Instead of giving a single point estimate, provide a forecast with a lower and upper bound. This approach communicates both what you know and what you don't. It reduces the risk of being perceived as "wrong" and invites others to share information that can help narrow the range.
Related Insights
Product leaders often feel they must present a perfect, unassailable plan to executives. However, the goal should be to start a discussion. Presenting an idea as an educated guess allows for a collaborative debate where you can gather more information and adjust the strategy based on leadership's feedback.
Shifting from a black-and-white "right vs. wrong" mindset to a probabilistic one (e.g., "I'm 80% sure") reduces personal attachment to ideas. This makes group discussions more fluid and productive, as people become more open to considering alternative viewpoints they might otherwise dismiss.
When facing ambiguity, the best strategy is not to wait for perfect information but to engage in "sense-making." This involves taking small, strategic actions, gathering data from them, and progressively building an understanding of the situation, rather than being paralyzed by analysis.
To avoid appearing incompetent, frame conversations with your manager around validation, not direction-seeking. Present your understanding of the goal, your proposed plan, and your key assumptions. This demonstrates proactivity and critical thinking while still inviting feedback.
Instead of a single forecast category, assess each deal's risk (Green, Yellow, Orange, Red) across each of the five agreement stages (Problem, Priority, etc.). This creates a highly accurate, data-driven forecast by pinpointing the exact source of risk within a deal's progression.
To quantify a problem without being confrontational, use a "push-pull" approach. First, "push" by suggesting a number ("This probably costs you $45k..."). Then, "pull" back by offering an out ("...or is this pennies in the barrel?"). This relieves pressure and encourages an honest, quantitative response.
Instead of asking for a budget, which can feel confrontational, state a typical investment range for your solution. This anchors the price, makes the conversation less awkward, and positions you as a transparent consultant by asking where they fall within that range based on their research.
In a crisis, the public knows no one has all the answers. Attempting to project absolute certainty backfires. A more effective strategy is "confident humility": transparently sharing information gaps and explaining that plans will evolve as new data emerges, which builds credibility.
To prevent the first or most senior person from anchoring a conversation, collect everyone's independent analysis in writing first. Only after this information is aggregated should the group discussion begin. This method ensures a wider range of ideas is considered and prevents premature consensus.
Michael Mauboussin's BIN framework reveals that inconsistent judgments ('noise') are often a larger source of forecasting errors than personal biases or insufficient information. Reducing this variability through methods like combining independent judgments is a key to better decision-making.
