KEY SUMMARY
Ask the person to identify the specific concern, explain what they expect to happen, and describe what would address it. Confirm what you have heard before agreeing on a next step.
THE BRIEF
- 01
Clarify the concern, what supports it, and what would address it before defending your idea.
- 02
Check your interpretation before choosing a response to disagreement.
- 03
Listen for useful information and expect shared effort toward a clearer next step.
When you are deciding how to handle pushback, “I am still not convinced” gives you very little to work with.
Imagine you run an established business and propose a joint educational event with another business owner. You know the subject, understand your audience, and can explain why the collaboration makes sense.
When your partner says it feels risky, you explain the audience. She then raises a concern about her reputation, followed by a question about the timing after you explain how the event would be presented.
Those may all be reasonable concerns. You still need to understand which ones the proposal must address before another explanation will be useful.
Otherwise, preparing the next reply can resemble packing for a holiday when the destination keeps changing. The ski boots were a sensible choice until someone mentioned the beach.
For women leading businesses, clients, teams, or community efforts, that conversation can carry an additional question: how much explaining will count as enough?
A useful Behavioral Leadership approach begins by checking what you think the other person means. You then choose a response based on what you learn. The five questions below turn that approach into a conversation you can use.
HOW DO YOU HANDLE PUSHBACK THAT KEEPS COMING BACK?
Ask the person to identify the specific concern, explain what they expect to happen, and describe what would address it. Confirm what you have heard before agreeing on a next step.
This approach is useful when the proposal is still open and the other person has information or a stake worth considering. Use the questions as a guide, rather than reading them as a questionnaire. You may get the answer to several in one reply.
Research offers a reason to pay attention to how that exchange feels to both people. A 2020 paper examined conversational receptiveness, meaning language that shows willingness to consider an opposing view. Across its studies, how receptive people appeared to others mattered for outcomes such as willingness to collaborate. Being sure you were listening was not the same as being experienced as receptive. [1]
The sequence below is a practical application. It was not tested as a five-question method in that research, and it cannot guarantee agreement.
1. “WHICH PART ARE YOU MOST CONCERNED ABOUT?”
Start by finding the part of the proposal that needs attention.
Words such as risky, unrealistic, and premature can cover several different concerns. One person means that the idea could fail. Another means the idea could succeed in a way that creates a problem for them.
In the event example, your partner might say, “I am worried people will assume I recommend every service your business provides.”
That gives you something much more specific to discuss than whether collaboration is generally a good idea.
You could say, “You are comfortable teaching together, and you want the invitation to be clear about what each of us is recommending. Have I understood that?”
Let the person correct your summary. You may discover that they oppose the event itself or that you have misunderstood their concern entirely.
Avoid adding your answer inside the question. “Which part concerns you, given that we have already covered the risks?” sounds as though the discussion has a correct answer and you are waiting for them to remember it.
Write down the concern in one ordinary sentence. If you cannot do that yet, ask a follow-up before preparing the response.
2. “WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN?”
Now move from the broad concern to the consequence the person anticipates.
Your partner might expect attendees to treat the event as a joint endorsement. A client might expect a change in how you work together to leave her less informed. A nonprofit board member might expect a new partnership to confuse longtime supporters.
Each answer gives you a different problem to examine.
In the event conversation, you might ask, “What do you think someone would take away from the invitation that would worry you?”
Your partner may point to a phrase that makes the businesses sound formally connected. You can review the wording together. She may also be describing a broader preference against any public collaboration.
Keep a distinction between what the person has observed and what they predict. A prediction can be reasonable without being certain. Your own confidence about the event is also a prediction about what will happen.
This step helps you avoid discussing intentions while the other person is discussing consequences. You may intend to share useful teaching while she anticipates having to explain the relationship afterward.
Before moving on, complete this sentence together: “The concern is that people will think or do ______.” Use the person's words where possible.
3. “WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN THAT MAKES THAT LIKELY?”
