___ because ___. I now think ___ because ___.”
If you can't fill in the second reason, you may need to investigate further.
Perhaps new evidence has arrived. Perhaps an existing fact was overlooked. Perhaps the priorities have changed, so the trade-off you accepted earlier no longer makes sense. These are different explanations. Give the one that's true.
In our hypothetical rollout, the change isn't simply that someone expressed doubt. A specific test exposed a situation the process couldn't handle.
Check how reliable that finding is, what it affects and whether it justifies changing the whole plan or only one part. Be willing to update your view without treating every new opinion as a reason to start again.
Intellectual humility is useful here: recognising that your understanding has limits and that someone else may know something you don't. In research by Tenelle Porter and Karina Schumann, people reporting greater intellectual humility were more willing to engage with opposing views, including choosing to read opposing political perspectives. The studies concerned classroom or political disagreements, not managers revising workplace decisions. They support curiosity about other views, not a guarantee of better leadership outcomes. Read the original research.
The question isn't “How do I look open-minded?” It's “What have I learned that should change what we do?”
Explain the update without rewriting the past
Start with the previous decision, then explain the evidence that changed your assessment.
“We planned to launch on Monday. The latest test found that urgent requests can reach the new queue without an assigned owner. I'm pausing that part of the rollout until we've resolved and retested it.”
That's more useful than “We've decided to take a different approach.”
Don't describe the old plan as tentative if you presented it as settled. People may have allocated time, made promises or postponed other work because of what you said.
If you missed something you should have checked, say so:
“I approved the date before that test was complete. That was my mistake.”
If the information genuinely wasn't available earlier, explain that without implying the team should have predicted it. And if someone raised the issue before you listened, acknowledge that too.
Owning a mistake and explaining a change in circumstances aren't interchangeable. Accuracy matters in the explanation as well as the decision.
Be precise about certainty
You don't need to replace one absolute claim with another.
“This will definitely solve it” may feel reassuring. If you haven't tested the fix, it's more than you know.
Try: “This addresses the failure we found. We still need to test it before deciding whether the rollout can proceed.”
A useful caution comes from two experiments on witness credibility. Participants judged fictional testimony; witnesses who expressed high confidence in details later shown to be wrong lost more credibility than witnesses who had expressed uncertainty about those details. This was mock legal testimony, not a study of workplace trust or change announcements. It does, however, challenge the idea that sounding completely certain is always the safest option. Read Tenney and colleagues' study.
You can make a clear decision while being honest about what remains unknown.
“We're pausing this part today” is a decision.
“We'll know more after the test” is a limit to your knowledge.
Both can belong in the same conversation.
Tell people what changes and what stays the same
Once you've explained why, deal with the practical consequences.
In the rollout example, “pause the launch” could mean several things. Should the team stop training? Cancel customer messages? Keep testing? Use the existing process?
Make the boundaries explicit:
- What stops or changes now?
- What continues?
- Who owns each next step?
- Which existing commitments need to be checked?
- When will you review the decision, and who will make the call?
Don't leave people to reconcile conflicting instructions. Update the place where the current decision lives, whether that's a project brief, task list or run sheet. Keep a short record of what changed and why.
If someone else has authority over part of the work, involve them rather than announcing a commitment on their behalf.
This is also a useful distinction between changing your mind and creating confusion: the revised view needs an operational handover.
Make room for the cost of the change
Your team may understand the reasoning and still be frustrated.
They may have worked late to meet the original date. Another team may have prepared around it. A customer may now need a different answer.
Ask: “What does this change affect that we haven't accounted for yet?”
Listen for dependencies and extra work, not just whether people agree with you. If the revised plan adds work, decide what will move or stop. If you don't yet know the impact, identify who will check it.
Avoid turning the announcement into a speech about how adaptable everyone needs to be. That can skip the very practical cost of your decision.
You can acknowledge that cost without reversing a necessary correction:
“I know you've prepared for Monday. Let's identify what we can still use and what needs changing before we add more work.”
Again, this is illustrative dialogue, not a real client example.
Close the loop on what you learned
A revised decision can expose a gap in the process as well as the original judgement.
Was a test missing? Was the decision made before the right person contributed? Did an assumption become a fact as it travelled through the team?
Choose a proportionate improvement. In our example, that might mean confirming the test result before setting the next launch date. It doesn't automatically require another committee or a new approval layer.
If someone brought you useful contrary evidence, recognise the specific contribution: “That test caught a gap we needed to address.” Don't promise that every objection will change the decision. Promise only what you're prepared to do: consider relevant evidence and explain your reasoning.
For the broader habit behind this, see Why the Best Leaders Ask Better Questions.
A short preparation note for your next update
Before you speak to the team, write five lines:
- Our previous decision was…
- The evidence, error or priority that changed my view is…
- The decision now is…
- This means we will stop, continue or change…
- The next owner and review point are…
Then check one more thing: have you acknowledged any mistake and impact that's yours to address?
You don't have to defend an outdated decision to prove you can lead. You do need to take responsibility for the revised one.
Practise the thinking before the next difficult decision
The Human Advantage keynote explores assumptions and leadership through uncertainty. The Leadership Mindset workshop gives leaders space to work through real challenges and practise different responses.
If your team is navigating decisions that keep changing, share the challenge with Andy to discuss a relevant session.
