Why You’re Bad at Disagreeing (And How to Fix It)

Julia Mson, author of "How to Disagree Better," emphasizes that constructive disagreement isn't about reaching agreement or consensus, but about fostering a dynamic where parties wish to engage with each other again. This is a crucial skill for organizations because the very reason for forming teams is to benefit from diverse opinions. As William Wrigley Jr. famously stated, "When two men in business always agree, one of them is unnecessary." Many teams struggle with disagreement, either by not disagreeing enough or by doing so in unhealthy ways. When individuals don't feel their ideas will be received with appreciation, they tend to stay silent. Leaders often advise on the importance of disagreement in abstract terms, like benefiting the company, but the personal cost of speaking up against a superior or team member can be immediate and significant, creating a tension between future benefits and present risk. Personality and cultural differences also play a role, though disagreement, like musical ability, is a skill that can be improved with training. Mson advises leaders to cultivate "receptiveness to opposing views," which involves demonstrating thoughtful consideration of another's perspective. Simply telling people to disagree isn't enough; leaders must exhibit this behavior themselves. This is best done by modeling it publicly, showing team members that their input is valued and that receptiveness is an organizational value. Leaders who claim to love disagreement often overlook that most people don't share this sentiment. They may also forget about status differences, which can make those in less powerful positions hesitant to voice dissent, even if the leader appears open. In one hospital system, executives who enjoyed disagreement created an environment where others felt like they were witnessing "mom and dad fighting," leading to discomfort among staff. Leaders must appreciate that others have different circumstances and preferences. A more subtle way leaders suppress disagreement is by hiring people they already agree with. While it seems logical to hire like-minded individuals, this can lead to an echo chamber where everyone "drinks the same Kool-Aid." In an environmental nonprofit, for instance, hiring only those passionate about the environment means missing out on diverse perspectives that could strengthen the organization. Mson's research is grounded in "naive realism," the belief that our perceptions reflect objective reality. We see the world as it is and consider ourselves smart, reasonable, and good. When disagreement arises, the naive realist concludes the other person "doesn't get it." This can lead to attempts to "fix" them by presenting facts, data, or reports. However, the other person likely interprets the same information differently due to their own experiences, priorities, and perspectives. When facts fail, people may resort to more negative conclusions, such as the other person being unintelligent or intentionally biased to protect their own interests. This internal narrative makes respectful conversation difficult, and we often fail to recognize that the other person is judging us with the same biases. To disagree better, Mson advocates focusing on **behaviors** rather than mindset or emotions. While positive intentions, warmer evaluations, and emotional control are desirable, they are difficult to consistently achieve and communicate effectively. Interpersonal perceptions can easily lead to misinterpretations. Even with the best intentions, a poorly phrased question or a moment of emotional reactivity can be perceived negatively, especially when disagreement already exists. Therefore, focusing on observable and interpretable behaviors, primarily language, is more practical and impactful. The goal of winning an argument is often unrealistic, as people rarely concede defeat gracefully. Most arguments end with one person walking away or becoming defensive. Conversations are voluntary, and if treated poorly, individuals will disengage. This is evident in healthcare, where patients may leave if they feel unheard or pressured, and in the workplace, where resentment can build, leading to decreased productivity and eventual departure. The most visible and interpretable behavior in disagreement is **language**. While body language can be easily misinterpreted or missed, words offer greater consistency in communication. To effectively convey engagement with opposing views, clear language is essential. It's important to balance articulating one's own views with soliciting and engaging with others' opinions. Many people focus too heavily on expressing their own ideas and neglect to truly listen and understand opposing viewpoints. Some swing to the opposite extreme, becoming "amateur therapists" who only ask questions and never express their own beliefs, which is also unrealistic. The ability to both express one's own views and engage with others' ideas is crucial and achievable. To improve linguistic behavior, awareness is the first step. Understanding the goal of a disagreement – to have parties want to talk again – helps guide word choice. Constructive disagreement aims to maintain future dialogue, not necessarily to reach immediate agreement or compromise. When disagreeing with a superior, for example, the approach should be to first understand their perspective. Jumping directly into persuasion without insight can lead to arguments based on misunderstandings. Phrases like "I'm really glad we're having this conversation. I'd like to understand more about your perspective" are a good starting point. If the boss wants to launch a product sooner and you believe more time is needed, you might say, "Help me understand why it's important to launch it on this particular timeline. We have some concerns, but I'd like to hear your vision for how this can be accomplished." Asking follow-up questions that show curiosity is key. When a boss's statement, like "Why wouldn't you be able to get that done in a week's time?", feels dismissive, it requires self-control to avoid reacting defensively. The goal of modeling receptiveness should be the guiding principle. Instead of immediately arguing, one can say, "I have some concerns, but I would like to hear why it's so important to get this done in a week. What is at stake for the team, for you, for the organization? Maybe we can figure something out, but let's discuss where we're coming from and our priorities." The key is not to take the bait. These principles apply to disagreements with peers and subordinates, though status dynamics influence the approach. As a subordinate, understanding and showing attention to the boss's requests is more effective than trying to power through. As a higher-status individual, the risk of modeling negative behavior is higher. Shoving one's way through can teach lower-status individuals that disagreement is futile, potentially leading them to withhold critical information or treat others poorly. Training involves discussing psychological theories like naive realism, emphasizing the desire to learn, and engaging in role-playing exercises. Participants practice disagreeing on deeply held opinions, using provided skills to try on new behaviors. Experiments show that receptive leaders are perceived as better leaders because people want to feel heard. Even when acknowledging opposing views, receptive leaders appear more thoughtful and courageous. Organizationally, implementing these practices can lead to happier employees, better decision-making due to more voices being heard, and fewer disasters as risks are identified earlier. Mson shares her own journey from a direct, argumentative upbringing to a quieter, more receptive approach. She found that while her intentions were good, her directness caused others to shut down. She learned that people don't like to be "fixed" and that saying less can lead to greater understanding and better outcomes. Her transformation from a teenager with loud opinions to a quieter, more insightful adult demonstrates the power of consciously changing how one manages disagreement.