A decision has genuinely come from above — a directive, a policy shift, a strategic change — and the manager tasked with communicating it to their own team doesn’t actually fully understand the complete reasoning behind it themselves. Explaining a change under these genuinely common circumstances, honestly and without either pretending to understanding you don’t have or undermining the decision through visible confusion, is a distinct and valuable communication challenge.
Why This Situation Is Genuinely Common and Genuinely Difficult
Managers frequently find themselves in the genuine position of communicating decisions made at higher levels, sometimes with only partial visibility into the complete reasoning behind them — this creates authentic tension between the honesty of acknowledging your own limited understanding and the practical need to communicate the change clearly enough for your team to actually act on it.
Genuine Elements of Explaining a Change You Don’t Fully Understand Yourself
Communicating honestly what you do actually understand about the reasoning, distinct from what remains genuinely unclear even to you. Honest, clear communication of what you actually do understand about the reasoning behind a change, kept distinct from honest acknowledgment of what remains genuinely unclear even to you, respects both your own limited but real understanding and your honesty about its limits.
Avoiding presenting understanding you don’t actually have, even if this would make the communication feel smoother. Genuine avoidance of presenting an understanding you don’t actually possess — even though doing so might make the communication feel smoother or more confident in the moment — protects your own credibility and avoids potentially misleading your team about the actual, genuine reasoning.
Seeking genuine clarification through appropriate channels where this is actually possible, before or during communicating the change. Genuine, direct seeking of clarification through appropriate channels — with those who made the decision, where this is actually possible — before or during communicating the change to your own team, helps you communicate as accurately and honestly as you genuinely can.
How to Explain a Change You Don’t Fully Understand Yourself
State the actual change clearly, even while being honest about the limits of your own understanding of its complete reasoning. Clear, direct communication of the actual change itself — what will actually happen — even while being honest about the genuine limits of your own understanding of its complete reasoning, respects your team’s need for clarity about what’s actually changing.
Share honestly what you do genuinely know about the reasoning, without fabricating explanation for what remains genuinely unclear. Honest sharing of what you genuinely do know or understand about the reasoning behind a change, without fabricating or inventing explanation for the parts that genuinely remain unclear even to you, maintains your own integrity and credibility.
Acknowledge honestly, where appropriate, that you don’t have complete visibility into every aspect of the decision. Honest, direct acknowledgment, where genuinely appropriate, that you don’t have complete visibility into every aspect of a decision’s reasoning respects your team’s intelligence and avoids the appearance of either withholding information or claiming an understanding you don’t actually have.
Offer to seek additional clarification on genuine, specific questions your team raises that you can’t currently answer yourself. A genuine offer to seek additional clarification on specific, legitimate questions your team raises that you genuinely can’t answer yourself demonstrates continued engagement with their honest need for understanding, even beyond the initial communication.
Why Pretending to Understanding You Don’t Have Often Backfires
It’s worth being direct that pretending to a complete understanding you don’t actually have often backfires — if your team later discovers that your explanation was fabricated or incomplete in ways you didn’t disclose, this can damage your credibility more significantly than honest acknowledgment of your own limited understanding would have from the outset.
Distinguishing What You Genuinely Don’t Understand From What You Have Reservations About
Distinguish honestly, for yourself, between genuinely not understanding a decision’s reasoning and understanding it but having reservations about it. Honest, internal distinction between genuinely not understanding a decision’s actual reasoning and understanding the reasoning but having genuine reservations about the decision itself helps you communicate accurately about which situation you’re actually in.
Communicate each of these genuinely different situations honestly and distinctly, rather than conflating them. Honest, distinct communication of whichever situation genuinely applies — limited understanding versus understanding with reservations — rather than conflating these different situations, helps your team understand your actual position accurately.
Maintaining Your Team’s Confidence While Being Honest About Limited Understanding
Communicate honest uncertainty about the complete reasoning with genuine confidence in your ability to lead through implementation regardless. Genuine confidence in your ability to lead your team through implementing a change effectively, communicated alongside honest uncertainty about the complete reasoning behind it, helps maintain your team’s confidence in your leadership even while being honest about the limits of your own understanding.
Follow up honestly if you do obtain additional clarification later, closing the loop on genuine questions raised. Honest, genuine follow-up if you do obtain additional clarification later — closing the loop on genuine questions your team raised that you initially couldn’t answer — demonstrates continued engagement and respect for their honest need for understanding.
A Practical Scenario
A manager needs to communicate a policy change to her team that came from senior leadership, and she genuinely doesn’t have complete visibility into all the reasoning behind it. She states the actual change clearly to her team, being honest about the genuine limits of her own understanding of its complete reasoning, rather than either fabricating an explanation or presenting confusion in a way that would undermine the communication.
