Learning to Agree to Disagree
Discover more from Admired Leadership Field Notes
Disagreeing with others is both natural and necessary. We advance our ideas by struggling through our disagreements with others and by learning how they see things differently. We gain clarity by advocating for what we believe in and hearing the arguments and reasons others offer, in both support and opposition. This is how leaders learn.
But disagreement and advocacy can sometimes create unnecessary conflict when we make our points too strongly or become dismissive of others and their views. There are times to stand your ground and make your views known through strong advocacy, and there are times where the best strategy is to agree to disagree.
Agreeing to disagree is a rational way of saying out loud that there is no point in arguing further about an issue, as both parties have good reasons for believing what they do and are unlikely to change their minds. Rather than simply disengaging from advocacy, it is better to propose that you would prefer to agree to disagree. This is a clear signal that any further discussion is seen as unnecessary or inappropriate, and that the parties can turn their attention to other matters or areas of agreement.
By agreeing to disagree, we don’t feel the urge to resort to inflammatory language or coercive tactics to sway resistant others to our point of view. Instead, agreeing to disagree allows for mutual respect and proclaims the future as a place where mutual influence can once again become the norm.
Whenever leaders perceive that engaging on an issue has a high probability of harming the relationship or of the discussion spinning out of control, the best move is to disengage from advocacy and to agree to disagree. Leaders don’t have to win every argument. Sometimes, they just have to agree to disagree.
Learning to Agree to Disagree
I feel like agree to disagree is a good habit, but also finding common ground before concluding a discussion where people disagree is something that I seek. At least then, there is something substantive that both parties can agree to and return to when and if the argument comes up. For this to be a compatible habit, I suppose one has to find common ground and then subsequently agree to disagree so that the finality of doing so remains in effect. Something like, “We both agree that it’s important to manage the budget, so we’re on common ground there. Where we disagree is simply how best to do this. So let’s agree to disagree and move on to other topics.” comme ça? Interested to hear others.
What happened to disagreeing agreeably?