Disagree and Commit

I wrote last time about how conflict is not necessarily a bad sign in organisations.

There can be a lot of visible and vigorous disagreement, and a lot of spirited questioning of decisions, and that can all be fine. But they can also not be fine. These are patterns of behaviour that can lead teams into stasis - so why is it that sometimes they don’t?

The key skill to master is the ability to disagree and commit¹.

Where teams and organisations get stuck is when debate and discussion become the enemies of action. But if people are willing to try stuff, even while still wondering whether it really is the best idea, then something magical happens.

Then you get the benefit of lots of perspectives being expressed, lots of ideas in the mix, and assumptions being questioned. But you also get co-operation, teamwork and results.

“Are you willing to try it and see?”

This question invites an empirical approach. You are asking someone to treat what they know as a hypothesis that could be disproved by real-world data. A lot of debate and disagreement is focused on questioning other people’s assumptions - so why not also try questioning your own?

This invites a more mature relationship to “what you know”. It invites you to see your own assumptions, that might previously have been invisible to you. There is also the maturity of holding two perspectives at once:

‘I’m not sure if this is a good idea (1), but I’m trying it whole-heartedly enough to find out (2).’

This kind of maturity of thinking is very useful, and worth cultivating in people.²

What’s more,when you genuinely listen to other people’s ideas, you include them in the decision-making process, which increases buy-in.

Part of the responsibility of leadership is making difficult decisions. Sometimes those decision are unpopular, and go against what people want. They may still be the right call, and you need to ask people to go along with them anyway.³ If you take the time to listen to their objections, you may discover valuable perspectives that mean you can tweak the plan for the better. If people are sitting on their dissent in silence, they are much less likely to commit to the experiment.

Of course, none of this should require people to try things that they think are dangerous. So if people are hesitating we can also ask:

“Is it at least safe to try?”

You might not think you like olives, but would you be willing to try one to find out? Maybe you’re right and you still find them bitter and too chewy. Maybe there’s a whole new seam of snack joy waiting for you? The worst that happens is you don’t like the taste and discretely spit it out.

You might also think you don’t like a random red berry growing on a bush. That’s rather a different proposition.

So to summarise the process⁴:

1. Idea is proposed

2. Debate, discussion, disagreement

3. Listen, Learn, adjust if possible

4. Decision announced

5. Final check - “is it safe to try?”

6. Commit to the experiment

7. Try it in the real world

8. Review what happened - course correct

As a leader, the tone you want to set - and the one you want line managers to help you with - is the continual willingness to try things that are safe.

There will always be doubt, but as long as we keep experimenting, we will produce results.

1. For the origin of this phrase, and the model inspiring much of this post, see Patrick Lencioni’s 5 Dysfunctions of a Team. It’s a much more positive and proactive book than the title suggests.

2. It is the same kind of maturity that allows people to be good managers.

3. What makes decisions ‘difficult’ is often that there is no right answer, only wrong ones!

4. This ‘safe to try’ step is key to deciding by consent.