Aggravating approach: "Let's do x! *starts to do x* ... Wait? Why wait? *continues to do x* ... Fine, I'm waiting! What's the problem? *cold, unsmiling stare* ... Oh. ... Let's do z instead then! *starts to do z*"
Amiable approach: "I'm thinking we should do x because of y, but I could very well be missing something and so I would appreciate your input. What do you think? ... So how does that affect the bottom line? ... I see; thanks for pointing that out. ... What if we did z instead?"
Of course, the latter democratic approach entails slowdown, so its relative effectiveness hinges on the ratio of worthwhile to worthless input from others which is why I emphasize that I am recommending its use only with those who are in fact your equals or close to it. Such discrimination in itself implicitly entails another slowdown because you have to pause to perceive and reflect long enough and often enough in order to accurately identify the people on whom to bestow the honor. But trust me, you impatient ENTJs, what you will lose in deliberation time you will more than make up for in end product efficacy.