Explaining Decisions
Published · Last reviewed
When you announce a decision that affects people, give the decision, the criteria you used and what is still open, and do it yourself, at the same moment. In a field study of a temporary pay cut, Greenberg (1990) found that where the basis for the cut was explained thoroughly and sensitively, perceived inequity and employee theft were lower. Colquitt and colleagues (2001) found that informational justice, which concerns explanations, adds to fairness perceptions beyond the other justice dimensions.
Durable practice (not new). This is established communication practice, not a discovery or a trend.
What it fixes
The breakdown is the unexplained decision. The announcement arrives as a fact. In our experience, people fill the gap with a theory of their own and spend the next week trading it. That is practitioner observation, not a cited finding. By the time you explain, you are correcting a story instead of supplying one.
A second breakdown is the explanation that arrives only under questioning, which reads as a defense. Reasons given first read as information.
How to run it
- Write the decision in one sentence, with the names of the people it affects.
- List the criteria you actually used and how you weighed them, including any limit that constrained you.
- State what is still open: what you have not decided, what you do not know, and what could change the outcome.
- Tell the affected people yourself, in a conversation or a message sent at the same moment as the decision.
- Name where questions and objections go, and the day you will answer them.
“Travel is on hold next quarter. I used three criteria: customer-facing trips first, anything that can be a call second, and a cap of the same total as this quarter. I have not decided how to handle the March conference, and I will tell you by the 15th.”
The step that people skip is the open list. Naming what you have not decided tells people which parts they can still influence, and it keeps you from implying more certainty than you have.
Say it out loud
“I'm telling you the reasons now, so you don't have to ask for them. Here is what I used to decide, and here is what is still open.”
The explanation works the same when the listener knows what you are doing, since you are handing them the means to check your reasoning. Give only the reasons you actually used. A justification built afterward to fit the outcome fails when anyone compares it with what happened. Where you cannot share something, say that you cannot, and say why.
Profile translations
- Profile B For a reorganization or budget change, send the criteria and the open questions in the same message as the decision, then hold a short call the next morning.
- Profile D For a price change, tell customers what drove it and what you did not change, in the announcement itself and before the first support ticket.
- Profile C If you change a grading scheme or a posting schedule, give the criteria and what feedback you will still take, in the same post.
- Profile A When a family plan changes, such as a move or a holiday arrangement, say what you weighed and what is not decided before the first objection.
How to tell it worked
- Action
- Send the reasons with the decision, not afterward.
- Why
- Reasons that arrive first read as information. Reasons that arrive under pressure read as defense.
- Verification
- The first replies ask about details or next steps, with fewer asking why it was decided.
- Action
- List what is open and give a date.
- Why
- It shows people where input can still change something.
- Verification
- Someone sends an input before the date that you can use.
- Action
- Ask two affected people to say the criteria back the next day.
- Why
- A recap tests whether the explanation was clear.
- Verification
- Both name at least two of your criteria correctly.
Failure signs: stop if you see these
- The criteria change when someone challenges the decision.
- The open list is empty or invented, so people stop reading it.
- The explanation is so long that nobody reads it.
- You use the explanation to end discussion rather than start it.
Why it works, and how strong the evidence is
Evidence. One field study and one meta-analysis. Greenberg (1990) is a field study of a specific situation, a temporary pay cut in manufacturing plants. Colquitt and colleagues (2001) review 183 justice studies, mostly relationships rather than experiments. Replication of the pay-cut study: Not reported here. Pooled effect sizes: Not reported here.
Greenberg (1990, Journal of Applied Psychology) measured employee theft in manufacturing plants during a period in which pay was temporarily reduced by 15%. Groups whose pay was cut had significantly higher theft rates than they did before or after the cut, or than control groups whose pay was unchanged. When the basis for the cut was thoroughly and sensitively explained, feelings of inequity were lessened and the theft rate was lower. The author reads the pattern as support for equity theory.
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng (2001, Journal of Applied Psychology) meta-analyzed 183 justice studies. Distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice were moderately to highly related, and each added explained variance in fairness perceptions. The authors report relationships with outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, citizenship behavior, withdrawal and performance. Informational justice, the dimension about explanations, is the one this page applies.
The limits are real. The pay-cut result comes from one kind of decision, and theft is an unusual outcome to generalize from. A meta-analysis reports how things go together and cannot by itself show that an explanation produced an outcome. The advice to explain before people ask is a practitioner translation, since neither source tested timing directly.
Worked example
An invented scene, offered as an illustration and not as data. A manager announces a freeze on travel.
“Travel is frozen next quarter. That came from finance. Talk to me if you have questions.”
“Travel is on hold next quarter. I used three criteria: customer-facing trips first, anything that works as a call second, and a total no higher than this quarter's. I have not decided the March conference, and I will tell you by the 15th. If you think a trip meets the first criterion, send me the case by Friday.”
The first version is a fact and an invitation to complain. The second gives people a way to check the logic and a route to influence it. What to watch for: if you apply the criteria differently to one person, the explanation becomes evidence against you.
Frequently asked questions
Why explain a decision if the decision is final?
People judge fairness partly by the explanation they receive. Colquitt and colleagues (2001) found informational justice adds to fairness perceptions, and Greenberg (1990) found a thorough, sensitive explanation went with lower theft after a pay cut.
What should an explanation include?
The decision, the criteria you actually used and how you weighed them, what is still open, and where questions go. Name anything you cannot share.
Does explaining a decision mean opening it to debate?
Only for the open parts. State clearly which parts are settled and which are not.
What if the real reason is confidential?
Say that you cannot share it and give what you can. Offering a different reason in its place fails the disclosure test.
How soon should I explain?
At the same time as the decision. The timing is a practitioner translation, since the sources cited do not test it directly.
Want a practice like this each day?
The briefing is published on this site every day. The email edition is not sending yet. Leave your address and you’ll be among the first told when it starts. Nothing is sent in the meantime.