The Art of Disagreement: Using Disagreement to Build Better Relationships
/One reason for ineffective decision making is miscommunication. Unclear goals, conflicting objectives, and vague directives all play a role. But there’s one issue that underlies them all. And it’s an issue that makes us all uncomfortable.
The act of disagreement.
We’ve all suffered through a typical disagreement. It starts cordial but devolves into a free-for-all. Anything goes. Egos get in the way. Emotions rise. We feel attacked. We subtly undermine each other. We weaponize our personal grievances. We stop listening and just want to win. Instead of learning, we want domination. We let ego and defensiveness overwhelm openness and empathy. We end up faking agreement to avoid the stress.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Disagreement is a core component of strong decision making and top-tier organizations. We decide with imperfect information, under significant time pressure, and with significant resources at stake. No one is error-free. No one is an expert at everything. No one is immune from biases. Disagreements are the tool to overcome these impediments. Disagreements allow us to learn and adapt.
Here’s the mistake we all make:
We don’t treat disagreement as a learnable skill. We assume disagreement will occur logically and rationally. We assume it will happen naturally without much effort.
After all, how hard can it be?
Turns out it’s pretty tough, as we’ve all experienced. We gravitate to people-pleasing rather than uncomfortable honesty. There’s no trust that allows us to be vulnerable.
Disagreement is hard because we’re dealing with humans. Humans are complex and emotional. We take criticism personally, not as a favor. We have egos. We want to look smart so we become defensive.
To compound the issue, many organizations reinforce the belief that if there is disagreement, something must be wrong! Agreement or consensus is not the goal. Making the right decision is the goal. It takes disagreement to accomplish that, otherwise the same mistakes get repeated.
Above all, it establishes a base level of distrust and uneasiness. We never really know what others are thinking.
So how can we disagree without igniting defensiveness?
Like any skill, there’s a smart way to approach it.
Here’s how to do it.
Dennett’s Rules
There are two frameworks to guide us. The first method is from Daniel Dennett. Dennett is the author of Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. In the book, Dennett describes four guidelines on how to criticize effectively. It’s simple yet powerful advice.
Here are Dennett’s four steps:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. 1
The second framework is from Alan Jacobs. Jacobs is the author of How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds and describes how the Long Now Foundation structures their debates:
There are two debaters, Alice and Bob. Alice takes the podium, makes her argument. Then Bob takes her place, but before he can present his counter-argument, he must summarize Alice’s argument to her satisfaction- a demonstration of respect and good faith. Only when Alice agrees that Bob has got it right is he permitted to proceed with his own argument – and then, when he’s finished, Alice must summarize it to his satisfaction.2
What do these frameworks have in common?
· Summarizing minimizes miscommunication
· Show respect and appreciation by stating points of agreement and ideas learned
Let’s explore why they work.
Principle #1: Summarizing minimizes misunderstanding
Most disagreements are misunderstandings because we don’t listen. Summarizing is a tool that saves time and stress by avoiding issues that were never issues at all. Yes, it seems repetitive and unnecessary.
It’s not.
Summarizing forces us to listen, rather than rehearsing what we are going to say. We all have the tendency to think about our rebuttal while the person speaks. That’s a problem. We’re not listening.
Summarizing ensures that there is a clear understanding between speaker and listeners. Only by repeating what we thought we heard can we verify the level of understanding. The speaker benefits since the message may have been interpreted differently from what was intended. Summarizing slows the conversation down enough to confirm a mutual understanding.
It’s critical we prove we listened well by restating their ideas. And, they have to agree we restated it well. We can only do that if we listen and stop worrying about what we’re going to say next.
Principle #2: Stating what you’ve learned and points of agreement show respect and appreciation
Telling someone what you’ve learned is a powerful method of building rapport. The key is to view the interaction as a long-term relationship, not a one-off transaction. You’re investing in the relationship by giving extra effort. Additionally, it helps you learn and gives the other person respect.
We’re emotional beings. We like appreciation. Telling them what you learned provides that reassurance.
The Critical Role of Leaders
Healthy disagreement will not happen by itself, especially if there is a cultural history of bad disagreements. Leaders are responsible for recreating the ability to disagree. No one else will do it.
The leader plays the role of conductor or coach. Teams need direction and guidance to keep disagreements on track. Effective leaders will intervene before frustration and resentment develop.
Establish these guidelines before each meeting and ensure participants follow the process. It may seem redundant, but we need to build the habit. Make it top of mind before the discussion starts.
If you remember nothing else from this article, remember this:
State the other person’s case better than they could state it.3
If you keep this in mind during every discussion and disagreement, you’ll create meaningful relationships in your organization.
It’s incredibly liberating to have people disagree with you because they are truly looking out for your best interests. It takes time to develop this trust, but it doesn’t happen by itself.
Sources:
1. Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking
2. Alan Jacobs, How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds
3. Dan and Chip Heath, Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work