Confronting the Bull in the Room

You know they’re wrong. They think they’ve seen and done it all. They’re senior, certain, and surrounded by people who don’t challenge them. What do you do?

You know the phrase ‘elephant in the room’? Sometimes it’s a bull — and you’re the one who has to decide whether to wave the red flag. Image by Hans Eiskonen

It’s a situation I know well from my consulting days. More than ten years ago, I was brought in to help a team with their UX strategy during a major re-platforming project. The CEO had a clear goal—switch to a new platform with an aggressive timeline. I looked at the timeline, looked at the work that needed to be done, and thought: This is so not happening.

The leadership team nodded in silent agreement.

Later, three of them told me privately:

“No way we can pull this off.”

“The teams won’t be able to meet that deadline even with months of overtime.”

“Someone needs to say something.”

But no one did. The CEO had built a successful business from scratch. Everyone in that room had a job because of him. No one wanted to be the voice that risked his trust—or their own job.

For some reason I don’t remember anymore, I couldn’t stay silent. I tried the direct approach, presenting data that contradicted the timeline. He listened politely, then explained—with complete certainty—why the data was misleading. He insisted I was the only one who saw it that way. The conversation was over.

I was young and naïve — still believing that data alone could change minds. That ship has sailed.

The Problem with Knowledge Alone

Knowledge alone rarely changes minds. Evidence may be clear and logic sound, yet leaders can remain unconvinced if the message challenges their authority, ego, or the status quo. Or they might actually know something you don’t.

Research suggests that simply presenting evidence is often insufficient to change minds. As Mercier & Sperber (2011) found:

“People are more likely to reconsider a belief when they generate counter-arguments themselves rather than being presented with them.”

The lesson is subtle but important: influence depends not only on how good your argument is, but on the psychological context in which it is presented. Direct challenge, however accurate, can be counterproductive if it triggers defensiveness.

So what do you do when you see the problem but can’t confront it directly? These strategies can help.

1. Ask Strategic Questions Instead of Making Statements

Research on the Socratic method—a form of guided questioning that helps people examine their assumptions and reach insights on their own—confirms that it’s far more effective to guide someone to test their own reasoning than to tell them they’re wrong. It’s nowhere near as satisfying in the moment, but it works better.

When you help someone recognise the limits of their knowledge, it reduces defensiveness and opens space for new ideas. Sounds straightforward but it requires skill to do well. To use the Socratic method effectively, you have to listen carefully, follow up thoughtfully, and maintain genuine curiosity. If it starts to sound formulaic, it won’t work.

Instead of saying, “That timeline is impossible,” try asking:

• What would need to happen for this timeline to succeed?
• How confident are we, on a scale of 1–10, that those conditions are in place?
• If we were advising someone else in our position, what parts of this plan might we grill them about the most?

Effect: Prompts the leader to uncover blind spots, identify hidden assumptions, and reconsider risks — all while maintaining ownership of the decision.

2. Introduce Hypotheticals or “What If” Scenarios

Framing situations hypothetically reduces ego threat, letting leaders explore potential problems safely. Research on framing and cognitive biases shows people are more open to counterfactual thinking when it’s abstracted.

Example:

• What might happen if a key dependency were delayed by a month?
• If assumptions A or B turn out not to be true mid-project, how would we adjust?
• If we imagine this plan running in a competitor’s company — what risks stand out the most?

Effect: Opens leaders to examining risk, consequences, and alternatives without direct confrontation.

3. Frame Doubt as a Shared Problem

Behavioral research shows that people are more open to re-evaluating their assumptions when they feel like part of a collaborative problem-solving effort rather than being directly challenged.

And studies of team dynamics confirm that “shared ownership of uncertainty fosters collective sensemaking and adaptive learning” (Weick & Sutcliffe, Managing the Unexpected, 2007).

Examples:

• “If we needed to hit this timeline and a key dependency slipped, how would we adjust? What would you do first?”
• “Let’s walk through this from the perspective of someone who is not convinced this is a good approach — what risks might they flag to us?”

Effect: Positions you as a partner, not a challenger, and creates space for the leader to recognise risks and alternatives themselves.

The common thread across these strategies is subtlety and curiosity: you’re not telling someone they’re wrong — you’re helping them see the gaps and risks themselves. The real art lies in asking questions that make people think harder, not defend faster or argue stronger. The difference isn’t in the words, but in the stance behind them. Real curiosity invites dialogue; performative curiosity corners people. The method only works if you mean it.

Why Knowing These Doesn’t Mean You’ll Use Them

Here’s what tactical guides won’t tell you: knowing these questions doesn’t solve your actual problem. In theory, asking questions works like magic. In practice, not so much.

The real barriers aren’t informational. They’re psychological flexibility and self-confidence.

Psychological flexibility: Can you stay curious when someone gives you an answer you think is wrong? Can you work with their reasoning instead of dismissing it? Can you tolerate the discomfort of not immediately correcting them?

Self-confidence: Do you trust yourself to execute the strategic approach without fumbling it? To ask the question in a way that invites reflection rather than triggering defense?

Back then, I didn’t know these techniques. I thought data would be enough. But even now, years later, with all the frameworks, I notice the same thing in my coaching sessions: clients know what to ask. What they need to develop is the internal capacity to stay with it when it gets uncomfortable.

That’s the part you have to develop yourself. No framework will give you that.

1 Like∙

1 Restack