Beyond disagree and commit

Disagreements are natural. Most of us aren’t born naturals at handling them. It’s easy to slip into treating them as arguments that have to be won. In the heat of the moment, I can be as guilty as anyone at this.

The pithy Amazon value of “disagree and commit” provides an action to follow if you’re in the position of having to accept a disagreement, but it can be very transactional. At its worst, it comes across as a leader saying “just shut up and do the work already.” The result is compliance, but it doesn’t promote understanding.

We can do better.

Here's the mental model I've been working to internalize over the last decade or so. It became especially clear in my work as a Technical Advisor to the CEO at Shopify, where my job required me to both challenge decisions others made and to execute ones that I didn’t agree with.

When faced with a disagreement, I start by reminding myself that one of three things has to be true:

1. They’re right, you’re wrong, and you don’t yet know why
2. You’re right, they’re wrong, and you haven’t communicated well enough for them to understand
3. You’re both wrong, and the disagreement is a signal to dig deeper for a better answer
   

This framework is a prompt for curiosity: What frame of reference does the other person have that helps them see things that you can’t? What assumptions are you making? What else do you really need to know in order to make the decision, or to let somebody else make the decision? Asking these questions changes the game from zero-sum to positive-sum—from capitulation to understanding.

Just because the framework is straightforward doesn’t mean it’s easy to apply. If case 1 is true, it takes real awareness and a lot of patience to step back and listen when it’d be easier to just push forward. In case 2, it’s hard not to feel like the other person is just being dense, but if they don’t understand that’s on you. You can’t blame them for not getting it. But it’s case 3 that might be the toughest, and the most important. It forces you to accept that neither position is complete and a better idea is still out there.

What do you do when applying curiosity doesn’t resolve a disagreement in a reasonable timeframe? Or, when you need information that can only come from taking action? This is where this framework can fail. Staying curious too long can lead to analysis paralysis. It can also give cover to people who’d rather not commit to a position.

This is where a leader has to step up, be accountable, and make a call. It is where “disagree and commit” serves its purpose when applied well. It helps teams move forward in the face of disagreement.

Even then, this shouldn’t be the end of curiosity. The action that comes from a decision will create new information that lets you judge that decision and revise it if needed. A big part of the accountability of a leader is to be open to this and to adapt a decision or even change it wholesale if needed.

Disagreements are natural. Staying curious through them is a skill that takes lifelong work.