When Being Right Isn’t Enough – The Human Factor in Influence and Timing
When Being Right Isn’t Enough
The Human Factor in Influence and Timing
Issue 248, January 22, 2026
Early in my career, I watched a brilliant colleague present an analysis that was precise and correct. His data was impeccable, his logic flawless, his recommendation clearly the right path forward. The room thanked him; some even gave him kudos for the completeness of the analysis and the thoughtfulness he applied to the recommendation.
Following the meeting, the leadership announced they were proceeding in a completely different direction than the one he proposed. Six months later, when the approach the leadership chose had failed, a new senior leader presented essentially the same recommendation. This time, it was adopted immediately.
The content was nearly identical. The outcome was the opposite. The difference wasn’t logic. It certainly wasn’t based on reality or the mountain of evidence presented in both instances. It was everything else: timing, relationships, framing, and the psychological readiness of the audience to hear what was being said.
Here is what I have learned over years of work inside organizations and over a decade as a consultant: being right is necessary but never sufficient. The gap between having the correct answer and seeing that answer adopted is where most change efforts fail. Understanding this gap requires us to look beyond the quality of our analysis to the human factors that actually drive adoption.
Research published in Information Systems Research by information systems scholars Stephania W. Sussman and Wendy S. Siegal explored what they called “informational influence in organizations.” Their findings confirmed what many of us have observed: people don’t adopt ideas simply because those ideas are right. They adopt ideas when those ideas feel useful and relevant to their situation. That feeling of usefulness depends on factors that extend far beyond evidence and accuracy.
The Timing Dimension
Communication theorist Everett Rogers’ foundational work on the diffusion of innovations documented that adoption occurs in stages, from awareness through persuasion to decision and implementation. Each stage has its own dynamics. Attempting to force later-stage acceptance before earlier stages are complete typically fails regardless of the quality of what’s being proposed.
Put simply, people can only hear certain messages when they are ready to hear them. An idea proposed before an organization has experienced the challenge it addresses will seem theoretical and unnecessary. Once failure has created receptivity, that same idea will seem obvious and urgent. The idea didn’t change. The timing did.
Research in translational science published by health services researcher Zoë Slote Morris and colleagues in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that research translation takes an average of 17 years. Not because the research is unclear, but because the context for adoption must evolve. The gap between knowing something is right and seeing it adopted is measured in years or decades, not in the quality of the evidence.
The 17-year translation lag reflects something more fundamental than bureaucratic delay or leadership procrastination. Organizational theorists Wesley Cohen and Daniel Levinthal’s foundational research on what they termed “absorptive capacity” demonstrates that organizations must develop the ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply new information regardless of how valuable that information might be. Their 1990 study in Administrative Science Quarterly established that prior related knowledge provides the foundation for evaluating new knowledge. Organizations cannot simply leapfrog to advanced solutions without first building an intermediate understanding.
This is why leaders who present sophisticated analyses to unprepared audiences often face puzzling resistance. The audience may lack the foundational knowledge necessary to evaluate what they are hearing. Consider how a finance team that has never encountered behavioral economics research might respond to a proposal built on loss aversion principles. The proposal itself could be impeccable, yet the audience lacks the capacity to recognize its validity.
Strategic management scholars Shaker A. Zahra and Gerard George extended this framework by distinguishing between potential absorptive capacity (the ability to acquire and understand knowledge) and realized absorptive capacity (the ability to transform and use it). Their 2002 Academy of Management Review article suggests that many organizations possess the potential to understand new ideas but lack the capabilities, context, or situational experience to act on them.
For those leading change and transformation or even representing a new idea, this means that building organizational readiness often requires deliberate investments in foundational knowledge before introducing more advanced concepts. The preparation work that feels like a delay may actually be creating the conditions that make eventual adoption possible.
I have learned to ask not just “Is this right?” but “Is this the right moment?” Sometimes the answer is no, and the right move is patience rather than persuasion. Other times, a window is opening that won’t stay open long, and waiting for more evidence means missing the opportunity entirely.
The Relationship Dimension
Ideas don’t move through organizations on their own merits. They travel through networks of trust. Rogers emphasized that adoption depends heavily on interpersonal networks, with peers and opinion leaders playing central roles in whether new ideas gain traction.
The same recommendation from someone trusted will be received differently than from someone unknown or mistrusted. This isn’t irrational. Organizations are constantly flooded with proposals, analyses, and recommendations. People develop shortcuts for deciding what deserves attention, and relationship credibility is one of the most efficient filters available.
