In most organizations, peers across teams must collaborate to get things done and drive success for the overall enterprise.
Decisions made by one team member often have a significant impact on colleagues across the organization.
So, the best peers engage, include, and negotiate with colleagues on decisions they know will have a direct consequence for them.
But peers don’t avoid making decisions that benefit their team just because a colleague disagrees or warns of negative impact. Instead, they talk it through and see what can be done for both parties to be satisfied with the choice.
Unfortunately, there are times when peers are at odds. One peer is dead set against a decision a colleague is about to make, convinced it’s wrong and will have negative repercussions for the team.
Overcoming this dispute is critical for a strong ongoing relationship.
If the peer making the decision disregards their colleague’s needs and wishes, they risk undermining the goodwill both parties need to collaborate going forward.
If the decision is important, there’s a real chance a unilateral call will start a brush fire that turns into a long-standing conflict.
So, how do strong partners and peers navigate this sticky situation?
They draw on the goodwill of their colleague, explain why the decision must be made, and end with a critical statement:
“I’m going to make this decision unless you tell me you can’t live with it.”
There’s a difference between disagreeing with a decision — or struggling with its implications — and being unable to live with it.
Not being able to live with a peer’s decision carries symbolic meaning for the relationship.
When a peer says they can’t live with a decision, they are, in essence, saying that making such a choice will indeed create a conflict between the two parties.
It is a line in the sand.
Most peers understand the implications of such a statement and refrain from using it unless they feel they must.
By calling the question, the decision-maker learns just how important this issue is to their colleague. In the majority of cases, when put in the frame of “can’t live with,” peers will register their objection, thank the colleague for holding their views in such high regard, and decline to push the matter further.
In those rare cases when a colleague throws down the gauntlet and says they can’t live with a decision, the decision-maker now knows exactly where they stand — and the stakes.
The next move is up to them: stand down, continue to negotiate, or make the decision knowing full well that a relational conflict now exists.
Of course, the best answer depends on the context and the parties involved.
Too many peers make a decision that their colleagues are strongly against, creating a nasty conflict that could have been avoided.
By asking the question, the decision-maker clarifies the peer’s conviction and can now work through the consequences with clear eyes.
Peers who choose not to escalate — who acknowledge they don’t like the decision but can live with it — find the question itself thoughtful, respectful, and affirming the relationship.
For peers with a good history of collaboration, this is the most common outcome.
