# data[].attributes.body
I should start by validating Taylor's commitment to efficiency and acknowledging the genuine frustration caused by the false alarms and the rigid 10-minute reset time. However, I must then firmly pivot to the non-negotiable priority of workplace safety, explaining that even a low frequency of accidents (1 or 2 per year) represents an unacceptable risk to human life and company liability that outweighs any productivity gains. Rather than a flat denial, I'll frame the rejection as a shift in focus: agree that the downtime is a problem to be solved, but insist that the solution lies in recalibrating the sensors or updating the system logic to reduce false positives, rather than removing the safeguards that keep the team alive. - Nicolas Tedjadharma

# data[].attributes.body
In this situation, it is important to be especially careful due to authority bias, which may discourage others from speaking up or challenging the idea. Therefore, it is essential first to acknowledge and reinforce a culture that encourages open dialogue and constructive challenge, regardless of hierarchy. The rejection should then be framed through a carefully prepared, evidence-based proposal that objectively outlines both the potential benefits and the risks of the idea, demonstrating how the long-term costs and strategic risks may outweigh the short-term financial gains. Presenting the rejection in a neutral, data-driven manner helps avoid personal confrontation while ensuring sound decision-making. (Sarah Oftadeh)

# data[].attributes.body
I would acknowledge the efficiency and process-improvement intent behind the idea, but explain that the proposal raises significant concerns around trust, privacy, and employee acceptance, which could undermine productivity rather than improve it. I would frame the rejection around organisational and social risk, not technical feasibility, and keep the conversation open by suggesting less intrusive alternatives. (Sarah Oftadeh)

# data[].attributes.body
For Taylor, it is important to keep the feedback constructive in order to encourage him to continue coming forward with ideas rather than disengaging. The feedback should first acknowledge his intent and concern for productivity, and then clearly explain the reason for rejection(for example: that even saving a single life is sufficient justification for keeping the safety system in place). At the same time, the door should remain open by inviting alternative suggestions, such as ways to reduce false alarms or recalibrate the sensors without compromising safety. (Sarah Oftadeh)

# data[].attributes.body
I would clearly explain to Taylor that employee safety cannot be compromised for efficiency gains, while still acknowledging the underlying issue. A constructive response would redirect the discussion toward safer alternatives, such as recalibrating the sensors, improving detection accuracy or reducing system restart times after false alarms. With this approach the unsafe solution is rejected, the employee remains engaged in innovation and the organization maintains its safety standards while continuing to seek productivity improvements.

(Babatunde Akinoso)

# data[].attributes.body
To reject upward in Sydney’s case, I would shift the "No" to a higher authority (the full Board). This neutralizes pushiness by making the rejection a matter of policy rather than a personal disagreement.

I can escalate this and argue that outsourcing a core component is a "Material Strategic Risk" that requires a formal review by the board.

I can require a third-party feasibility study. This moves the rejection to an objective "upward" authority that Sydney cannot easily push. (Petr Kondrakhin)

# data[].attributes.body
While efficiency is important, safety is the highest priority, it's not something we can cut on. Even if rare, there is a high risk of severe injury, which outweighs the cost of production or delays.

Andy Zein

# data[].attributes.body
When rejecting downward, it's important to communicate the rejection in a constructive way that the employee doesn't leave feeling unheard or demotivated. I would first approach Taylor and thank him for raising his idea. I would then highlight the reasons why we can't implement the idea, tying them back to company policies, such as valuing employee safety over efficiency. At the end, of the conversation, I would again thank him for his efforts and encourage him to continue bringing his ideas forward since he is thinking in a good direction already.

-Julia Kaiser

# data[].attributes.body
If you are going to reject Sydney's idea, it is important to make sure she understands why and try to get her enthusiastic support for another innovation, using her enthusiasm and good network to help you with the next steps on that topic.

I would arrange a meeting with her to briefly explain how the task as an innovation manager is going, and mention that you have generally received very positive feedback. This should make her aware that we have many different innovation propositions and that the department itself, which she probably approved or supported as a member of the board, is developing.

Then, when you come back to her proposal, I would make sure that you agree with her that there is huge potential in sourcing from developing countries and that you have done some preliminary research to enable you to assess the proposal correctly throughout the company's innovation process. Arguing that this topic is very risky and capacity-intensive would lead to the conclusion that it cannot be handled with current capacities and will therefore not be considered further for now.

In that sense, I would introduce her to another innovation that looks very promising, to get her view on whether she could potentially support working on that topic. (Alois Aschenbrenner)

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, I would like to start by explaining why sensors have been introduced to our production line. By emphasizing that employee safety is of paramount importance to our company I would value the well-being of all employees, including Taylor. Furthermore, I would explain the benefits of having too sensitive system (too many false positives) than having one severe injury (false negative) in the long run (absenteeism, reputation). Taylor needs to understand that our target is zero injuries. Nevertheless, I would appreciate the business acumen of Taylor and would ask if there are specific sensors which actually are malfunctioning and need a vendor service instead of removing them or if additional sensors could potentially verify the clearance of the accident area to lower the 10 minutes stop period. Consequently, I would redirect the interest in the topic from removing safety mechanisms to making them even more reliable. (Johannes Heidrich)

# data[].attributes.body
I think the way to navigate Jackie’s proposal is to maintain the collaborative relationship and protect her reputation as the company’s efficiency expert. While her idea is theoretically viable, it carries a significant risk of creating a 'Big Brother' feeling. If employees feel constantly monitored, they are likely to show lower morale and they will eventually find ways to bypass the technology.

To reject this idea laterally, we should align on the overarching goal we both agree on: improving operational efficiency, and next pivot Jackie to iterate on the concept, challenging her to find alternative methods that achieve the same productivity gains but with a higher probability of employee acceptance and long-term success. (Paulina)