How to Disagree
Do you want to have a strong team? Teach them how to disagree productively.
A good starting point is to first evaluate how you and your team argue with others.
There are different ways people disagree, argue, or debate. Typically, some disagreeable situations are more emotional than others. Disagreement is not bad. However, the way people disagree can be unproductive and/or hurtful.
Paul Graham, a smart programmer and successful entrepreneur proposed a "disagreement hierarchy" in a 2008 essay, How to Disagree. He organized styles of arguments into a seven-point hierarchy and suggested, "If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier."
Graham also designed the hierarchy as a pyramid. This is logical because there are a limited number of people who are highly skilled at resolving disagreements. Therefore, the smallest space of his hierarchy (the top) represents the disagreement style demonstrated by the least number of people. (Wikipedia)
Here is Graham’s disagreement hierarchy:
Disagreements, arguments, and debates are words that can have a negative tone. However, these conversations can be very healthy, sincere, respectful, truth seeking, and productive. It is positive that people have different opinions, approaches, perspectives, and additional facts. Debate and disagreement are often necessary to determine the best solution.
Would you like to win every disagreement?
It is possible.
However, it depends on your definition of “winning.” The most common objective of people who disagree effectively is to find the best answer without unnecessarily harming their relationship with the other party. Adopt this approach and you can win every argument. The only exception is when you must withdraw because the other party is unreasonable or not aligned with your objectives.
Learn from the Hierarchy
Ask yourself two questions as you consider these seven disagreement styles as an individual, or with a group:
#1 – What disagreement style best describes my most common behavior when I’m arguing with others?
#2 – What style best describes my peers at work, and people I hang out with personally?
Comprehending your disagreement style enables you to develop better habits that result in reaching agreement more calmly, efficiently, and effectively.
Considering how others disagree is important because studies have concluded we become like the people with whom we spend the most time. If their habits are good, then they help us develop better habits. However, when their habits are bad, they subconsciously teach us negative behaviors.
Another important clue to consider: How you respond to each of these styles.
This discussion does not include how to respond to each disagreement style. However, you can learn how to avoid or more positively respond and resolve arguments in less time by developing habits based on these best practices.
There is one other habit that can help you tremendously.
It is: Don’t take anything said personally. Another person’s negativity says more about their wounds and mistakes than it does about you. James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, puts it this way: “Not taking things personally is a superpower.” (04/30/2020 post)
The focus of this teaching is how to effectively disagree in real-time arguments that occur in-person, during online meetings, and in-writing. This advice applies somewhat differently to indirect disagreements, such as online attacks, gossip, or internal anger and frustration.
The following is how we explain each disagreement style, and my advice based on our work at www.manage2win.com and my 47 years’ business experience.
Name-Calling
This first disagreement style is a bullying or fear response, rather than providing facts to refute something. Name-calling is a red flag to be extra careful in how you respond to the person or avoid them altogether. It may indicate the wounds from their life experience are fueling fears and a distorted perception of reality.
Name-callers are quick to judge others negatively. It’s often rude, coarse commentary that’s unhealthy, unproductive, and partially or totally untrue.
CONCLUSION: Name-calling does not help avoid or resolve an argument.
Ad Hominem
The second style is, Ad hominem, which is Latin for “to the man (or person).” It means someone attacks the character, motive, or other attribute of a person who has an opposing view rather than simply calling them a derogatory name or term.
Ad hominem is often based on partial truth. Part of the overall statement is true, but not all of it. Partial truths can connect with and fuel the fears of the attacker. This fools them into exaggerating the partial truth into an unfair, negative belief about the other person.
For instance, Joe may attack Susan, saying she wants Marilyn to lead a project because Marilyn is her friend. He says Susan’s totally biased. However, there is more to the truth. Marilyn is Susan’s friend. However, Marilyn is also very capable to lead the project, has one or more skills that make her a good choice, and there is time in her schedule to do the work.
Sometimes the Ad hominem approach is used because the attacker is trying to manipulate the other person without being candid about their reasoning. For instance, Joe might be motivated to attack Susan because he wants to lead the project or have one of his buddies do it.
CONCLUSION: Attacking someone ad hominem does not help avoid or resolve an argument.
Responding to Tone
The third style is how people respond to the tone of someone’s voice or writing. For instance, someone may have a condescending or angry tone, or they are rude in some other way.
The respondent who attacks the person’s tone may be correct the other person’s tone is offensive or inappropriate. However, tone is subjective. It does not determine the accuracy of the rude person’s statement or conclusions.
Getting upset about someone’s tone focuses on how they deliver their argument. This is better than attacking a person. However, it is still not offering facts or logic to prove the attacker’s position in the argument or debate.
CONCLUSION: Attacking someone’s tone of voice does not help avoid or resolve an argument.
Contradiction
This fourth style is the turning point in argumentative skills. However, it is still weak because the response simply states disagreement as opinion. No facts or qualified references are offered.
Using the example above, Joe may complain, “Marilyn is not senior enough for this project. Bernie would be a better choice.”
Susan might respond defensively with a simple statement, “Marilyn’s the best choice.” As you can see, neither side in the argument has provided facts or qualified references to reinforce their statements.
The good news is this approach is not attacking a person. It can start a process for the parties to focus on where they agree and disagree.
However, contradiction is a surface conversation that can cause two problems: (1) It can inflame emotions because there is no factual data to bring about a new decision; and (2) The argument can be controlled by the person who has better communication skills; or simply is a verbal and/or physical bully. This is true even when their opinion is wrong.
CONCLUSION: Respectfully contradicting someone with an opposing opinion rather than facts and quality references may start productive dialog. It can also negatively intensify the emotions of an argument or give the more highly skilled communicator an unfair advantage because the approach remains subjective.
