Decisions That Hold (3/3): The Steelman Rule

Most decisions don’t fall apart because the logic was bad. They fall apart because the dissent went underground. Someone nods in the meeting, then works the hallways after. The decision becomes a “maybe,” and execution slows to a crawl.

The social psychology is simple. People care about status and belonging, so they avoid saying the sharp thing out loud. That’s how groups drift into soft groupthink, or into polite silence that looks like alignment. And when people feel unheard, they don’t commit. They comply at best.

The Steelman Rule is the clean fix. Before the final call, the decision owner must argue the strongest version of the opposing view. Not a strawman. The real case. Then the dissenting voice gets to confirm: “Yes. That’s it.” Only then does the decider choose—and say, plainly, why.

This does two things. First, it improves the decision, because you surface the best counterarguments while there’s still time to adjust. Second, it protects execution, because people are more willing to support an outcome they believe was understood and treated fairly. That’s procedural justice in action.

Make it practical. Use it for the two or three decisions that matter most each month. Five minutes is enough: steelman, confirm, decide, and log what would change the decision later. Strong calls don’t require full consensus. They require people to feel seen before they’re asked to move.