ev’rything I’m a-sayin’
You can say it just as good.
You’re right from your side
I’m right from mine
The air in the conference room had grown stifling as the meeting heated up. Marni certainly had her opinion, but she kept it to herself. As the manager chairing this budding imbroglio, she wanted to remain open and hear everyone out. Now her people were getting agitated. How had she lost control so quickly?
Marni rapidly reviewed the meeting in her head up to this point. Where had she gone wrong? Maybe it was that stubborn openness of hers. She just refused to believe that she always knew best. So, she welcomed dissent and frequently found much to value in her people’s perspectives, but now her all-star team was melting down right in front of her eyes. Voices were rising, and she knew it was time to intervene.
Marni interrupted with a firm “excuse me.” Then again, louder. On the third try, the room quieted and all eyes turned toward her. Now the room was calm, but the mood was still not. Team members turned it back on Marni and demanded a decision from her. “We’re getting nowhere,” someone said. “Just make the call, Marni.”
It was tempting—an easy out and then move on—but she knew it would prove a disaster over time. She would alienate half her people on the spot and would set the whole project up for relentless scrutiny and second guessing. Every little bump or setback would induce a chorus of “told you sos.” No, she would not take the easy out.
Instead she improvised a system for everyone to speak without interruption or immediate rebuttal. No shouting, no insults, no eye-rolls—just a civil discussion, which she closely moderated. As they listened to each other, their team orientation kicked back in. “Hmm, I never thought about it that way,” someone muttered. Another grudgingly conceded, “I see your point I guess.” Gradually, they hashed out areas of agreement and homed in on a solution. They were quite pleased with themselves and their compromise in the end, and Marni was now well equipped to forge the best path forward.
Let’s call Marni’s approach “disagreeing to agree.” It can go by a variety of names, but it is a powerful move in the leader’s playbook. Whether formal or informal, planned or spontaneous, or with individuals or groups, disagreeing to agree creates space for discussion and even arguments while insisting on the civil tone and mutual respect that team members deserve and that productive discourse demands; in other words, it allows and even encourages dissent and debate within the bounds of civility.
It is also important, as Marni did, to insist that every person speak up. Critically, the leader must encourage careful articulation of disagreements. No mealy-mouth opinions or weasel words. Tough but respectful follow-up questions and frank answers are vital to get to the core issues. This is how a team can cut through contention to gain a more complete picture of complex problems, to garner diverse perspectives, and to develop creative solutions.
So how does disagreeing to agree work?
First, by involving everyone equally, Marni tapped into the mastermind principle. Masterminds are group consultations where well-meaning and knowledgeable people grapple with issues together in a spirit of trust and openness to solve each participant’s dilemmas. Within that structure, ideas flow that individuals would never conjure on their own. Disagreeing to agree uses a similar structure but focusses on a team or organizational issue. Both masterminding and disagreeing to agree work best in an environment of shared purpose and cooperation, not competition where someone must lose for someone else to win. Since both scenarios are collaborative, no one wins unless everyone wins. And what’s the prize? The best possible decision/solution/direction for all.
Second, disagreeing to agree requires all participants, including the leader, to check their egos. As the leader, Marni valued everyone’s views equally, including her own; otherwise, the entire enterprise collapses. In fact, the most effective leaders will—as Marni did—refrain from weighing in too soon or at all so as not to put a thumb on the scale. The regular practice of ego checking is great for the team as a whole as well as for individual members, so any opportunity to practice it should be most welcome. Moreover, the more one practices ego-checking the easier it is. Call it swallowing pride, practicing humility, or, as I prefer, stuffing your ego in a sack and tossing it in the river, ego-checking is a core skill of great leaders who seek to serve the greater good.
Lastly, by regularly disagreeing to agree, Marni helped build mutual trust and esteem into her team culture. In any organization, no matter how healthy, friction will occur, and the larger the organization, the more the opportunity for discord. But a culture that encourages tolerance and unity ensures collaboration, productivity, and problem-solving across the board. Not only does such a culture eliminate dysfunction and toxicity, but it ensures that everyone has a role, knows their role, and is able and willing to contribute to the best of their ability—the very stuff of healthy teams!
Encouraging disagreement in a considered way—disagreeing to agree—does all this and much more. It’s one reason why great leaders, such as Marni, are so much more productive than their counterparts. Marni wisely elicited her team’s finest thinking not by setting up a zero-sum competition but by fostering a win-win collaboration. In doing so, she engaged individuals and strengthened the whole so that they could rise to be so much more than the sum of their parts.
Marni and other great leaders must demonstrate the strength, the tenacity, and the courage to actively allow and even advocate for responsible and civil dissent, disruption, and debate. Great leaders do not flinch from difference, disapproval, or dispute and know that even the unreasonable may hold tremendous promise. Simply put, great leaders are masters of the art of encouraging their teams to disagree to agree. I am sure we can all agree on that, right?
Have you ever participated in a disagree-to-agree exercise or a similar practice to reach a consensus? What were the results?
Leaders need to develop and master many tools for building, maintaining, and leveraging effective teams, and I can help.
If you want to join the movement to guide young bosses to be the next generation of great leaders or just share your thoughts, let’s talk! Schedule a conversation below.
Join the conversation by leaving a comment, and leave a like or review.
If you know someone who would enjoy this essay, please share it.
Thank you to all my subscribers! If you are not yet a subscriber, be sure to sign up to have On Leading with Greatness sent weekly to your inbox.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Intro and outro podcast theme music by LiteSaturation from Pixabay.
If you are interested in having me speak at your event or appear on your podcast, visit these pages for more information:
𝙅𝙞𝙢 𝙎𝙖𝙡𝙫𝙪𝙘𝙘𝙞, 𝙋𝙝.𝘿., 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳, 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵. 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 30 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘳, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘛𝘪𝘯𝘺 𝘏𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘴. 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘑𝘪𝘮’𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴.
We Will Just Have to Disagree to Agree, Right?