Disagree and Commit

Candy king William Wrigley once said, "When two men in business always agree, one of them is unnecessary."

Elsewhere, I've read that "consensus is horrible." Perhaps that's too extreme, if we equate "consensus" with "unanimity." In fact, consensus is defined as "general agreement." That makes a little more sense, since we know that no two people are alike. In most circumstances, they are bound to disagree on some level. The key is to give everyone a chance to disagree respectfully. Some leaders cultivate this actively. "Disagree and commit" is one way to describe it. It can be as simple as asking "What do you think?" or, if no one seems to disagree with an opinion on the table, to ask someone to come up with an opposite position. This helps to flush out what might be wrong with the prevailing idea.

The natural challenge, of course, is that if enough of one's ideas don't come to fruition, then we may lose face. And that's where the Ben Franklin's principle comes into play, that righteousness is based on usefulness, and not rights. In other words, it's more important to get useful results (by getting everyone's creative and differing opinions onto the table and sorting out the best one) than to be "right" as an individual. Perhaps that's why brainstorming is such a healthy practice, as ideas become separated from people as the list grows on the board. The worth of the individual is subordinated to the goal of the team, so that "everyone wins."

Again, the key to "disagree and commit" is respect -- respecting that there are many different, valid ideas within the room, and once we leave the room, that we honor the one that was accepted rather than the one that makes us feel the most important.