Disagree and Commit

Apply disagreement here.

I came across the above term recently. This is even though it has been around for a while, originally used by Scott McNealy between 1983 and 1991, it has most recently been used at Amazon by Jeff Bezos,

I wish I had discovered it many years ago, as disagreement has always been tough for me. I have also worked in several places which fell into the consensus trap i.e. there was a lack of inaction, because everyone was not behind the decision, and it was felt that consensus was needed to move on.

Decisions took months as all effort was made to try to convince the opposers. Both the time delay and the effort exhausted to convert the decision were hidden costs to the business.

I grew up in a patriarchal society, heavily influenced by the fact that all men did military service. Their first experience of team working at seventeen was of a highly organised, high functioning and efficient team driven by a single leader.

Disagreement was viewed as malcontent and therefore was actively discouraged. Questioning was taboo. Anyone disagreeing with leadership, or even their peers was viewed as a non-team member and not aligned with the teams goals. Don’t get me wrong, a few did attempt to challenge the status quo, and this was quickly stamped out using 4 hour PT sessions involving railway sleepers and sandbags.

Decisions in this environment come from the top down. There was no questioning and no exploration of those decisions, because by the time they come down to the squad, they need to be executed quickly and efficiently.

These ways of working filtered into the work environment. Leaders in the military became leaders in business. Decisions were from the top down, and the salute became ‘Sir’. Command and control structures in business were as well defined as they had been in the Airforce.

Coming from this upbringing/background has made it difficult for me to disagree with decisions by seniors. It is something I need to change.

Now noting that it can be difficult to disagree with more powerful or senior leaders, and people struggle to commit to something that they have deep misgivings about, I think it can still be a powerful approach especially when failure is regarded as a learning.

Your meetings/discussions are probably somewhere between the following two extremes:

1. Someone tables a decision and talks through their logic. They ask for input, and there is silence. You have no way of knowing whether they are in silent agreement or silent disagreement. The decision is taken with no clear challenge.
2. Someone tables a decision and talks through their logic. A few actively disagree, and table counter arguments. There is a debate and their arguments results in discussion, but no clear winner emerges. The group are waiting for everyone to agree.
   The decision is taken away to be worked on, and to be presented at the next meeting. This step may repeat multiple times.

In either case the decision process is flawed and damaging to the business. Decisions are either made rapidly with no real challenge, and therefore could lead to issues down the line, or made with no real buy in. Or in the latter case, decisions are not made. They are delayed, and never implemented.

The decision making process has become even more contentious in a remote first world. We are no longer in a meeting room together where subtle body language can be picked up and enacted on.

People are no longer fully committed to the meetings as they have emails or messages popping up which they glance at while you are making your pitch. Some are finding easier than ever to avoid meetings digitally, as they feel they have no value.

So how do we ensure we give power to people to make decisions, not wait for full consensus and yet have complete team fully bought into decisions made and do everything in their power to help make it a success.

• Timebox. Timebox your decisions. Set a clear plan on when the decision needs to be made.
• Be present. Commit 100% to meetings. Turn off all distractions and listen with intent
• Trust. We need to build the relationships and trust between each other to allow us the psychological safety to respectfully challenge your proposal. We all need to feel safe in the knowledge that we can challenge proposals and highlight our concerns for them to be at least considered.
• Disagree. If you do not agree with the viewpoint, then raise your concerns. This is your duty, as they may not have been raised before, and it allows the proposal to be stress tested.
• Listen. Listen and truly explore the other person’s point of view. Make sure you understand what their concerns are.
• Acknowledge. Acknowledge the concerns, and make your decision.
• Accept and commit. Once the decision is made, everyone needs to commit to it and ask themselves what needs to be done to support and commit to it.

Quick, efficient, and effective decision making is key to any business doing well. Using these techniques should help you on that journey.

I hereby commit to disagreeing a lot more and accepting disagreement to my own proposals.