"“Agree to disagree” is a leadership moment, not an escape hatch"
It usually happens when the tension is getting high. Two people are talking past each other. Emotions are starting to rise. One of them says: “Let’s just agree to disagree.” And that’s that. We move on. It sounds reasonable. Even mature. Lately I’ve been wondering, what if that’s actually the moment managers should step in to deepen and broaden the conversation? Patricia Shaw, colleague of Ralph Stacey and co-founder of the Complexity and Management Center at Hertfordshire University, writes “What if we understood organisations not as systems to be engineered, but as networks of conversations that are constantly shifting?” From that perspective, “agree to disagree” doesn’t settle anything, it freezes the very movement that could lead to change. I’ve done this. But what we’re really doing is narrowing and shallowing the conversation, exactly the opposite of what Stacey and Shaw suggest leadership requires. What would it mean to stay with it just a little longer? To say: “I notice we’re seeing this differently. Can we stay with that for a minute?” “I’m curious what’s underneath your view, what’s at stake for you here?” “This feels uncomfortable, but I think there’s something in it we haven’t explored yet.” This isn’t about getting agreement. Because when we move past conflict too quickly, we also move past the opportunity to learn something neither of us could see alone. So here’s what I’m going to try: The next time I hear the dreaded line, “we’ll have to agree to disagree,” from someone on my team, I’ll lean in. Because that moment, right there, is where the conversation begins. Until next time, ✉️ Enjoying The Messy Middle? If someone sent this email your way and you’d like to get it direct, you can sign up here. |