Agreeing to Disagree: A Cowardly Cop-Out

When an organization can't agree on a course of action, it's a sign of weak leadership, not reasonable debate.

How many times have you seen the following scenario?

A team meets to discuss issues that are critical to the organization’s future. The conversation goes on and on without resolution, as different people have divergent opinions about the best course of action. When the leader tries to bring it to a conclusion, they are no closer to alignment. They leave the meeting agreeing to disagree.

Such meetings are worse than a waste of time: they actually damage the organization, which is then no closer to making the necessary decisions and assuming responsibility for them. People have stayed within their comfort zones at the expense of moving the organization forward in new and dynamic ways.

This happens because leaders lack one or more of the following attributes: courage, an understanding of their role as leader, and the ability to powerfully manage conversations.

True leaders know that it is important to have an open debate with honest, respectful listening because there may not be a single right answer. They are able to inspire their people to set aside their personal egos, agendas, and preferences to align with the collective wisdom of the group. They instil in their teams a real commitment to the type of conversation that leads to making choices, aligning behind those choices, and taking responsibility together. This requires courage.

There is never a justification to leave a conversation agreeing to disagree. It is always a cop-out. Of course, some topics are complex and may need a number of meetings to gather the necessary input and to digest it as a group. But paralysis by analysis is a roadblock. People go around in circles and end up beating a dead horse. The cost is loss of decisiveness, accountability, and follow-through. The consequences are cynicism and resignation.

Does it need to be this way? Absolutely not! But unfortunately, this is most often the norm. And when it is, the organization is doomed to mediocrity, and sometimes failure. Achieving extraordinary results requires the ability to align on goals. Agreeing to disagree sabotages that.

Organizations that achieve 100 per cent alignment behind a goal that is 80 per cent right have a much greater chance of success than those where people are divided behind a perfect goal. Compromise too often means 100 per cent for one point of view and zero for the other. How motivated are those zero per cent people to work towards the success of a goal they have not endorsed? They are the ones watching and waiting to say: “I told you so.”

One of our clients had a fundamental disconnect between its compensation practices and the viability of its business model. As in many organizations, the sales force was richly rewarded with commissions and retention bonuses while the operations people were subjected to cost-cutting and forced to do more with less.

In a recessionary environment where cost-cutting had become an urgent necessity, no one would take the bull by the horns and risk upsetting the salespeople. The leadership team spent countless meetings debating this. The heads of business units kept emphasizing the importance of retaining quality salespeople, while the operations people complained more and more vociferously. The organization was rife with resentment, finger pointing, and blame.

The gravity of the situation finally convinced the CEO to act. He brought the leadership teams together and found the courage to address the broken business model and to align the entire organization around what needed to happen. It was only then that they were able to arrest the downward spiral and reverse the momentum.

Obviously, it is scary to step up to the plate and take full responsibility for a goal or direction that is uncertain, controversial, difficult to achieve, or politically incorrect. Making choices means eliminating alternatives. But when team members do find the courage to make tough choices, they are immediately more powerful. They are able to apply their energy towards proving their choices right rather than wasting energy on proving that others are wrong. If an entire team is behind one direction – even if it is only 80 per cent correct – if they truly align, commit to a direction, and backstop each other, it is astounding what can happen. Individuals are then free to stake out a much more powerful future – and in our experience, they always do.