I heard an interesting question recently: Imagine you’re in a meeting and someone presents a solution or consensus. You could ask: “I’d be interested to know what three options or ideas you rejected — and why — to get here.” If they confidently unpack their process (“We first looked at A because we thought… but ultimately it didn’t work because of x — then we tried B because…”), you’re in good hands.
If they turn red, stammer, and look annoyed, the decision might just be a quick gut call.
That doesn’t make it a bad decision. But only with a strong “why” does it become compelling for everyone involved.
Which three things did you discard before settling on this? That impresses people. And it makes you more credible when you can explain it logically.
Maybe next time you can use this actively in your argument — make a decision more transparent and save yourself a few follow-up questions.
From the archives of reinergaertner.de, running since 1997. Translated with AI help and my questionable bilingual proofreading. If you spot a Germanismus — that’s a feature, not a bug.