The weaponised "disagree and commit"
Summary
The “disagree-and-commit” pattern works only when we’ve had a real chance to disagree. Otherwise it becomes a weaponised phrase to silence diverse voices and you risk arriving at poor decisions and conclusions.
Tech is going through an anti-intellectualism pandemic. Rich figureheads say that introspection is out of fashion. The post-literate society is a broader phenomenon than just tech. Still, AI summaries and deep research have become new barriers to deep reading and comprehension, even for technologists who would have otherwise been readers. Now, in the age of speed, debate is another casualty.
In her book, In Defense of Troublemakers, Charlan Nemeth explains why dissent is hard. We all like to get along, so cohesion is a barrier to dissent. When leaders are opinionated, as they often should be, it’s not easy to express a contrary view. And the final nail in the dissent coffin? Stress. Deadlines, work pressures, and volatility are a few conditions where groupthink prevails. Yet, ask anyone if debate is a good thing, and they’ll say “Yes!” We pay lip service to the importance of dissent, but don’t create the conditions for it. Often, we even weaponise against debate, without intending to.
“Disagree and commit” is a principle that encourages decision velocity. It recognises that consensus and collaboration aren’t the same thing. I’m all for that intent. But when “disagree and commit” focuses more on the “commit” than on the “disagree”, that’s when the process gets murky. Disagree and commit works only when everyone who has to commit believes they’ve had their say. Without robust debate, “disagree and commit” is an easy-to-weaponise phrase.
But why is debate important in the first place? Why can’t we just commit to things and get on with them? Well, I thought it was obvious, but I was wrong, so let me spell it out. Most decisions aren’t open-and-shut cases. There are multiple dimensions to every problem. People with different perspectives may see different solutions to the same problem. Discussion, disagreement, and debate are essential to robust decision-making. And speed is often an enemy to such a process. If you rush into what you think is commitment, you might end up with disengagement instead.
Now people like me are as adamant as a bulldog. You’ll have a hard time shutting me up. But not everyone is as thick-skinned as I am. So, if you’re responsible for a gnarly decision, here’s what I recommend so you get real commitment at the end of a disagree-and-commit process.
Whatever you’re deciding about, write it down. Writing is the most precise and fastest way to share understanding, especially in a distributed team. If you’re colocated, even a clustered set of sticky notes on a whiteboard could be that initial line in the sand.
Give people time to understand and reflect on what you’ve got in writing. Allow them to express themselves through comments, if you’re working remotely, or through sticky notes if you’re in a colocated group session. It’s important that everyone has a voice at this stage. Often, if you ask people, you’ll also arrive at a reasonable answer about how much time you need.
Finally, if major disagreements surface during the reflection exercise, embrace the debate. You’re welcome to timebox the debate and even break the tie if necessary, but exercise your judgment and ask yourself if shutting down debate will foster or undermine commitment.
A few principles help this process. It helps to have a small, resilient ego and be OK when people attack your argument. The corollary is true as well. If you’re the attacker, attack the problem, not the people. And it’s crucial that the team involved knows how to shake hands and share a drink after a vigorous debate.
Of course, you don’t have to like my approach. Do your thing. I accept that my approach takes time, but that’s because I don’t conflate speed and productivity. If you’re short on time, you could try another process. Whatever you do, though, allow space for disagreement and debate. And if debate isn’t welcome, that’s OK too. Just don’t invoke “disagree and commit”, because that’s as pointy-haired a play as it gets.