Trading Certainty for Impact
Why Being Right Isn’t the Same as Being Effective
A son slides data across the table: graphs, citations, airtight logic. His sister folds her arms. Their father sighs: “I’ve heard enough.” The son is right—technically. The family is stuck—practically.
Because in collaborative philanthropy, effectiveness beats correctness. Winning the argument but losing alignment is still a loss.
The Trap of Right and Wrong
High-achieving families prize precision. They’re used to being right—on investments, operations, outcomes. But interpersonal systems don’t reward proof; they reward participation. Certainty feels safe, yet it narrows possibility. Systems work demands humility: “My truth may be partial.”
A Third Option
Dialectical thinking holds two truths at once: “I’m right about my perspective” and “You’re right about yours.” Tension becomes bridge, not battleground.
Clarify the Goal: Ask, “What are we optimizing for—accuracy or progress?” If the goal is shared action, aim for sufficiency, not perfection.
Replace Proof with Curiosity: When instinct says “convince,” pivot to “discover.” Questions like “What evidence would change your mind?” shift tone from duel to design.
Use the Effectiveness Test: Before speaking, ask: Will this move us closer to the goal? Will it build or burn relational capital? Is this the right time for this truth?
Sometimes silence is the most strategic sentence.
In Action…
Two siblings deadlocked over funding psychedelics research. One cited peer-reviewed studies; the other feared reputational risk. Instead of debating data, they reframed: “Our goal is impact without jeopardy.” Result: a two-phase plan—small pilot through an anonymous DAF, followed by public scaling after outcomes. Truth stayed intact; effectiveness soared.
Being right satisfies ego.
Being effective satisfies mission.
Choose the outcome that builds the world you want—starting at your own table.