In our previous post, Aimee explored how to set the stage for input by creating an environment where people feel seen, heard, and ready to share honestly. But great conversations are just the start. The real test is whether teams can bridge the gap between good conversation and real action. When teams can't, even the best conversations lead nowhere. Team members disengage, trust erodes, and future requests for input are met with silence.
At Fathom, moving from input to action means combining human connection with decision clarity. It’s about making the path forward transparent and bringing stakeholders in at the right time. That way, they can contribute meaningfully and stay invested in the outcome. In this post, Kat Jayne, principal consultant, shares practical ways to help teams move from open dialogue to a clear path forward.
The problem: When input disappears
We’ve all seen it happen: A call for input goes out and people take the time to weigh in, share feedback, or surface risks. Then … crickets. No follow-up. No clarity on how input shaped decisions. Those who took the time to give their input may conclude or suspect that it was solicited merely as a formality and that the real conversations are happening behind closed doors.
This isn't just about employee morale or feeling time and wisdom aren’t respected. When input vanishes, we lose access to collective knowledge and divergent perspectives exactly when we need them most. The people closest to problems stop surfacing risks. Teams that see implementation challenges stay quiet. Those who know what won't work keep it to themselves.
Asking for input isn’t just an exercise to complete. It requires a thoughtful plan, including alignment on what input is needed and how it will be used.
Gathering input: Three questions that change everything
Before gathering any input, get clear on and communicate your intent behind these three fundamentals: why, how, and what happens next. It sounds simple, but teams often stumble here.
Why are we gathering input? Be honest about your intent. Are you genuinely shaping direction, or validating a decision that's 90 percent made? Different purposes require different approaches:
- Shaping direction: You're early and open to influence
- Validating feasibility: You have a direction but need to stress-test it
- Identifying risks: You're looking for blind spots
- Building buy-in: The decision is largely set, but you want people prepared
Transparency matters. Team members can better contribute when they know your goal is ‘help us find cases where this won’t work’ and are more likely to feel their time and energy were well spent.
How will we collect input? Match your method to your purpose. Surveys gather input quickly but lack nuance. Workshops build energy but can be dominated by loud voices. One-on-one interviews surface sensitive concerns but are time-intensive.
What happens next? Be explicit: Will input inform a recommendation? When will people hear back? Who gets final say? This is where breakdowns often happen.
Making decisions: Be clear about who decides
Too often, we see a paradox: team members want influence over decisions but hesitate to take responsibility for making them. That gray area can create confusion, conflict, and decision delays. Before gathering input, explicitly name:
Decisionmakers: The person or small group with final authority and accountability.
Advisors: People whose expertise should inform the decision. They provide input but don't make the decision.
Informed parties: Impacted individuals who need to know the decision once it's made.
Defining roles creates the foundation for confident, timely decisions, but it’s only part of the equation. Teams also need a shared understanding of how agreement is reached.
Reaching agreement: Consent or consensus
One of the most common myths about collaborative decision-making is that it requires full agreement. In reality, consensus can be too slow or too vague to support timely action, especially in complex or high-stakes decisions.
Rather than waiting for everyone to say “yes,” consent asks: Is this decision safe enough to try, and is anyone strongly opposed? It enables progress while respecting concerns and capturing potential issues.
A helpful framework we leverage, either directly or indirectly, is the Four Levels of Agreement, developed by facilitator and author Sam Kaner, to guide nuanced decisions. When evaluating a decision, each person indicates where they stand:
Level 1 - I Agree: I fully support this and will champion it.
Level 2 - I Can Live With It: Not my first choice, but acceptable.
Level 3 - I Have Concerns: I see risks that need addressing before moving forward.
Level 4 - I Block: This could cause significant harm or violates our core principles.
Rather than focusing on reaching a point where everyone feels fully supportive (level 1), consider adopting a goal to discuss the decision until everyone feels that it is at least acceptable (level 2) and that any concerns keeping folks at level 3 are heard and addressed.
There are moments when consensus is the right goal — usually when the decision impacts group values, trust, or long-term relationships. Examples of these moments can include setting team norms or shared agreements, defining an organization’s mission or purpose, or making ethical or culturally sensitive choices. In these cases, going slow to go fast later is worth the investment. But it should be a deliberate choice, not the default path for every decision.
Following through: An easy checklist
Bringing this all together takes practice and intentionality. Here’s a quick checklist to implement these ideas:
Before gathering input:
- Clarify why you're asking (shaping, validating, risk-finding, or buy-in)
- Name the decision-maker, advisors, and informed parties
- Set a timeline for decision and communication
After gathering input:
- Make the decision within the promised timeline
- Explain how input shaped the outcome
- Address concerns raised, even if you moved forward anyway
- Close the loop with everyone who contributed
- Help those who are responsible for enacting or delivering on the decision find a way to connect and feel good about their involvement
Bringing it together
When you consistently honor input with clear action, trust accumulates. People see their voices matter because you take their input seriously and explain your thinking.
This trust becomes a competitive advantage. Teams move faster and people engage more honestly. And when difficult decisions must be made, you have the credibility to make them.
Inclusive decision making isn't about inviting everyone to everything. It's about being intentional with input, clear about process, and consistent with follow-through. That's how great conversations become confident decisions.
