Can we all just agree to disagree?
Leaders should be worried if their inner circle do not disagree on things. They should be extra worried if they notice that everyone says “yes” to everything they say.
According to Peter Drucker, “The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision unless there is disagreement.” As leaders we make a lot of decisions. For decisions that have significant impact, we need a circle of peers and colleagues who can provide feedback into the matter.
You know that you’re in a good spot when you have disagreements within your circle. Disagreements lead to further discussion, investigation, and deliberation. Only then would you be in the proper state to make your decision.
Here are five reasons to have disagreements in decision-making:
It refines the decision
Creates other options
Sparks creativity
Forces preparation
Safeguards against the decision-maker becoming a prisoner of the organization*
It refines the decision
A well-argued decision forces its imperfections out into the open. It makes the decision-maker see all the reasons ‘not’ to favor a decision. Continued disagreements, pushing the idea through a battery of tests, peels off the unnecessary components of a decision.
Adding the pressure to anything would stretch its capabilities, ultimately making it better than before. That’s the same in working out or in practicing a new skill. Disagreements can serve as that pressure. It challenges the idea in a manner that would make it better.
Creates other options
Disagreements spur alternatives to the solution. The clashing of ideas and points-of-view allow the discovery of other options that would not have been possible if it there weren’t disagreements.
A decision with no alternatives is like blindly gambling for an option to work. Hope is not a strategy in decision making. It’s always smart to come in with other options to fall back to. This works hand-in-hand with reason #4 because knowing that your initial idea may be challenged forces an individual to think of other options.
Sparks creativity
Just imagine what would it be like if decisions were not challenged, which hindered creativity. How many of the things we have now would not be in existence if it weren’t for a spark of creativity? Disagreements can squeeze us to think of “what’s possible” in any situation. It allows us to move past the boundaries of the current norm, moving towards possibilities that were never done before.
Forces preparation
If healthy disagreements are a norm in your organization, stakeholders will come prepared for the discussion. They will not just come up with random thoughts or ideas. They would actually come well-prepared. They will do their research—possibly have already done some testing. They want to make sure their idea won’t be shut down immediately, so they would come to the table fully loaded and ready to rumble!
Safeguards against the decision-maker becoming a prisoner of the organization
Now that’s a long one, and it’s not something I thought of. Got this from *Drucker’s book, “The Effective Executive.” It’s an interesting thought that makes so much sense. Without disagreements, the executive or the decision-maker would be under that full control of the organization. Without anyone challenging the agenda of another, it would almost only be a monopolized control of the decisions made in the organization.
It’s always good to have an outsider’s point-of-view when it comes to these types of decisions. If that’s not the case, there won’t be growth within the organization. It will slowly fade away as it fails to catch-up with the times.
For the executive’s sake, it’s good to always have disagreements to ensure that the organization continuously grows. In many organizations, they form a circle of younger (less tenured) talents to review existing products, services, and processes. This ensures that there’s an outside committee constantly looking at the growth of the organization’s innerworkings. Having a constant rotation in these types of circles, as years go by, allows for constant growth and movement with the current times.
How would things be without disagreements?
In 2000, John Antioco, then CEO of Blockbuster, declined an offer from Reed Hastings to purchase Netflix. Hastings’ plan was not just to sell Netflix and cash the check. (He was asking for $50M) He was offering to “join forces” with Blockbuster—Hastings and team would handle the online part of the business and Blockbuster would focus on the stores. Hastings and team were basically laughed out of that meeting in Dallas, TX.
It makes me wonder—was Antioco alone during that meeting? Did he have some of his staff present to offer their opinions on that proposal? Did anyone from Blockbuster disagree with Antioco on his decision? Just imagine if someone disagreed, made a strong argument, and convinced Antioco to partner-up. Blockbuster may still be in existence now, and every household would be launching a blue “B” app on their TVs, and other devices, to stream movies and shows. Just imagine.
If Phil Knight did not disagree with the executives in charge of the Japanese shoe company, Onitsuka Tiger, we wouldn’t have the shoe brand with the swoosh telling us to “Just Do It.” Knight, as well as the other founding members of Nike, would not have launch their empire if they just went with the flow of their Japanese suppliers.
Crowdsourcing FTW
Do you ‘agree’ that disagreements are a healthy part of decision-making? Can you point out some disagreements within your organization that led to better options? If you’re the decision-maker, how do you facilitate your meetings to spur healthy disagreements and conversations?