Counterargument
The fifth style is counterarguments. This approach is disagreeing with facts and/or qualified references supporting your conclusions. When done respectfully, this positive behavior can make progress towards agreement, or at least identify where you agree to disagree.
However, problems occur when counterargument statements are too broad or general. As a result, the person offering the counterargument may shift the disagreement away from the main point. This may focus on part of the other person’s conclusion, a point they feel was indicated by the original person’s statement, or something they feel is related.
Continuing with our prior example, Joe may say, “Are you sure Marilyn’s the best choice? That project is important. Marilyn’s great, but she doesn’t have many certifications.” Susan could respond by saying, “I don’t think certifications are important. You do a lot of great work in areas where you don’t have any certifications. When’s the last time you got certified, and on what?”
In this example, the counterargument led to a debate about certifications, rather than who’s the best person to lead the project.
Another issue is when counterarguments extend the disagreement into assumptions, and/or judgment based on partial information or bias by one or both people.
Ideally, someone using the counterargument style is phrasing statements as questions to promote an open dialog. They also listen carefully to consider the other person’s thoughts. This approach succeeds when it is done within seven boundaries for polite, sincere disagreement:
#1 - Protect the relationship you have with the other person by being respectful and empathetic.
#2 - Clarify the specific issue being argued.
#3 – Sincerely seek to understand the other party’s conclusions, with an intent to find common ground. It is important to respect the person’s emotions. However, focus the conversation on the facts and how they relate to resolving the issue.
#4 – Discuss the facts and conclusions from qualified references.
#5 - Be open to gathering more facts and qualified opinions / research.
#6 - Focus first on where you both agree, and next on where you still disagree.
#7 - Don’t feel pressure to resolve the disagreement at once when the issue is not urgent.
CONCLUSION: Counterarguments are most effective as questions that lead to further discussions. This lays a strong, safe foundation to move to agreement through discussion, research, and consideration of facts and conclusions of qualified references.
Refutation
The sixth style is refutation, which is when someone attempts to disprove something. It is important to note that you must be an active listener to effectively refute anyone. This is because active listening enables you to comprehend what they believe, the emotions behind their conclusions, and the facts they’re presenting.
Active listening is giving someone your full attention when they are speaking. You are listening to what they say while also considering their nonverbal communication. At appropriate times, you respectfully repeat back brief statements they made to confirm you are correctly comprehending the information. If applicable, at the conclusion of the conversation you verify their expectations and action items to be taken.
As you repeat back each summary, it is effective to first explain where you agree, and possibly why. This demonstrates how you are working with the other person and often creates options to consider that lead to resolution.
Here is a productive approach to refuting someone’s statements:
#1 – State something where you disagree and ask them to confirm you are understanding them correctly.
Listen and fully consider their response.
#2 - Ask questions about facts that seem to contradict the other person’s conclusions.
Listen and fully consider their response.
#3 - Discuss where you feel qualified references and/or research contradict those the other person presented.
Listen and fully consider their response.
#4 – Assuming you have not changed your mind, explain why you feel your conclusion remains the most logical, accurate based on the facts, and fair considering the impact of the decision on others.
Listen and fully consider their response.
Active listening and respectful dialog help the other person feel safe. This encourages candor as you work through the issues. It also should enable both of you to be more open to consider alternatives to your original conclusions. New decisions occur based on trust and new information.
CONCLUSION: Respectful refutation can help people disagree more calmly, and reach resolution more quickly.
Refuting the Central Point
This seventh and best disagreement style is the top of the pyramid. It builds upon Counterarguments and Refutation to be the most skilled method of disagreeing with others, particularly when you are refuting someone in a respectful, empathetic, and specific manner.
Refuting the Central Point means the conversation starts by agreeing on a clear statement of where there is disagreement, and a mutual desire to find the best outcome. This focus fuels healthy conversation.
The discussion to confirm a clear central point may shift one person’s focus to something slightly different, or to one or more minor points that individually or collectively are significant to her/him. Although this may be frustrating, it emphasizes the value of having a clear central point or statement, so the disagreement does not decline into less important areas.
The key to refuting the other party’s position is to prove their central point is incorrect, or not the best. It is best to avoid debating your opinions. It is more productive and respectful to refute the specific central point by providing specific facts and/or the conclusions of qualified references and/or research that reinforce your proposed solution.
In a sincere dialog, you may decide to adopt their conclusion. This occurs when new information is shared that leads you to agree with part or all of the other person’s position. This is healthy. This conclusion is still a win because the goal is not fight or flight survival, but to find the best answer.
Beware of partial truths, opinions posed as facts, and references based on weak or otherwise flawed research or actual events. Assume the other person’s mistakes are honest. They are simply unaware of the truth or best decision. However, they are sincerely open to finding the best solution.
In other cases, people are intentionally dishonest or afraid to admit they’re wrong. The higher up your disagreement style and skills are on this pyramid, the easier it is for you to identify these two issues and overcome them.
Conclusion
Someone may win a debate because they are more eloquent, a bully, or simply because the data discussed was intentionally or unintentionally limited, or false.
Winning does not always mean the winner is right.
What can you do?
Train yourself and your people how to disagree with one another respectfully and empathetically. Part of this development is discussing real-life scenarios where your people individually and/or as a team have encountered disagreement. Help people to always choose integrity and put relationships first.
These skills help you stop a more skillful debater or bully from forcing a bad decision.
Never stop developing your habits, and those of your team, to have positive, respectful, and productive disagreements. These behaviors are required for your organization to be its best and thrive in any environment.
