---
id: "action-ask-what-could-go-wrong"
type: "action-item"
source_timestamps: ["§ Reaching True Agreement"]
tags: ["communication", "psychological-safety"]
related: ["entity-celia-moore", "entity-kate-coombs", "framework-reaching-true-agreement"]
action: "Ask 'What could go wrong with this approach?' instead of 'What do you think?'"
outcome: "Frames disagreement as a desired behavior, overriding the instinct to just give the leader what they want."
sources: ["governance"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-governance"
originDay: 7
articleStem: "hbr-cl-85-false-alignment-trap"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/07/the-false-alignment-trap"
sourceTitle: "The False Alignment Trap"
---
# Ask 'What Could Go Wrong?'

**Action:** Ask **'What could go wrong with this approach?'** instead of 'What do you think?'

**Outcome:** Frames disagreement as a *desired* behavior, overriding the instinct to just give the leader what they want.

Behavioral scientists [[entity-celia-moore|Celia Moore]] and [[entity-kate-coombs|Kate Coombs]] (Imperial College London) note that people are wired to give leaders what they want. By explicitly asking for potential failures or contrary views, a leader signals that dissent is not merely tolerated but **actively desired and required** for the company's success. This is a concrete tactic for Step 2 (provoke an early exchange / explicitly invite dissent) of the [[framework-reaching-true-agreement|five-step process]] and a direct countermeasure to [[concept-affective-forecasting-error|affective forecasting error]].


## Related across articles
- [[contrarian-values-vs-nightmares]]
- [[concept-flat-mode]]