One of the fastest ways I've seen workplace leaders erode trust is by prioritizing being "right" over being effective. Credibility doesn't always come from having the correct answer. It's built when you create an environment where people feel heard and respected. That is the kind of culture that empowers people to contribute and remain fully engaged. I've seen technically brilliant executives struggle to keep their top performers because their teams felt dismissed or overruled without being understood. Even when the leader's decision was objectively correct, the long-term price for proving that was disengagement and reduced initiative, which often ultimately leads to higher turnover. The most effective leaders understand that how they reach and communicate their decisions matters as much as the decisions themselves. When employees feel psychologically safe to voice their concerns or present alternative viewpoints, they're much more likely to commit to the final outcome, even if it's not their preferred path. When leaders shut down disagreement just to assert authority or prove a point, employees may initially comply but will often stop contributing extra effort. As a recruiter, I often hear candidates say they left their last role not because of compensation or workload, but because they felt undervalued or like their perspective didn't matter, so I've seen first-hand evidence of how this kind of behavior from leadership can negatively impact the stability of a workplace's culture and average tenure of the employees working in it. I'll also say there's a difference between decisiveness and defensiveness. A leader can be decisive while still acknowledging opposing viewpoints and explaining the reasoning behind their decisions. Defensive leaders treat disagreement like it threatens their authority. The first approach builds trust, and the latter weakens it. Leadership should be more about sustaining alignment and trust over time than winning arguments in the moment. The leaders I see sustain their success the longest are those who balance conviction with humility, and recognize that being "right" is less important than ensuring their team stays engaged and committed to the organization.
In healthcare, being right can save a life. However, how you choose to be right will determine whether your team will follow you or quietly quit. I've worked in hospital and clinic settings for over 16 years. I've seen how brilliant and world-renowned doctors, who are also medical scientists, can destroy their teams by weaponizing being right. They were right about getting the patient's diagnosis but wrong about treating their team members with the dignity and respect afforded to a cohesive team where open communication is vital for patient success. I realized that if I was going to be right about something, I would only let my team members discover it for themselves, because being right about everything will give you the wrong outcomes. When I built my mobile IV clinic, I decided to lead by understanding my team's point of view, asking questions such as "Walk me through your thinking" rather than just presenting a solution. And believe me, I do want to be efficient, but I want long-term efficiency where every team member works optimally with others and brings the best client outcomes. If I always prove I'm right, then the team will quietly quit, and I'll be operating blindly. Of course, there are situations where you must assert that you are right, especially in time-sensitive clinical situations. But I think it is important to know how to be right when you assert yourself. For business operational matters, I have adopted a technique where I invite everyone to a Zoom meeting, present a question, listen to all the suggestions, thank everyone for the input, and then tell them I will make a decision soon. I make and execute the decision, then circle back with my reasoning, stating that I seriously considered everyone's input. This ten-minute Zoom call costs me nothing but pays me back abundantly in loyalty, retention, a team that actually thinks critically, and team members who feel validated and "right" so we can all row forward. Aleksey Aronov Founder, CEO & AGPCNP-BC Adult-Gerontology Primary Care Nurse Practitioner — Board Certified VIPs IV https://vipsiv.com New York, NY
Someone who is desperate to be right is desperate to feel some kind of superiority. When given the choice between being right, and being kind, I choose kindness. Now, I'm not going to back off if I'm right about a safety hazard and an employee doubts me, but for the most part, these things are trivial and all about ego. Just let it go. Value the relationship to the employee more than being right. That's all it comes down to. The best leaders value their relationships with those that they lead much more than they value protecting their egos.
In ambiguous environments, "right" is rarely absolute. It is probabilities. Leaders are most often not choosing between obviously correct or obviously bad. We are choosing between incomplete models with different risk profiles. When a leader fights to be right, what they are often defending is not accuracy, but identity which is where trust erodes. The stronger move is quieter. Invite pushback. Pressure test assumptions and shine light into the blindspots. Let the team surface the risks you cannot see from your vantage point. Then form a hypothesis. Not a declaration. A hypothesis. With what we know today, we do X, test and monitor. Adjust as needed with further evidence. That framing changes everything. When people feel heard before the decision and respected after it, they commit, even if they originally disagreed. When leaders collapse validation into capitulation, or disagreement into disloyalty, teams learn to self-edit. Filtered input is far riskier than being wrong. Psychological safety is not about comfort. It is about information integrity. If dissent has a cost, the signal degrades and groupthink creates tunnel vision that could have otherwise prevented fallout. Leaders must make final calls. That is part of the job. Authority exercised after inquiry builds trust; authority exercised to win an argument builds silence. In complex systems, silence is expensive. Being right matters. Designing a decision process that improves the odds of being right and allows correction without ego matters more.
A good founder knows that leadership isn't about always being right, but about building trust and working together as a team. While it's important to put time, money, and effort into a company, it's just as important to let your team make decisions. When leaders only let their team carry out decisions they've already made, without involving them in the process, it can cause frustration and disengagement. Talented people may feel their opinions don't matter, and if the leader's attitude or jokes make them feel unappreciated, morale can suffer. Leaders who only rely on their own ideas risk losing skilled professionals because these people won't stick around in an environment where their input is ignored. This approach can also limit growth, as the team might have better ideas or ways to improve decisions. Great leaders, on the other hand, ask for feedback from everyone, no matter their position. They value different opinions and are open to testing ideas and making changes based on the team's suggestions. By trusting the team to challenge their ideas and encouraging open conversations, leaders create a collaborative culture. This approach leads to better decisions, a more engaged team, and long-term success for the company.
Adaptive Leadership Facilitator, Community Impact Consultant at Ellevated
Answered 2 months ago
Leaders can be more effective and overcome the stereotypical authority trap of the "need" to be right by integrating Adaptive Leadership into their work culture. Key concepts that are applicable to this situation include: 1) Understanding the difference between Authority and Leadership - authority is a position and leadership is an action. 2) Emphasize that everyone can be a leader - no one should look only to those in the top ranks for answers 3) Ask powerful questions - ask open-ended questions that spark dialogue and allow you to investigate the root cause of an issue together 4) Request and Hold Multiple Interpretations of the Problem - learn to listen and respect the perspectives of others even when they may be different from your experience 5) Expect and Acknowledge that Leaders can be wrong - build a culture that tolerates that leaders may not have all the answers and that the answers you do have may be wrong While these may seem contrary to the standard advice given in business culture, when these concepts are embedded into the fabric of a team's culture, they spark for more transparency, collaboration, innovation and better teamwork. Done well, Adaptive Leadership principles can help teams have difficult conversations, tackle big challenges and achieve self-fulfillment. Note to Journalist: More information on Adaptive Leadership can be found at https://www.harvardonline.harvard.edu/course/adaptive-leadership
I think the need to be "right" is usually rooted in ego. It's the same reason a leader might hold onto an employee long after realizing they're not the right fit. Admitting you were wrong about someone can hit your ego hard, and it can feel like it reflects poorly on you. I try to check my ego at the office door every day, and I think everyone should do the same. Be open to the possibility that you might not be right. That's completely human. And if you are right, resist the urge to rub it in someone's face. Too often, people end up going in circles just trying to prove a point instead of actually solving the problem.
In my leadership journey, I've learned that fighting to be "right" can damage trust, even when the decision is technically correct. I once pushed through a direction I believed in, disregarding my team's concerns. While the choice succeeded, the lack of team buy-in caused tension that took weeks to mend. I realized that being "right" isn't enough if it erodes collaboration and trust. The key is to strike a balance. Leaders need to make final calls but should also encourage open dialogue and value team input. I've found that asking for feedback, even when I'm confident in my decision, creates a space for others to feel heard, leading to better buy-in and innovative solutions. Admitting when you don't have all the answers doesn't undermine authority, it builds respect and fosters creativity. This creates a culture where every voice counts, ultimately strengthening team commitment and ensuring long-term success.
