Field Notes

Good leaders frequently disagree with the opinions, recommendations, and ideas proposed by team members. 

Getting to the best answer requires the back-and-forth of disagreement and agreement as leaders and team members unpack the relevant issues and ideas.

For leaders to be effective, they can’t hold back. They must express their candid disagreement to move matters along toward a resolution. 

How leaders express their disagreement is another matter entirely. 

Leaders can disagree in a wide range of ways, some productive and some counterproductive. 

For instance, a leader can disagree by being directive and challenging: “You need to get your facts straight.” Or a leader can disagree by slamming the door shut: “You couldn’t be more wrong on this.” Or a leader can disagree by claiming superiority: “Only someone inexperienced would make such a claim.” 

These disagreeable ways of disagreeing can undermine trust in the relationship and can sometimes send team members into a tailspin. 

Good leaders understand that team members commonly tie their identity to their ideas, proposals, and work. 

That’s why strong or harsh disagreement feels like a rejection, not just of the viewpoints, ideas, or opinions they hold, but of the team member personally. When a leader forcefully disagrees, team members can feel as if their judgment, smarts, and preparation are being challenged. 

Many leaders know they have a problem with this. Their conviction, passion, and personal style lead them to disagree too firmly. 

They typically hear that their style of disagreement is too intense. They need ways to disagree more indirectly. Even leaders who don’t normally alienate people with their disagreement benefit from having more indirect expressions in reserve for when they need them.

Of the many choices available to leaders for disagreeing more indirectly, three stand out for their practicality. 

Perhaps the most common approach to disagreeing more relationally is to engage with curiosity rather than immediate opposition. 

The phrase, “Help me understand…” is a go-to for many good leaders who take the time to invite people to explain their reasoning rather than reject them outright. 

Compare the difference between the statements, “I don’t think that’s the right approach” versus “Help me understand how you’re thinking about that.” 

The second statement creates a collaborative conversation where any disagreement will emerge in the exchange. 

Another alternative to direct disagreement is to ask the other party for more options or proposals. 

This clearly says that the leader disagrees but focuses the attention on what is next, not on the difference of opinion. 

“What other ideas do you have?” or “What other options exist?” rejects the current proposal but does so in a way that moves the conversation forward without the strong feeling of rejection. 

A third choice for more indirectly disagreeing is to explore why someone holds the views that they do. 

By asking for the supporting reasons behind the idea, a leader expresses doubt before they more formally disagree. 

“Is there evidence to support that view?” or “What led you to believe that?” softens the direct approach and allows for a more collaborative path toward disagreement. 

How leaders disagree can have a significant impact on how courageous team members will be to raise issues, bring proposals, and promote ideas. 

Leaders who have a style of disagreeing too forcefully must find more indirect routes to express their opposition. 

Without realizing it, a leader’s disagreement can sometimes feel like a verdict. The real evidence suggests a different approach.