In our workplace culture, most of us have been trained—or at least prefer—to believe that if we don’t hear any disagreement, there probably isn’t any. And we think that’s a good thing! Most of us tend to prefer harmonious rather than acrimonious behavior, and given that in our current social polarization, circumstances constantly arise in which people very forcefully disagree, it’s a relief when we manage to avoid the anger and indignation these disagreements can trigger.
The problem is that we can misperceive quiet as harmony.
Of course we all need some harmony: when people don’t like each other or can’t work together, then lack of progress and unnecessary turnover can result. But it’s short-sighted to require—or even expect—consensus or harmony. What looks calm and smooth on the surface sometimes hides bitterness or resentment underneath. And disharmony can actually be fruitful: not only can we learn from disagreements but sometimes they even offer overlooked opportunity.
When Harmony Doesn’t Ring True
Too much apparent harmony—or norms that prize consensus over collaboration—suggests that there’s not enough truth being shared. Instead, you might notice various organizational workarounds: holding a meeting before a scheduled meeting to discuss how difficult the actual meeting will be; people texting or chatting to each other during a meeting about how it’s just like every other failed meeting; and debriefing and complaining after the meeting, out in the hall, someone’s office, or even the parking lot. Sometimes those in-the-know don’t exit the Zoom session when the meeting ends, but instead wait until the senior leader or difficult parties exit and then talk about what just happened. The actual meeting itself may have looked pleasant and agreeable, but in fact no real action or impact come from it— people just keep going through the motions.
Here are a few things that would be better: meetings in which people are willing to come forward directly—whether it’s speaking truth to power or saying things that might upset colleagues who become distressed easily as a way to avoid challenges or change—and meetings with leaders who aren’t committed to inscrutability as a way to maintain power or to avoid the unpleasantness of disagreement. Better would be developing the skills that let you make a clear case for a point of view, complete with an explanation of the downsides and a cogent argument, backed by data, about the purpose and value of the upsides. And best of all would be to have meetings where all attendees are committed to what is best for the organization, so that even when people disagree, everyone feels confident that their opponents are trying to do good.
You Can Find Gold in Disagreements
Unfortunately, we think of disagreement as a bad thing—as hurtful or dangerous or inappropriate. We often have trouble separating the idea of fighting from the idea of sharing different views. Even long-tenured leaders whose positions and authority are absolutely safe can be turned off by any discussion that seems like an argument or as if someone else’s view might supersede theirs.
But sharing different views is one of the best ways to strengthen a plan’s outcomes. Divergent perspectives can be integrated to improve an existing plan or to create a Plan B that’s ready if something goes wrong with Plan A. If everyone agrees all the time, it’s hard to get to anything more robust or nuanced than the initial plan A.
It can be hard to encourage candid sharing of views in a culture that has previously prized consensus—or at least a distinct lack of disagreement, particularly with any significant authority figure—because that means creating new kinds of safety in an environment where people no longer feel safe. But it’s worth the effort, because people who feel safe at work are more likely to share their thoughts, experiment to see what works, and take risks for the sake of positive change. Here’s just one approach to try and help make that kind of environmental shift.
Hold the Space
If you can stay grounded and unruffled by what’s going on around you, recognize that people are reactive or overreactive yet remain neutral and attentive, and be able to acknowledge opposing positions, then you can help center and ground others around you. Even if you don’t have hierarchical power, your quiet, alert presence may work effectively one-on-one or with a small group of peers. And if you do have hierarchical power, you can hold the space for quite a number of people.
If you’re worried about appearing inauthentic because you are listening and not disagreeing—even with points of view you find quite challenging—use language that shows your interest but not your agreement, like: “That’s such an interesting point,” or “I’ll really have to think about that,” or “I see what you’re saying.”
Even so, this calming neutrality will only take you so far. At some point you’ll have to start facing the real issues, underlying problems, and historical norms that have put the organizational need for consensus and harmony into place. But by showing that you don’t need to shut down different perspectives and that you can tolerate and even be comfortable with them, you can start to shift the climate and make it more likely that real dialog can begin.
Onward and upward—
LK