I think a lot of leaders get this wrong. They feel like winning the argument, and being the one who's "right" intellectually is winning. But in leadership, being right almost never matters as much one thinks. The real cost shows in what happens to trust when you steamroll someone's perspective to prove your point. If you shut someone down with "That doesn't make sense" or "You're missing the logic," and sure, maybe you're technically correct, what lands is the dismissal. Their experience, their gut, their worry... you are saying none of that counts. Over months and years, and sometimes sooner, that kills candor. People learn fast not to bring you messy stuff. Don't flag the early warning signs and don't push back. Just nod and comply. But compliance is super fragile. One real crisis hits and the truth stays hidden because no one feels safe saying it or expressing their concerns. The best leaders, and I mean the ones who last and actually get actual results, don't avoid being decisive. They must be decisive and unafraid to make the call when it counts. But they do two things differently: 1. They actually invite pushback as a preface to the discussion. Not fake "what do you think?" stuff, but they create a real space where disagreement is honored and isn't confused with disloyalty. They let people feel frustrated or scared without labeling it in a derogatory manner. Emotion isn't the enemy of strategy. But suppressed emotion? Yeah, that totally is. 2. After the call, if they were right it isn't the focus. No victory lap emails relitigating the logic. They own the decision, rally the team around it, and make sure everyone knows what's expected next. And they give credit to the team for speaking up, because every leader should seek to grow their leaders as a primary focus. And to be clear, it's not about never being right. As a leader you can be right. But it's about not letting being right become more expensive than the commitment and relationships you're trying to build. In the end, as a leader you won't be judged by how many debates you dominated, but by whether people still bring you unfiltered, honest truth and ideas years later because they trust you'll hear it without punishing them for it. Trust grows like it is compound interest. But being right depreciates fast if it's the only thing that matters to the leader. That's the difference between leaders who win once and those who keep winning with people who actually want to follow them.
Choosing one path doesn't mean the other was wrong. It's easy to slip into an either/or mindset when running a business. We have to pick a direction, pick a vendor, choose a product, pick priorities. People want to feel like what they're doing is the "right" move. We want to believe our work matters. So when a leader chooses a different direction, it can feel like a rebuke. When I have to make a call that goes against someone's preference, I always add the caveat that there is no perfect decision. We're often picking between two good ideas, or two flawed ones. The choice isn't a rejection of their effort. Sometimes it's just a matter of timing, or what aligns best with our strengths right now. I always try to circle back later and revisit ideas that didn't get picked the first time. We let people know their contributions are valued and they're not being dismissed. So many good ideas just need a different moment to shine.
As the principal of an agency specializing in **Virtual HR Solutions**, I've seen leaders win technical compliance arguments while destroying the psychological safety necessary for a stable workforce. Being "right" about a policy is a hollow victory if it results in the loss of trust from a high-performing team. In my experience with **Employee Assistance Plans (EAPs)**, dismissing an employee's stress as "nonsensical" directly leads to increased absenteeism and higher disability claims. While verified safety programs can cut insurance premiums by up to 15%, these savings only materialize when employees feel safe enough to report near-misses without being shut down by a leader's ego. For example, a boss might be "right" about the math of a retirement strategy, but ignoring staff feedback on plan design causes talent to migrate to more empathetic competitors. I recommend implementing a **Safe Harbor 401(k)** to remove the friction of complex regulatory testing, allowing you to focus on building long-term loyalty rather than winning arguments over contribution limits.
As founder of BrushTamer since 2021, I lead every land clearing job hands-on across a 150-mile Midwest radius, training crews like Zack Keyser on heavy mulchers while prioritizing client visions and safety protocols over my initial calls. On a blueberry orchard removal in Indiana, I pushed stump grinding first for speed, but Carter Harris flagged overgrowth risks delaying replanting--we pivoted to full forestry mulching, reclaimed the site cleanly, and earned a glowing testimonial for "top-notch" efficiency. Insisting I was right could've rushed it, spiking erosion and team stress; instead, validating input built commitment, letting Zack operate confidently on slopes without hesitation. Leaders win long-term by hearing dissent pre-decision--my final calls stick because crews trust the process, fostering psych safety that turns risky sites into reliable revenue.