Ask what informs the concern, with genuine interest in the answer.
Your partner may have taken part in a previous event where attendees misunderstood the arrangement. She may know something about this audience that you do not. She may also be making a cautious guess. You need to know which kind of information you are considering.
You might follow up with, “Has that happened with a similar event, or is there something in this plan that makes you expect it?”
If she describes a past experience, ask what made the misunderstanding happen. The promotional material may have used a shared logo without explaining the roles, or someone may have made promises that the other speaker could not support.
Those details can improve your judgment about this proposal. They can also reveal that the situations differ in an important way.
Use the same standard for your own view. Be prepared to explain why you believe the event would work and which assumptions you have not checked.
The way you ask matters because you are inviting useful information. A question delivered like a courtroom challenge may produce an excellent defense and very little curiosity. Most business conversations do not improve when someone mentally starts addressing the table as “Your Honor.”
Identify one piece of information you both consider relevant. If the concern rests mainly on uncertainty, name that uncertainty plainly rather than treating it as a fact or dismissing it.
4. “WHAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT CONCERN?”
Once you understand the concern and what supports it, ask what a satisfactory response would involve.
In the event example, your partner might want separate business descriptions and a clear statement about the teaching arrangement. She might want to approve how her name appears. She might want to decline the collaboration altogether.
You can ask, “If the invitation clearly describes our separate roles, would that address this concern? What would still need attention?”
That question leaves room for an honest answer. It also helps you avoid revising a proposal without knowing whether the revision deals with the issue.
Sometimes the person cannot identify what would reassure them yet. You might need an example, more information, or time to consider the trade-off. Sometimes there is no version of the proposal they would want to accept.
That information is useful too. Continuing to produce new explanations can leave both people discussing a version of agreement that neither has defined.
Be careful with a condition such as “Everyone would need to be happy.” Ask what that would mean in practice and whether it is a reasonable standard for this decision. An invitation cannot come with a satisfaction guarantee for everyone who might someday hear about it.
Before making a revision, agree on what you expect it to resolve. Keep any remaining concerns visible so the revision does not become a promise to settle the whole disagreement.
5. “WHAT IS A REASONABLE NEXT STEP FROM HERE?”
Choose a step that fits what you have learned.
If the concern is wording, review the invitation. If you need information from the audience, decide what to ask and who can ask it. If the concern is a past experience, examine which part of that experience applies here.
For the event, you could say, “I will revise the description of our roles and send it Thursday. You will review whether it addresses the endorsement concern. We can then decide whether we both want to proceed.”
You have named the work and the question it should answer. Your partner has a contribution to make, and you both know when the discussion will continue.
A smaller test can sometimes help, provided it is practical and the people affected agree. You could ask two existing clients what they understand from a draft invitation. Their answers would offer limited feedback about that wording, rather than proof of how the whole audience will respond.
You may also decide to stop pursuing the proposal. A collaboration requires a willing partner. Understanding why someone hesitates can help you decide whether further discussion is worthwhile.
After the conversation, write down the concern, what you agreed to do about it, and what remains unresolved. A short written summary gives both people a chance to catch a misunderstanding before it becomes the next round of debate.
ASK FOR SHARED EFFORT WITHOUT MAKING YOUR EXPERTISE SMALLER
For a woman leader, advice about listening can become another instruction to make herself easier to accept. Keep your own expertise and responsibilities in the conversation.
Research published online in August 2025, and in the February 2026 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, illustrates why context matters. Across four studies, researchers found that negative evaluations of women leaders perceived as dominant depended partly on how competent those leaders were perceived to be. The findings concern other people's judgments, rather than a measure of the women's actual ability. They do not show that these five questions remove bias. [2]
The practical implication here is to pay attention to the standard being applied. If your proposal is being questioned, ask for the specific concern and evaluate it on its merits. If the discussion shifts to your personality, you can ask how that feedback relates to the proposal.
