"But you just can't really know whether they ignored your feedback, or whether they considered it and decided not to act on it for any of a number of reasons."

"But you just can't really know whether they ignored your feedback, or whether they considered it and decided not to act on it for any of a number of reasons." Considering feedback and not truly taking the time to understand the risk and to discuss the decision with the origin of the feedback is ignoring the feedback. People with the power to make decisions in an organization often follow this pattern. It's the mindset of a fool to think that they know better than the people closest to and most impacted by a decision. Good leadership enables those who are closest to the problem to make the decision or minimally discuss the pros and cons of the decision providing any missing information before making it. I can't begin to count the number of times that those in leadership roles have made decisions only to walk back on them after they failed citing the exact same reason of feedback they received prior to making the decision. Often the language is spun to obfuscate this but when pressed the reality is made clear. Worse case, I have witnessed vindictive measures taken by leadership against those who, correctly after the outcome of the decision was realized, criticized the decisions being made. It's not always about a single naysayer. It's also the bizarre perception that one needs to "have all the answers" when they make it to leadership. We should not ignore the reality that incompetent leadership is real and happens more often than people think.