You made the case for one approach. The decision went the other way. And now, because you are the one closest to the work, you are the person who has to write the ticket, brief the new starter, and answer when somebody asks why on earth it was done like this.
There is a very tempting way to do that, and it is a small disaster. Apparently we are doing it this way. Not my call. A shrug, a face, and everybody understands you perfectly.
Here is what that actually buys. The people you told now believe the decision is illegitimate, so they implement it at half effort and treat every wrinkle as proof. You have made the outcome worse, which conveniently makes you more right. And anybody senior watching has filed something about you that is hard to unfile, which is that you brief against things you agreed to carry.
Do it the other way, which is harder for about two minutes and better for years.
Say what was decided and who decided it, plainly. Then give the reasoning as the people who chose it would give it, at full strength, not as a straw version you can knock down. If you cannot do that, you have found something useful, which is that you do not yet understand the decision, and you should go and ask before you explain it to anybody else. Then say, once, that you argued for something different, and say what you are going to do now. I wanted the other approach, we are going this way, here is the thinking, and I am going to make it work.
Then take your objection somewhere useful. Write down what you expected to go wrong and the thing that would show it, a date, a number, a specific failure. Revisit it in three months. If you were right, you will have evidence rather than a grudge. If you were wrong, you will actually find out, and that is the part almost everybody skips.
None of this applies to decisions you believe are unsafe or dishonest. Those you keep raising, in writing, until somebody with authority owns them.
– Asael Shinder