For example: “I want to understand the concern about my approach. Which part of the proposal would you change, and why?”
You can also ask the other person to contribute a recommendation. Listening does not require you to conduct the entire investigation, produce every alternative, and keep the exchange comfortable alone.
Notice whether your questions are producing clearer information and shared work. If the discussion remains vague after a fair attempt, name what you still need before continuing.
CHOOSE A FORMAT THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER
If a written exchange keeps generating new interpretations, consider whether a conversation would help.
Research published in Nature Communications on April 27, 2026, found that spoken disagreements produced more constructive outcomes than written ones across the settings studied, including greater understanding and lower conflict. The research compared conversations about disputed views; it does not establish that speaking is best for every professional situation. [3]
You might suggest a short call to clarify the concern, then send the agreed next steps in writing. Account for access needs and the value of a written record when choosing the format.
Use the questions at a natural pace. Ask one, listen, and follow the answer. Arriving with five questions is preparation; delivering them without a pause can make the other person feel they accidentally booked a mortgage interview.
PREPARE FOR ONE REAL CONVERSATION
Choose an objection you expect to discuss again. Write it down as the other person expressed it, then notice which of the five questions you can already answer.
Begin with the first important gap. You may need to clarify the concern, understand its basis, or agree on what would address it. You do not need to restart the conversation just to follow every step.
Go into the exchange willing to learn something that could change your view. Expect the other person to help make the disagreement specific enough to work on.
The useful outcome is a clearer understanding of the objection and a next step you can justify. You may improve the idea, gather information, or decide that proceeding together does not make sense. Each gives you more to work with than another round of “I am still not convinced.”
The Women’s Leadership Assessment offers a starting point for examining your leadership patterns. If you want to reflect on how you respond to disagreement and influence others, explore the assessment.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
- How should I respond when someone pushes back on my idea?
- Before defending your idea, ask what the other person thinks could go wrong: “Is it the timing, the workload, or something else?”
- What five questions can I ask before defending my idea?
- “What part are you unsure about?” “What do you think will happen?” “Have you seen that happen before?” “What would you change?” “What do we need to do next?”
- What can I say when someone keeps saying they are not convinced?
- Find out what would help them decide before revising your proposal again: “What would you need to see before you could say yes?”
- How can I ask for evidence without sounding dismissive?
- Ask what makes them expect a problem: “Have you seen this happen before? What happened?” Their experience may reveal something worth changing.
- How can a woman leader listen to objections without doing all the work?
- Ask the person raising the concern to help with the solution: “What date would work, and can you check with the group?”
- When should I stop explaining my idea?
- Pause when you are repeating yourself: “Is something still unclear, or do we disagree?” If they understand and disagree, decide whose agreement you need to proceed.
- Should I discuss a disagreement by email or in a conversation?
- Suggest a short conversation when emails keep creating confusion: “Have you got ten minutes to talk this through?” Confirm any decisions afterward in writing.
- How do I turn a disagreement into a useful next step?
- Agree on who does what and by when: “I’ll update the costs Thursday. Can you check them Friday so we can decide?”
SOURCES / FURTHER READING
- 01
[1] Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., and Gino, F. (2020). “Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131-148. Research paper. Author-hosted article. The five-question sequence in this blog is a suggested application, not the research intervention.
- 02
[2] The competence shield: Fostering competence perceptions weakens the dominance penalty for women in leadership. Feng, Z., Ma, A., Dwivedi, P., and Liu, F. “The competence shield: Fostering competence perceptions weakens the dominance penalty for women in leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology. First online August 4, 2025; issue publication February 2026, 111(2), 246-261. Research paper. Author-hosted advance publication. The article does not establish the motives behind a particular objection or test these conversation scripts.
- 03
[3] Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement. Bevis, B., Schroeder, J., and Yeomans, M. (2026). “Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement.” Nature Communications, 17, article 5792. Published April 27, 2026. Research paper. Research-team university summary.
