“Leadership is the art of giving people a platform for spreading ideas that work.” – Seth Godin
As leaders, how do we build a cohesive, effective organization when the world outside—and perhaps even the team inside—seems fundamentally divided?
The Principle
Leading through disagreement is the practice of prioritizing unity of mission over uniformity of opinion. It’s the capacity to engage with diverse perspectives, even conflicting ones, not as a threat, but as a resource. This leadership competency involves separating a person’s value from their viewpoint and deliberately fostering an environment of psychological safety where dissent can lead to stronger, more resilient solutions.
Why This Principle Matters
In a polarized world, leaders who shy away from disagreement inadvertently create echo chambers. This stifles innovation and builds resentment. By contrast, leaders who skillfully navigate differing views build trust, uncover blind spots, and model the emotional intelligence required to keep a team focused on its strategic goals, rather than internal conflicts.
Why This Principle Works
This approach is grounded in the concept of psychological safety. When team members feel safe to challenge, question, and disagree without fear of retaliation, you unlock higher levels of engagement and cognitive diversity. Instead of a fragile “peace” built on avoidance, you create a robust culture where the best ideas—not just the most popular ones—can rise to the top.
How This Principle Works
Consider the intense conversations happening around the current election cycle. A leader might notice tension between team members with strong, opposing political loyalties.
Instead of banning all “political talk” (which can backfire), the leader addresses the team. They don’t facilitate a political debate. They facilitate a discussion on company values. They might ask: “Given our stated value of ‘Respect,’ how must we interact with each other professionally, regardless of our personal affiliations, to ensure we all feel valued and can do our best work?” The focus shifts from the external conflict to the shared internal mission.
Practical Strategies for Leaders
- Listen to Understand, Not to Win: Set aside your rebuttal and genuinely try to grasp the why behind the other person’s position.
- Find the Common Ground: Identify the shared goal. (e.g., “We both want this project to succeed,” or “We both care about the company’s stability.”)
- Model Curiosity: Ask questions like, “Tell me more about how you came to that conclusion.”
- Separate the Person from the Opinion: Attack the problem, not the person.
Critical Reflection
- When was the last time I felt defensive in a disagreement? Why?
- What is one shared goal I can focus on with a colleague I often disagree with?
- How can I (as a leader) make it safer for my team to disagree with me?
How to Begin Applying the Principle
Journal Prompt: Think of a recent, unresolved disagreement. Write down one aspect of the other person’s position that you can respect or find valid, even if you disagree with their overall conclusion.
Wrap Up
Great leadership isn’t about achieving universal agreement; it’s about harnessing the power of disagreement constructively. By focusing on shared goals and modeling respectful curiosity, leaders can build teams that are not weakened by their differences but are made more innovative and resilient because of them
