Why constructive disagreement leads to better decision-making

Diverse views and perspectives within an organisation are good for innovation, problem-solving and employee engagement — in theory.

In practice, differing opinions in the workplace can be difficult to navigate. Genevieve Hawkins, founder of Mentally at Work, argues that disagreeing respectfully by listening to each other’s views and remaining solutions-focused can help strengthen a relationship, despite differences in opinion. “When we disagree well, we get a better outcome,” she says.

There is an art to disagreeing well. Hawkins says it is important to assume good intent in the other party and recognise that their opinion is valid before launching into a disagreement. 

“We all see the world from different perspectives,” she says. “One perspective is not right and another wrong. We all look at the same data and interpret it differently.”

She also recommends viewing a disagreement as a learning opportunity rather than a fight. “Instead of saying ‘I want to be right’, say ‘I want to be curious’.”

Conversational receptiveness

Harvard Kennedy School professor and behavioural scientist Julia Minson, author of How to Disagree Better, takes a similar view. She advises against viewing a disagreement as a contest to be won, an approach that is more likely to lead to an escalation in conflict instead of a productive outcome.

“Anytime there is a contest, there has to be a winner and a loser,” she says. “Most of the time, when you say something that makes you feel really good in a disagreement, it feels like you just scored a point — and usually that is a sign of trouble.”

In her book, Minson defines a constructive disagreement as “any disagreement that increases our desire to talk to each other again”. “It has nothing to do with reaching resolution, persuading the other person or finding middle ground; it is simply that this conversation was interesting, and I would be happy to talk to this person again.”

Popular approaches to conflict management advise adopting an attitude of empathy or curiosity during a disagreement, “but these are things that happen inside your brain — you can feel empathy, but you cannot ‘act’ empathy,” Minson says. “This question of how you show those internal processes is an important one, because your counterparts cannot read your mind.”

To counter this problem, Minson and her colleagues developed a communication style known as conversational receptiveness: “a set of words and phrases that signal to a person that their counterpart is actively engaged with their perspective during disagreement”.

“We are much better at understanding words than we are at interpreting body language,” she says. “That is where conversational receptiveness comes in, because if you can identify the specific words that people can say to make their counterpart feel heard, then you have a toolkit that can help people have better conversations.”

The HEAR framework

Minson and her team developed a framework using the acronym HEAR to help people put conversational receptiveness into practice.

H stands for hedging your claims, using words such as sometimes, maybe and possibly. “These words introduce a little bit of uncertainty into what you are claiming so that the other person can see that you are keeping their point of view in mind as you are talking.”

E stands for emphasising agreement, using phrases such as “I also want to”, “we are both interested in” or “I agree with some of what you are saying” to signal common ground without necessarily agreeing. Any two people who disagree about a specific work-related matter will find other areas of agreement, Minson says. “Often the things they agree about are the reason they are in the conversation: ‘we both think that good financial management is important for running a company well; we just disagree about exactly how to do that’.”

A stands for acknowledgement, using phrases such as “I understand that” or “it seems to me that you are saying”. “It is taking a few seconds to restate your counterpart’s perspective, so they have evidence you were listening when they were talking.”

R stands for reframing to the positive. “Eliminate negative and contradictory words like ‘no’, ‘cannot’, ‘will not’, ‘terrible’ and ‘hate’, and replace them with positive phrases such as ‘I think it is wonderful when’, ‘I would really appreciate it if’ or ‘it would be great if we could’,” Minson says.

“I might want to say, for example, ‘I hate being rushed into stressful decisions. Please stop’. “I could say, ‘I really appreciate it when people give me the time to consider important decisions. Thank you so much for understanding’. “I said the same thing — ‘I want more time’ — but the tone is very different.”

Put pen to paper

Hawkins acknowledges that it can be difficult to maintain a clear head during a disagreement. The COIN feedback model — connection, observation, impact and next steps — is another framework that people can use to keep a difficult conversation on track.

She recommends that professionals outline arguments in writing in advance of any face-to-face discussion, including the points that both parties agree on, your position, an understanding of the opposing view and three to five questions to ask to clarify their position further. 

“Bring your notepad into the meeting,” Hawkins says. “Sometimes emotion can get the better of us. If that happens, take a deep breath and go back to your notes.”