What Should Executives Do When Their Team Says, “Yeah, But We’re Different”?

When a team says, “Yeah, but we’re different,” executives should take the objection seriously, then help the team separate real constraints from untested assumptions. Some differences matter. Many are habits that have never been questioned. The leader’s job is to find out which is which, without shutting the conversation down.

The “Yeah, But” dragon

In his AI leadership keynote, Leif Becker describes three common reactions that can hold people back, the Three AI Dragons. The second is the “Yeah, But” dragon: “Our business, industry, or people are different.”

You will hear it in many forms:

• “Our clients expect a personal touch.”
• “Our industry is too regulated for that.”
• “Our people aren’t technical.”
• “That works for big companies, not for us.”

Each statement may contain some truth. That is what makes the “Yeah, But” dragon powerful. It sounds reasonable, so it often goes unchallenged, and the conversation about AI ends before it starts.

Constraint, assumption, or unknown?

A practical way to work through “Yeah, but” is to sort each objection into one of three groups:

Real constraints are facts the organization must respect: legal requirements, contractual obligations, security rules, or client commitments. These shape how you use AI. They rarely mean you cannot use it anywhere.

Assumptions are beliefs that have not been tested: “Our customers won’t accept it,” or “Our team won’t use it.” Assumptions deserve respect, and they also deserve a test.

Unknowns are questions nobody can answer yet. Unknowns are not a reason to stop. They are a reason to learn, deliberately and safely.

Writing objections down and sorting them together changes the tone of the conversation. It moves the team from defending positions to examining evidence.

Questions that open the conversation

Instead of arguing with “Yeah, but,” ask questions that invite thinking:

• “Which part of our work is truly different, and which part looks like everyone else’s?”
• “What would have to be true for this to work here?”
• “What is the smallest, safest way we could find out?”
• “What is the risk of waiting while others learn?”

These questions respect experience while making room for change.

Replace the debate with a small test

Debates about AI can go on for months. A small, time-boxed test usually settles more than another meeting. Choose one workflow, define what success would look like, set clear guardrails, and assign an owner. Review what happened together, including what did not work.

This approach respects the real constraints, tests the assumptions, and turns unknowns into knowledge. It also shows the team that leadership is willing to learn alongside them.

Where leadership comes in

Moving past “Yeah, but” is not about winning an argument. It is about building enough trust that people are willing to try. That is the focus of Leif Becker’s keynote Breaking the AI Barrier, which looks at why AI adoption gets stuck inside organizations and what leaders can do to move it forward.

Frequently asked questions

Is “Yeah, but” always resistance? No. Often it reflects real experience and real constraints. Treat it as information, then help the team separate facts from assumptions.

How do we handle objections in a regulated industry? Start with the rules that apply, involve the right reviewers early, and look for low-risk uses of AI inside those boundaries. Constraints shape the approach; they rarely remove every opportunity.

How can our leadership team align on what to try first? The AI Leadership Lab, led by Leif Becker and Marina Alex, helps executive teams rank their top AI priorities, assign owners, and agree on a 90-day plan.