I've spent 20 years in executive leadership, eventually founding MicroLumix to develop GermPass, the world's only lab-certified automatic germ-killing system for high-volume touchpoints. Transitioning from "tinkering in a garage" to achieving a 99.999% efficacy rate against pathogens like MRSA required me to value collective discovery over my own initial assumptions. In biotech, being "right" is often a matter of life or death, but fighting for personal validation is a distraction that destroys the psychological safety needed for innovation. When we were validating our one-second kill time for SARS-CoV-2, I had to listen to our engineers and external researchers rather than forcing a top-down executive narrative. The cost of a leader insisting "it doesn't make sense to feel that way" is a team that stops flagging potential risks in high-stakes environments like patient rooms or elevators. At MicroLumix, we prioritize the 5.31 log-reduction data over the hierarchy because a culture of silence is more dangerous than any microbial threat we're trying to eliminate. I use my background in enterprise performance to ensure our 100% chemical-free technology is built on shared truth, not just my authority as Founder. Real influence comes from proving the technology works in five seconds, not from winning an argument with the people who built it.
As founder of Webyansh, I've led Webflow projects for 20+ SMEs and startups in B2B SaaS, Healthcare, and AI over 5 years, where design decisions test trust daily. In a SaaS client's landing page redesign, they pushed for complex features to "prove" innovation; I validated their vision first, then shared Trello's simple, mobile-optimized example that boosted their conversions 20% like Lattice's case, preserving commitment without overriding. HubSpot's transparent pricing page shows the win: clear choices built trust for 72% of buyers preferring accessibility, unlike rigid "right" calls that erode psych safety pre/post-decision. Leaders win long-term by framing final calls as team-evolved, fostering cultures like Refokus's $1M Webflow revenue through collaborative input.
40 years running gyms has taught me one thing: the moment I walked into a member complaint meeting determined to prove my staff was right, I walked out with a smaller team and a worse culture. Real example -- we had a front desk policy dispute where I *was* factually correct about the procedure. Didn't matter. Ramming that home cost me a high-performing employee who felt publicly undermined. What actually works: I started using Medallia member feedback data as a buffer between my opinion and my team's pushback. Instead of "I'm right, here's why," it became "the members are telling us this." The decision-making authority stays mine, but the conversation shifts from ego to evidence. My team fights for the outcome, not against me. The decision itself is maybe 20% of the leadership moment. The other 80% is how you handled the conversation before and how you followed up after. I've watched gym operators in our REX Roundtable lose entire training staffs not because they made bad calls -- but because they made good calls badly. Being right is a trap if it's your *goal*. The goal is a team that still trusts you enough to tell you when you're *wrong* next time. That feedback loop is worth infinitely more than winning any single argument.
As the owner of Brisbane360, I've found that in transport, being "right" about a contract or a thin margin is worthless if your customer is left stranded. My background in hospitality taught me that leadership is about the people in your care, not winning an argument at their expense. We have a 15-year record of never cancelling a booking, even when it meant taking a significant financial loss to fulfill a promise. While I could have been "right" to walk away from an unprofitable trip, prioritizing our word over the ledger built a level of trust with my team and suppliers that no "authority" could ever buy. When you fight to be right, you often lose the psychological safety needed for a team to flag mistakes before they become accidents. I still get behind the wheel for everything from school camps to wild weddings to stay connected to that reality, ensuring my final calls are based on empathy rather than ego.
