Selling expertise · Essay 008
Ask for the decision you actually need
The Accidental Salesman Editorial Desk · 2 min read · Published 15 October 2026

"Let me know what you think" sounds polite but often leaves the recipient with unnecessary work. What kind of response is required? An opinion, a meeting, approval of scope, or permission to contact someone else? The seller has left the next action undefined.
Good requests match the stage of the conversation. Before the problem is understood, ask whether further investigation is worthwhile. Once scope is clear, ask whether the buyer wants a proposal. Once terms have been discussed, ask what remains before a decision can be made.
This is different from forcing an early yes. A decision can be to stop, defer or involve someone else. Making those options explicit can be more useful than extracting a vague expression of enthusiasm.
An illustrative follow-up might read: "We agreed that inconsistent handovers are delaying implementation. Would you like us to scope the assessment, or is there another internal discussion you need first?" The request is attached to the buyer's problem and leaves room for a truthful answer.
Be careful with artificial binary choices. "Tuesday or Wednesday?" is not helpful when the buyer has not agreed that a meeting is worthwhile. A scheduling choice should follow agreement on purpose, rather than substitute for it.
The practical test is simple: could the recipient answer without first working out what you are asking? If the answer is no, the message needs another edit. Courtesy and clarity can comfortably occupy the same sentence.
Put it to work
A practical next step
Rewrite three recent follow-ups so each asks for one specific decision. Keep a legitimate decline or deferral available. Compare the usefulness of responses, not just the proportion that say yes.
Proposed practice, not a completed experiment. Illustrations are not client testimony.
Sources & limits
This essay is editorial interpretation from the supplied manuscript, not an empirical research report. No external study is cited for its recommendations.
Source: The work of winning trust, editorial review edition, 15 October 2026, p. 16. No publication history is inferred from its sequence dates.