Ask Savannah
Holding a team steady, and holding yourself steady, when the outcome isn't yet known.
Separate what you genuinely don't know from what you do — you likely know the process, the timeline, and the principles guiding the decision, even without the outcome itself. That's usually enough to give a team real footing, and manufacturing false certainty to fill the gap tends to cost more than the honest version ever would.
Go back to the specific assumptions the plan relied on, and ask honestly whether a reasonable, well-informed version of your team could have known they'd fail — if yes, that's a real planning gap; if the world genuinely moved in a way nothing available could have predicted, that's environmental change, not your error. The two require very different responses, and misdiagnosing either one costs you.
Maintain a consistent communication rhythm regardless of whether there's genuine news — an update that just says "no material change, still expect clarity by X" does real work even with no new information in it. Momentum survives real uncertainty; it doesn't survive silence, because silence gets filled with worse explanations than reality usually warrants.
Name the specific losses the pivot represents for specific people, honestly, before you lead with the case for why it's the right move. People aren't resisting the pivot in the abstract — they're responding to concrete things they stand to lose, and skipping past that with enthusiasm rarely earns real buy-in.
Check whether the option in front of you is decaying — will it still be available later, or does waiting change what's actually on the table, not just your confidence in it. A closing window needs action now; a stable opportunity can often absorb more deliberation without real cost.
Communicate more often, not less, even when there's nothing definitively good to report — a steady, honest rhythm holds a team together better than a single comprehensive update once everything is finally resolved. Panic tends to spread through gaps in communication more than through bad news itself.
Separate the decisions that are actually decaying — where waiting costs you the option itself — from the ones that are genuinely stable and can absorb more time. Treating every uncertain decision with the same urgency is exhausting and usually unnecessary; sorting them first restores a real sense of control.
Name honestly whether the setback reflects a real error in your process or a shift in conditions nothing could have predicted — the corrective actions are different, and conflating them either erodes confidence you shouldn't lose or protects a mistake you should actually fix. Momentum returns fastest when the diagnosis is accurate, not when it's comfortable.
Have a question of your own?