This is a generous guest blog contribution written by good friends of “the house”, Janus Kleeman and Nanna Seidelin, who are partners at HEXES. HEXES is a consultancy company of seasoned consultants, working with both public and private companies and organizations at various levels.

I hope this guest blog article will inspire you just as much as it has inspired me.

In the ever-evolving landscape of business, where decisions can either catapult an organisation to success or lead it down the path of failure, mastering the art of sound judgment is paramount. The business world, rife with complexities and uncertainties, demands a decision-making approach that goes beyond conventional consensus-driven models. Enter the timeless management practice known as “disagree and commit,” a principle that stalwarts like Scott McNealy and Jeff Bezos have etched into the DNA of their organisations..

Disagree and Commit

This management principle, synonymous with alignment and goal achievement, is decades old, probably all the way back to Alfred Sloan’s time in General Motors. The dual objective of “Disagree and Commit” encapsulates encouraging teams to dissent during crucial decisions and uniting them in steadfast commitment once a decision crystallises.

Encouraging disagreement

Why encourage disagreement in decision-making? The simple answer: to make decisions more effective. Peter Drucker, often regarded as the godfather of management, narrates a compelling story about Alfred Sloan, the visionary behind General Motors’ ascent in the 1930s:

In a pivotal advisory board meeting where unanimity seemingly prevailed, Sloan allegedly said:, “I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.“

The Consensus Trap

This tactic aimed to sidestep the Consensus Trap, where silent disagreement lurks beneath the illusion of agreement:

  • The majority may disagree but opt for silence.
  • The decision’s gravity might deter individuals from assuming full responsibility.
  • The desire to conclude the meeting swiftly prevails.

Overcoming this trap involves interpreting silence as dissent and prompting every participant to explicitly express their agreement or disagreement. This technique combats the tendency to superficially agree to expedite proceedings.

Executing the Decision

Committing signifies wholeheartedly embracing and executing the final decision. The principle operates on the premise that every individual involved in the decision-making process is accountable for its successful implementation.

But why commit to a decision one disagrees with? Firstly, it stems from the opportunity for everyone to voice their opinions during the decision’s formulation. Even if one’s viewpoint diverges from the final decision, having a voice in the discussion fosters acceptance. Additionally, the principle acknowledges that actively opposing an idea necessitates robust efforts to ensure its implementation, ultimately distinguishing between a flawed idea and flawed execution.

Andy Grove succinctly captures this sentiment: “If you disagree with an idea, you should work especially hard to implement it well because that way when it fails you’ll know it was a bad idea. Not bad execution.” The brilliance of “Disagree and Commit” lies in its ability to yield the best possible results: Even if proven wrong, contributors played a role in arriving at the best decision. If proven right, weaker ideas are swiftly discarded.

Speeding Up Decision-Making

An intriguing byproduct of this principle is its role in expediting decision-making. Jeff Bezos introduced the phrase “disagree and commit” in one of Amazon’s annual letters to investors, highlighting its time-saving efficiency:

“Third, use the phrase ‘disagree and commit.’ This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, ‘Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?’”

Jeff Bezos

This principle has woven itself into Amazon’s leadership principles as “Have backbone, disagree and commit,” emphasising the obligation of leaders to challenge decisions respectfully and commit wholeheartedly once determined.

…But revisit to ensure quality
  • Setting a Commitment Timeline Before committing despite lingering disagreements, establish a specific date to revisit the decision. Define criteria for evaluation, enabling a transparent process for potential adjustments.Set a calendar reminder, commit to the decision, and temporarily set aside the disagreement.
  • Revisiting the Disagreement Regardless of who was right or wrong, the agreed-upon date becomes a checkpoint to reevaluate the decision. Rather than indulging in “I told you so” sentiments, focus on collaborative efforts to enhance future approaches.

VOICING dissent – and understanding why you do it

At its essence, “disagree and commit” empowers individuals to voice their dissent during the decision-making process. However, once a decision is reached, the principle mandates unwavering commitment from everyone involved, irrespective of their initial opinions. While seemingly straightforward, this practice is far from easy to implement seamlessly. In our experience, this is a cultural shift that has the most impact if it becomes a truly integrated behaviour of the top leadership team.

Understanding the Decision

Decision-making seldom occurs in a vacuum; it’s entangled in a web of personal relationships and intricate business politics. To cut through this complexity and zero in on the core of a decision, a profound level of listening and understanding is imperative.

  • What research and analysis underpin this decision?
  • Why is this decision being made now, and what recent changes necessitate it?
Understanding yourself

Our lives, much like the intricate tapestry of the world around us, are woven with influences that may not always be consciously comprehended. Therefore, it’s crucial to introspect and truly fathom the roots of our feelings toward a decision.

  • Why do I disagree? Is it rooted in my ego, or do I genuinely possess a superior approach?
  • What would be the tangible impact on my interests if I were to align with the decision?
Expressing Your Perspective

How a fundamental disagreement is articulated can transform it into either a constructive course correction or an unproductive argument. The power lies in the manner of expression.

  • Reframe disagreements as questions. Instead of a direct contradiction, pose inquiries like, “How will this serve our users’ needs?”
  • If a decision feels rushed and articulating your perspective becomes challenging, communicate the need for additional time to deliberate.

Challenges in Implementation

While the “Disagree and Commit” principle offers immense value, incorporating it into organisational culture may encounter obstacles:

  • Fear of Conflict: Prioritising harmony over constructive conflict may stifle dissenting opinions, hindering innovation.
  • Lack of Psychological Safety: An environment lacking in psychological safety may deter employees from expressing disagreements openly, leading to groupthink.
  • Unwillingness to Let Go: Individuals may struggle to move past disagreements, hindering team unity and progress.
  • Ineffective Communication: Clear channels for expressing disagreements respectfully are essential to prevent unproductive conflicts.

Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to foster a culture that values diverse perspectives, encourages open communication, and rewards constructive dissent. Especially the leadership team has a profound role to play in this cultural shift.

Having someone outside the team, for example a professional team coach, facilitate meetings and helping the team establish the culture, can prove very effectful.

‘Disagree and Commit’ stands as a potent tool in the arsenal of organisations aspiring to make informed decisions, cultivate a culture of collaboration, and realise their goals. By championing open debate, respecting dissenting opinions, and committing to decisions, organisations harness the collective intelligence of their teams, propelling them toward innovation and success in the dynamic landscape of business.

Written by: Janus Kleeman and Nanna Seidelin from HEXES.