Request for Input That Doesn’t Want Input

1. What this pattern is

This pattern appears when leaders invite feedback or strategic thinking but have no intention of using it. The request functions as a performance of collaboration rather than a genuine inquiry. People are asked to contribute depth, but the system only tolerates affirmation.

The gap between the invitation and the actual appetite for input creates chronic frustration. Contributors assume they will influence direction. Decision-makers assume the input is optional. The pattern becomes a cycle where insight is solicited and dismissed in the same breath.

2. How it shows up

• Requests for strategy that are replaced with pre-existing ideas
• Invitations to challenge assumptions that trigger defensiveness
• Brainstorms where decisions have already been made
• Contributors asked for depth and then told their input is too much
• Leaders praising “collaboration” while ignoring inconvenient insights
• Teams adjusting their contributions to avoid conflict

The process looks participatory. The outcome is predetermined.

3. What it is protecting (emotional logic)

The leader wants the appearance of collaboration without the discomfort that true collaboration brings. Input is used to validate decisions, not shape them.

Allowing real influence requires confronting ambiguity, revising assumptions, or acknowledging mistakes. Avoiding those experiences protects identity, authority and internal stability. Asking for input becomes a way to maintain harmony while shielding the system from disruption.

4. What it costs the system

• Talented contributors stop offering insight
• High performers disengage because their thinking goes unused
• Decisions lose quality because dissent is not integrated
• Innovation stalls due to lack of cognitive diversity
• Teams learn to mirror the leader instead of challenging them
• Work slows because people wait to align with the unspoken direction

The system loses clarity and depth while believing it is being collaborative.

5. Early signals to watch for

• Feedback meetings where nothing changes afterwards
• Leaders saying “this is great” while implementing something else
• Contributors revising their tone to avoid friction
• People seeking “the right angle” instead of honest analysis
• Insight that lands as threat rather than value
• A pattern of decisions that seem disconnected from team input

6. Questions that expose the pattern

• What outcome did I already decide before asking for input
• Which kinds of insight make me uncomfortable and why
• When I ask for feedback, what am I actually hoping to get
• Whose input do I only accept when it aligns with mine
• How often do I change direction based on other people’s thinking
• What would be disrupted if I let genuine feedback shape the decision

7. What changes when you name it

Leaders stop using consultation as a symbolic act and start using it as a real decision-making tool. Teams begin offering honest insight instead of managed input. Conversations shift from performance to substance. Decisions become sharper because they integrate multiple perspectives instead of protecting a single perspective.

Once the pattern is named, collaboration becomes real instead of ritual.