In early 2012, Ron Johnson made a decision that was logically sound.
JCPenney's pricing model was built on fake markdowns — prices inflated artificially so that discounts would feel like deals. Johnson decided to end it. One honest everyday price instead, modelled on the transparent pricing he had watched work at Apple.
What followed was one of the most documented leadership communication failures in retail history.
His team didn't understand the reasoning. Customers weren't told what to expect or why the old model was wrong. The people who needed to execute the strategy received an announcement, not a communication.
Sales dropped 32% in a single quarter. Johnson was fired 17 months in.
The decision wasn't the problem. How it landed was.
Good leadership communication isn't about being clear. It's about giving the people who need to execute a decision what they need to understand it, accept it, and act on it.
The Leader's Guide to Decision Making covers how to make the call. This article covers how to land it. The decision making framework you used to reach the decision counts for nothing if the reasoning behind it never reaches the team.
The Cost of a Decision That Lands Badly
A well-made decision that lands badly produces the same result as a bad one.
Slow execution. Quiet resistance. People nodding in the room and dragging their feet outside it.
Leaders often misread this. They diagnose an execution problem when the real problem is a communication failure. The team wasn't unwilling — they were unconvinced.
Unconvinced people execute at half capacity. They protect themselves from being associated with a decision they don't understand. They fill the silence with their own interpretation of what the decision means.
That interpretation is almost never charitable.
How you communicate the decision is part of the decision.
Get it wrong and the quality of the reasoning that preceded it becomes irrelevant.
Made a decision you now need to communicate?
One Good Decision walks you through it. Free. Seven days
The Mistake Most Leaders Make When Announcing a Decision
Most leaders communicate the what without the why.
The team hears the conclusion. They don't hear the reasoning — what was considered, what was rejected, why this option over the alternatives.
So they fill the gap themselves. They assume the decision was hasty, politically motivated, or unconsidered. They question it privately in exactly the conversations you can't be part of.
This is the announcement trap. A decision announced is not a decision communicated.
Jeff Bezos understood this precisely. When he decided to ban PowerPoint at Amazon, he didn't simply announce the change — he wrote to his senior team explaining his reasoning in full: that slide decks allowed presenters to hide weak thinking behind bullet points, and that written memos forced clarity before anyone in the room had heard a word.
He then required every significant decision to arrive in the room with its reasoning already written down. The memo was read in silence. Announcing without communicating was made structurally impossible.
Your team doesn't need to agree with the decision. They need to understand it well enough to execute it with conviction. That's a different standard — and a higher one — than simply being told what was decided.
What Your Team Needs to Hear When You've Made the Call
Three things. In this order.
The reasoning — why this, not the alternatives.
Not a defence of the decision. An explanation of the thinking.
What did you consider? What did you look at and reject, and why? What made this the right call at this moment?
The team that hears the alternatives weighed and discarded does something different with the decision than the team that only hears the conclusion. They understand the constraints you were working within. They see the decision as considered, not arbitrary.
They're also better equipped to handle the questions they'll face from their own teams — because they can explain the reasoning, not just report the outcome.
In JCPenney's case, the reasoning was sound: fake pricing is irrational, and honest everyday prices eliminate a system that serves nobody. Johnson had evidence it worked. His team never heard any of it.
When customers pushed back, employees had nothing to offer except the conclusion. A conclusion without reasoning doesn't hold under pressure.
What was weighed — the trade-offs acknowledged.
No significant decision is costless. Something was given up. Something was accepted as a risk.
Pretending otherwise doesn't make the decision more credible — it makes it less. The team already knows the trade-offs exist.
When a leader names them — "I know this creates short-term pressure, and I made this call anyway because..." — something different happens. The team hears honesty. They don't need to be protected from the complexity. They need to be trusted with it.
Johnson acknowledged none of the trade-offs publicly. He didn't name the risk that loyal customers might resist the change, or that the transition would require patience before results improved.
When the results didn't arrive, there was no shared framework for understanding why. Only a gap where the reasoning should have been.
What happens next — specifically.
Uncertainty after a decision is announced breeds rumour faster than any other single factor.
Who owns what. What changes and what doesn't. When things will happen and in what order.
Remove the uncertainty before you walk into the room, not while you're standing in it. The RACI matrix is the right tool for making ownership explicit when a decision involves multiple people taking different actions.
When the Room Disagrees With the Call
This is the hardest moment in leadership communication.
The decision has been made. Someone in the room disagrees with it.
The instinct is either to reopen the decision or to shut the disagreement down. Both are wrong.
Patrick Lencioni, in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, names the principle that resolves this: disagree and commit. Team members can voice disagreement during deliberation. Once a decision is made, commitment to executing it is not optional — but disagreement with it doesn't have to be silenced.
Those are two different things. Conflating them creates exactly the quiet resentment that undermines execution.
The framework for this moment is three moves. Name that you know the decision isn't universally popular — say it plainly. Explain why the call was made anyway. Then make the distinction explicit: disagreeing with a decision and committing to executing it are not mutually exclusive.
The third move is the one most leaders rush. Making the distinction explicit doesn't mean announcing it as a principle — it means saying it directly to the person in front of you.
Something like: "I know you see this differently, and I'm not asking you to change your view. I am asking you to help make this work."
That gives the dissenting team member two things at once. Their disagreement is acknowledged. A dignified path to execution is open.
The goal is not to win the argument. It is to give the dissenting person motion — not agreement.
When the call was partly driven by instinct rather than pure analysis — when the reasoning is harder to articulate — intuitive decision making addresses how to explain that kind of judgement without over-defending it or underselling it.
How to Put This Into Practice
Before communicating any significant decision, answer three questions in writing.
Why this? Write down the specific logic that led to this option over the alternatives. If you can't articulate it in writing, you can't articulate it in the room.
What did I weigh? Name the trade-offs you accepted and the alternatives you rejected. Two or three sentences. Enough to show the decision was considered, not enough to invite a renegotiation.
What happens next? Name the specific actions, owners, and timelines. Resolve the uncertainty before the conversation begins.
This applies even when the decision involved incomplete information. Decision making under uncertainty covers how to make those calls. This framework covers how to land them.
Once the decision has been communicated, the work isn't finished. Questions will surface that weren't asked in the room. Rumours will start where clarity is missing. Revisit the communication — not the decision — until execution has genuine momentum behind it.
Once execution has begun, reflective decision making gives you the process for reviewing how the communication landed — and what you'd do differently next time.
Think about the last significant decision you communicated. Did your team get the reasoning — or just the conclusion?
FAQs
Made a decision you now need to communicate?
One Good Decision walks you through it. Free. Seven days
Written by