Why relationships matter so profoundly becomes clearer through the work of organizational trust researchers Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. Their influential model published in the Academy of Management Review identifies three factors that determine whether someone’s recommendations will be trusted: ability (perceived competence), benevolence (belief that you genuinely care about others’ interests), and integrity (consistency between your stated values and your actions over time).
The critical insight for leaders is that ability alone is not enough. Technical experts who build reputations solely on competence often discover that their recommendations face unexpected skepticism, particularly when those recommendations require others to accept risk or change established practices. Colleagues may acknowledge expertise while simultaneously questioning motives or doubting follow-through.
Organizational behavior researchers Kurt T. Dirks and Donald L. Ferrin’s meta-analysis of trust in leadership, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, found that trust operates through two distinct mechanisms. Relationship-based trust develops through repeated interactions that demonstrate care and concern for others. Character-based trust emerges from observations about integrity and dependability over time. Both require sustained investment well before the moment when trust becomes essential for moving ideas forward.
This research illuminates a common pattern in change and transformation work. Leaders who arrive in organizations with brilliant analyses but shallow relationships find themselves unable to generate the commitment their ideas require. Meanwhile, colleagues with deeper organizational roots but less sophisticated analyses somehow manage to move initiatives forward. The difference often lies not in the quality of thinking but in the accumulated trust that makes others willing to take risks based on someone’s recommendations.
Building influence before you need it is one of the most strategically important investments leaders can make. When the moment comes to propose something significant, the relationship foundation is either already there or it isn’t. It cannot be created at the moment you need it.
The Framing Dimension
How an idea is presented often matters as much as the idea itself. The same recommendation can be framed in multiple ways, and the frame chosen significantly affects reception.
Compare “Your current approach is failing, and you need to change” with “Here’s how you can build on what’s working to get even better results.” Both might lead to the same action, but one creates defensiveness while the other creates openness.
The most effective influencers I have observed think carefully about their audience before presenting ideas. What does this person care about? What language will resonate? What concerns might create resistance? How can the recommendation be positioned to address those concerns rather than trigger them?
This isn’t manipulation. It’s communication. The same substantive message can be delivered in ways that help the audience receive it or in ways that ensure they’ll reject it. Choosing the former respects both the content and the people you’re trying to influence.
The Psychological Readiness Dimension
Beyond timing, relationships, and framing, there’s a deeper question: is the audience psychologically ready to accept what you’re proposing? Change threatens identity, challenges competence, and disrupts status. Even obviously good ideas can be rejected if they imply that people’s previous choices were wrong or that their current skills are obsolete.
Preparing for adoption means understanding that readiness isn’t just about logic but about emotions, identity, and the very human need to maintain self-esteem while changing direction. This requires empathy, patience, and often a willingness to help people save face while moving toward better approaches.
It also requires recognizing that you can’t always create readiness. Sometimes the conditions aren’t right, and no amount of persuasion will change that. The wisdom is knowing when to push, when to wait, and when to find a different path entirely.
From Correctness to Impact
None of this means that being right doesn’t matter. It means that being right is necessary but not sufficient. If your goal is to actually change outcomes rather than just to have been correct, you need to think about timing, relationships, framing, and psychological readiness as seriously as you think about the content of your recommendations.
Let me put it another way: the brilliant analysis that goes nowhere might as well not exist. The adequate analysis that gets adopted makes a difference. The gap between correctness and impact is where most transformation efforts fail, and closing that gap requires attention to the human factors that actually drive adoption.
Ask yourself: When will the organization be ready to hear this? Who needs to believe in this idea for it to succeed? How can I frame this so it connects with what people care about? What psychological barriers might prevent acceptance, and how can I address them?
These questions might feel like distractions from the real work of analysis and problem-solving. They’re not. They’re the difference between ideas that remain theoretical and ideas that actually change things.
Being right is where the work begins, not where it ends. What happens next determines whether your correctness matters to anyone beyond yourself.
Connect with Us
What leadership challenges are shaping your decisions right now? We’d love to hear your insights. Share your experiences with us on our Substack or join the conversation on our LinkedIn. For more insights on navigating organizational complexity, explore our archive of “Ideas and Innovations” newsletters or pick up a copy of The Truth About Transformation: Leading in the Age of AI, Uncertainty and Human Complexity.
Go Deeper: Subscribe to the Human Factor Podcast where we explore the grief cycles, discuss experiences of loss and professional identity, resistance, and acceptance during organizational change, and the tactics and strategies that help.
If you haven’t yet subscribed to the Human Factor Podcast, find it on your favorite podcast platform. Over the first 13 episodes, Kevin has covered frameworks and strategies to mitigate and contend/strategize how to change and transform. It’s destination business strategy listening!
Season 2 is coming in mid-February 2026
Listen and view on:
