I have encountered the following situation.
I am in a specific team in which the politics in various directions are very important. That was never my strong point.
This includes how some of the people in the team pursue their personal objectives.
I recently had a discussion with some of the members (my peers) and while my opinion on a process to follow could easily be substantiated factually as the right way, there was very strong resistance for a different direction with completely weak and vague reasons to support it.
To avoid the stalemate and for the sake of moving things forward I agreed to follow the other side's approach (more than one person but similar way of thinking between them) but I stated that I am not really believing that it is the right way to go. Regardless I went along with that idea.
Later on, I found out, after discussing with the team's manager that not actually stating of being supportive of the idea is something that is not good even though she did agree that my proposal on how to proceed made total sense and could not provide any reason why the other was favored so much and she had to admit that she saw the same flaws.
So my question is this:
I am really confused on what am I supposed to do in situations like these. Besides going along, am I supposed to lie and pretend we are going towards a great idea when it clearly is not?
How do you handle cases like these where the behavior seems to require more political handling without losing your idea of what is right?
What would be the right way to end the conversation with them so they don't feel threatened that their objectives is at stake and I don't feel like a hypocrite of supporting things I don't believe?