She shares honestly what she does genuinely understand about the reasoning, without inventing explanation for the parts that remain genuinely unclear even to her, and acknowledges directly that she doesn’t have complete visibility into every aspect of the decision. She offers to seek additional clarification on specific, legitimate questions her team raises that she genuinely can’t answer herself, and communicates genuine confidence in her ability to lead them through implementation regardless of the reasoning gaps. When she does obtain additional clarification later, she follows up honestly, closing the loop on the questions raised. Her team trusts both the communication and her leadership through the transition — a direct result of communicating honestly about the genuine limits of her own understanding, rather than either pretending to complete knowledge or allowing visible confusion to undermine the change’s implementation.
Common Mistakes
Fabricating or inventing explanation for reasoning that genuinely remains unclear, to make the communication feel more complete. This risks damaging credibility more significantly if later discovered, compared to honest acknowledgment of genuinely limited understanding from the outset.
Presenting visible confusion or uncertainty in a way that undermines your team’s confidence in implementing the change. This can create unnecessary additional anxiety or resistance, distinct from honest but confident communication about genuine limits in your own understanding.
Conflating genuine lack of understanding with having reservations about a decision you do actually understand. This can create confusion about your actual position, rather than honestly and distinctly communicating whichever situation genuinely applies.
Failing to follow up when additional clarification does become available later, leaving genuine questions unanswered indefinitely. This misses an opportunity to demonstrate continued engagement and respect for your team’s honest need for understanding beyond the initial communication.
Action Steps
- State the actual change clearly, even while being honest about the genuine limits of your own understanding of its complete reasoning.
- Share honestly what you do genuinely know about the reasoning, without fabricating explanation for what remains genuinely unclear.
- Acknowledge honestly, where appropriate, that you don’t have complete visibility into every aspect of the decision.
- Offer to seek additional clarification on genuine, specific questions your team raises that you can’t currently answer yourself.
- Follow up honestly if you do obtain additional clarification later, closing the loop on genuine questions raised.
Key Takeaways
- Managers frequently communicate decisions made at higher levels with only partial visibility, creating tension between honest acknowledgment of limits and the practical need for clear communication.
- Communicating what you do understand distinctly from what remains unclear, avoiding fabricated understanding, and seeking clarification where possible all help explain a change well.
- Stating the change clearly, sharing genuine knowledge honestly, acknowledging limited visibility, and offering to seek further clarification all help maintain honesty and credibility.
- Pretending to understanding you don’t have often backfires, since later discovery of fabricated or incomplete explanation can damage credibility more than honest acknowledgment from the outset.
- Distinguishing genuine lack of understanding from having reservations, and maintaining confidence in your leadership despite honest uncertainty, both matter for navigating this well.
Conclusion
Explaining a decision made above your level, without full understanding yourself, is a genuine communication challenge, making honest, careful communication about the limits of your own understanding valuable for navigating it well. Stating the actual change clearly, sharing what you genuinely do know honestly, acknowledging honestly where your own visibility is limited, and offering to seek further clarification on genuine questions all help maintain both your credibility and your team’s confidence, respecting their honest need for understanding while being authentic about the genuine limits of what you know.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can I explain a decision to my team when I don’t fully understand it myself?
State the actual change clearly, share honestly what you do genuinely understand about the reasoning, and acknowledge honestly where your own visibility into the decision is limited.
Should I make up an explanation if I don’t actually know the reasoning behind a decision?
No, genuinely not — fabricating explanation risks damaging your credibility more significantly if later discovered, compared to honest acknowledgment of your genuinely limited understanding from the outset.
Is it okay to tell my team that I don’t have complete information about a decision?
Yes, generally — honest acknowledgment that you don’t have complete visibility respects your team’s intelligence and avoids the appearance of either withholding information or claiming understanding you don’t have.
How can I maintain my team’s confidence while admitting I don’t fully understand a decision?
Communicate genuine confidence in your ability to lead them through implementation effectively, alongside honest acknowledgment of uncertainty about the complete reasoning behind the decision.
What should I do if my team asks questions about a decision that I genuinely can’t answer?
Offer to seek additional clarification through appropriate channels, and follow up honestly if you do obtain more information later, closing the loop on the questions raised.
How is not understanding a decision different from disagreeing with it?
These are genuinely different situations — distinguish honestly, for yourself, between genuinely not understanding the reasoning and understanding it but having reservations, communicating whichever situation actually applies.