The Cost of Best-Case Answers
How leadership teams tell the truth under pressure
We had a client who wanted certainty right now. Strong opinions. Fast emails. Hot language.
The team knew the real answers. They also knew the blast radius when the answer was not what the client wanted to hear.
So the team did what smart people do when they feel unsafe.
They gave best‑case answers that barely cleared the bar. No buffer on the schedule. No contingency in the budget. It kept everyone out of harm’s way for a week. Then the same issue came back bigger.
That is not a talent problem. That is a psychological safety problem at the leadership table.
What psychological safety means for leadership teams
Amy Edmondson describes psychological safety as a shared belief that this team is safe for interpersonal risk. In our world that means you can say the uncomfortable thing in front of the owner, architect, and GC. You can name a constraint. You can show a range instead of a single date. You can ask a basic question without getting labeled negative.
When safety is low and stakes are high, smart teams still go quiet. They protect status. They protect relationships. They protect themselves. The cost shows up later as rework, blown float, and awkward calls.
The pattern we were stuck in
Owner pushes for a single date and a single number.
Team knows the honest answer is a range with conditions.
Team delivers the narrow answer to avoid backlash.
Reality shows up.
Everyone is now surprised and tired.
Polite and expensive.
How we reset the team
Team Emotional Intelligence (Vanessa Urch Druskat) gives a simple map: build norms at three layers — individual, team, and boundary. We used that frame and installed three rules we enforce every meeting.
1) Boundary rule: set the rules of the game with the owner
We wrote the expectation down and said it out loud at the start of the next OAC.
You hired us to see around corners. That means you will hear ranges with clear assumptions. You will also see buffers that protect your date and your dollars. If we slow a decision to surface a risk, that pause is how we protect your outcome.
We did not ask for permission. We explained the operating rule. Then we followed it.
2) Team rule: truth lives in ranges, not singles
Before any commitment, the team must show:
Range for time and cost.
Assumptions that make the range true.
Triggers that would move us out of the range.
Buffer we are holding and who owns it.
If someone tries to force a single number, we answer with a no‑oriented question:
Are you opposed to seeing the range that actually protects your date?
3) Team rule: dissent by design
Before we lock a decision we ask for one credible objection. Sixty seconds. No stories. Then we decide.
Make the strongest case against this plan. What could bite us first?
We thank the dissenter. We log the risk. We adjust if needed. Then we move.
What changed on the team
Week one felt awkward. By week three:
The GC named the real lead‑time risk without looking defensive.
The architect flagged that a VE glazing swap would reset shop drawings and add a three‑week review cycle we hadn’t planned for.
The owner began to expect ranges and buffers instead of single numbers.
The heat dropped. The truth went up. We made better calls in daylight.
Scripts that help when the owner escalates
Label the emotion. Ask a no‑oriented question. Give a clear choice.
It sounds like you want certainty. Right now we have two unknowns. Are you against us showing the range that protects your date while we burn those down?
It seems this delay feels avoidable. Would it be a bad idea to hold a two‑week buffer so we do not pay for weekend work?
It looks like speed is the priority. Do you want speed, or do you want certainty on cost? We can optimize for one today.
If language turns hostile, name the boundary and reset.
We are here to protect your outcome. We will continue once we can speak to each other directly and stay on the problem. I suggest a five‑minute pause.
Light measures we track each week
Voice distribution: Did 80% of attendees speak at least once?
Dissent count: Did we hear one credible objection before a major decision?
Range discipline: Did time and cost decisions include range, assumptions, triggers, buffer?
Owner alignment: Did we restate the rule of the game at least once?
Why this works
Individual level: People can tell the truth without paying a social penalty.
Team level: We normalize dissent and ranges so honesty is not a one‑off act of courage.
Boundary level: The owner learns what good looks like and stops rewarding narrow answers.
High‑end residential work is judged by what you cannot see. Same for culture. Safety is invisible until you feel it. When it is there, teams stop gambling with best‑case answers and start managing real risk in the open.
Helping great teams actually perform like great teams.