Disagree without being disagreeable

Enjoying Simple, Not Easy? Please consider forwarding it to a friend. New to this email? Welcome! Subscribe here.

Thank you to the many of you who wrote in with your thoughts on last week’s post about influence. One of the most common questions I received was how to disagree without losing the likability that’s a hallmark of influence.

Being able to disagree in a tactful manner is an important part of effective leadership and maintaining credibility. There is a fine line between likability and sycophancy, the ability to disagree without being disagreeable is the best way to ensure you remain on the right side of that line.

I’m a long way from having mastered this skill but here are 4 principles I focus on when I disagree with someone but want to ensure our relationship remains intact:

1. You might be wrong

2. Label your disagreement clearly

3. Avoid the swirl

4. Critique the idea, not the person

You might be wrong

The above quote from Aristotle is one of my favorite reminders not to be intimidated, or take it personally, when someone disagrees with a position I hold. Part of disagreeing without being disagreeable is searching for the shred of truth in the opposing position. If you can find it you’ll not only have a better understanding of the merits of your argument, but you’ll approach the disagreement with greater empathy because you understand where the opposing position comes from and that it holds a validity of its own.

If you’re going into a meeting where you know there is likely to be a disagreement that may be contentious go one step further and prepare as if you were responsible for making the opposition’s argument. As Charlie Munger says, "I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do.”

As you go about learning the other side’s argument, you may even realize their position is better than yours. It’s okay to be wrong and flexible, it’s not okay to be wrong and stubborn.

Label it

I was born in the great state of Minnesota and the only thing Minnesotan’s love more than Tater Tot Hotdish (it’s a thing, look it up), walleye, and the State Fair is being passive aggressive. Nothing comes off as more disagreeable than surface level niceties and beating around the bush when an argument needs to be hashed out.

If you find yourself in the unenviable scenario of being in a discussion with two parties that don’t agree but are too “polite” to say anything about it the best way to mediate is clearly state where each person stands.

“It sounds like you believe X is the right way to proceed on this. Do I have that right?” And if you take the other side of the argument, label where you stand also! “I hear where you’re coming from, but I’m on the other side of this one and here’s why.”

90% of the time I need to mediate when two parties disagree the gap between their positions is generally much closer than each party thinks, but the inability to clearly state where each person stands leads to assumptions being made with people doing mental gymnastics about the severity of a disagreement when it’s usually not that bad. Labeling cuts through these miscommunications so that even if you do disagree with someone, they’re at least clear on where you stand.

Avoid the swirl

Not too dissimilar from the above, but I often find myself in situations where I thought I was talking, or disagreeing, with someone on one topic only to find we’ve somehow moved on to an entirely new disagreement. In these cases the two (or three, or four) issues are suddenly tangled up, it’s hard to remember where the discussion originally began, and nearly impossible to come to a resolution where each side feels heard.

If you find yourself in a swirl like this stop immediately. Unwind wherever you are in the conversation and begin clearly listing (labeling again) the issues you’re discussing / disagreeing about. Then, if possible, go down the list one at a time. Nothing confuses an argument like forgetting what the argument was about in the first place.

Critique the idea, not the person

This one is probably the most important. A hallmark of great teams is the ability to disagree in pursuit of the best idea. In order for these disagreements to remain productive though, they have to be centered on ideas not people.

There are two important sides to this tip. First, when you disagree with someone or want to critique their idea be cognizant of the words you choose and ensure you are careful to critique the idea on its merits (or lack thereof) but do not critique the person who holds that position.

Similarly, when someone disagrees with you assume they have positive intent and are coming after your idea not you. My wife Emma is fond of reminding me that, “It’s not that deep.”

It’s really easy to get personally attached to our ideas (I know I do) as if they’re some perfect work of art we’ve created. Quit that, if someone disagrees with you have the confidence to hear them out and know that integrating feedback from others only makes your ideas that much stronger.

It’s not that deep, stop reacting emotionally to logical critiques of your ideas and you’ll find you’re able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Conclusion

I’m always looking for ways to get better at disagreeing without being disagreeable. For me I try to remember that:

1. I might be wrong

2. I should clearly label my position to avoid miscommunication

3. I should work to avoid the swirl and disagree about only one item at a time

4. I should always critique the idea, not the person

What techniques do you use to disagree without being disagreeable?

See y’all next week.