My background as a Navy helicopter pilot taught me that technical "rightness" is critical for safety, but in a 60-year family business like Western Wholesale Supply, being a "right-only" leader kills team morale. In the Idaho construction market, if I steamroll my operations team on a pricing strategy, I might win the margin argument but lose the frontline buy-in that ensures our on-time delivery promise. When we expanded from just drywall into full "shell" packages--integrating steel framing and CertainTeed insulation--I initially pushed a workflow that my warehouse team flagged as inefficient. By shelving my "correct" plan to incorporate their feedback on loading sequences, we maintained our 10-star service rating and avoided the high turnover that plagues top-down organizations. The cost of always being "right" is the eventual silence of your experts; if I insist a material count for USG Sheetrock is perfect based solely on software, I signal that our estimators' decades of field experience are irrelevant. This creates a culture of compliance rather than the proactive problem-solving required to help our contractors outbid the competition. Leadership requires the discipline to realize that your authority is a tool for final decisions, not a weapon to win disagreements. Prioritizing the project's success over your own ego is the only way to build the psychological safety and long-term commitment necessary to lead a multi-generational business.
As the President of a 40-year-old family business with over 115 employees, I've transitioned from the fabrication floor to the front office. Maintaining our A+ BBB rating across three generations has taught me that "doing it right" refers to the craftsmanship of the kitchen or bath, not winning a power struggle with a project manager. In our "turnkey" approach, a leader who prioritizes being right over listening risks expensive errors, like ordering the wrong custom ProVia Platinum windows because they ignored a designer's on-site measurements. If I use my authority to shut down a lead installer's concerns, I trade our reputation for a temporary ego boost that ultimately compromises the final installation. Because we are family-operated, "being right" at the expense of a teammate's dignity can poison both the office culture and the Sunday dinner table. I've found that high-stakes decisions land better when my team knows I value their hands-on experience over my own title, ensuring they feel safe enough to flag issues before the first hammer swings. We maintain a "live person" communication policy instead of automated phones to ensure every voice--from our fabricators to our customers--is heard before we make a final call. This transparency is why we've successfully expanded across the Front Range; it builds the psychological safety required for a team to deliver on a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
I run a family janitorial business that's been operating since 1989, and I came up through Walt Disney Company training before stepping into leadership here. That combination taught me something most people miss: the real cost of "being right" isn't the moment you win the argument--it's everything that stops happening afterward. When I've pushed hard to correct a team member publicly about a cleaning protocol, the immediate result was compliance. But what followed was silence. No one flagged the next problem early because they didn't trust it was safe to speak up. I lost more from that silence than I ever would have from the original mistake. Disney drilled into me that the client experience is built backstage, not on stage. The same is true for your team. If your people are managing your ego before a shift starts, they have less bandwidth for the actual work--which in our business means missed areas, inconsistent results, and eventually, client churn. The most practical shift I made: separate the decision from the discussion. Your authority to make the final call doesn't require you to win the argument beforehand. Let people be heard fully first. Your call lands harder and holds longer when people feel like the process was fair--even when the outcome isn't what they pushed for.
I run Select Insurance Group across 12 locations in the Southeast, selling personal auto and commercial truck policies by shopping 20-40+ carriers, so "being right" shows up daily: underwriting rules, pricing, claims frustration, and whether a customer walks or stays. In a multi-branch sales culture, the fastest way to lose trust is to win an argument in the moment and silence the info you'll need next week. Before any final call, I separate "facts" from "felt experience" in one sentence: "You're upset because this change feels unfair; here's what the carrier is requiring." Saying "that doesn't make sense" to a teammate or client guarantees they stop telling you the truth--then you miss the real issue (a missed payment, a license hit, a garaging detail) until it becomes a cancellation or an E&O problem. One concrete example: when a producer insisted a quote was "wrong" because the rate jumped, the easy move was to flex authority and end it; instead, I had them bring the file, we found a misclassified vehicle use on a commercial auto/truck account, re-quoted correctly, and kept the client. The producer kept their pride, learned the underwriting trigger, and the team got a repeatable checklist instead of a cautionary tale. After decisions, I force the "disagree-and-commit" moment to be explicit: "I'm making the call; tell me what I'm missing, then we execute and I own the outcome." That's how you keep psychological safety while still moving fast--people fight less to be "right" when they know they'll be heard before the decision and protected after it.