By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article examines how disagreement, when approached constructively, can offer benefits for organizations by improving outcomes, as research demonstrates that exposure to diverse opinions and dissenting viewpoints enhances decision making, problem solving, and innovation by reducing assumptions and blind spots as contradictory perspectives push individuals to rethink existing mental models. It presents examples of companies that foster disagreement, such as IDEO encouraging "constructive friction" between teammates from different backgrounds and Pixar empowering all employees to challenge ideas, while in healthcare the Cleveland Clinic incentivizes physicians to question guidelines and technology giants like Google expect disagreements and see them as opportunities rather than threats. Finally, the article provides recommendations for cultivating constructive disagreement through establishing psychological safety, training employees in civil arguments, employing diverse teams, and institutionalizing disagreement with roles intended to play devil's advocate, asserting that when handled respectfully, disagreement should be a prized asset that makes organizations more adaptive and able to consistently outperform.
While agreement and consensus are often championed in organizational settings, constructively disagreeing with colleagues may be essential for high-quality outcomes and progress.
Today we will explore why disagreement should be welcomed and managed effectively in the workplace.
Research Foundations for the Benefits of Workplace Disagreement
A wealth of studies indicate that disagreement, when approached constructively, improves the decision-making processes and outcomes of groups. Pentland (2014) found that idea diversity, which arises from disagreement, prompts discussion of more alternatives and perspectives. This consideration of diverse views reduces the potential for erroneous assumptions or "blind spots" to go unnoticed (Surowiecki, 2005). Research likewise shows that bringing together people with different backgrounds and dissenting opinions generates more innovative solutions than like-minded "groupthink" (Page, 2008).
Disagreement also enhances complex problem-solving. Studies find that contradictory perspectives spur the re-evaluation of existing mental models, preventing stagnation and facilitating breakthroughs (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). When opinions clash respectfully, it prompts teammates to re-examine their assumptions, think in new ways, and synthesize varied viewpoints—all of which can culminate in better solutions (Tjosvold, 2008). Furthermore, dissent steers groups away from premature consensus, inspiring them to more thoroughly deliberate options before agreeing (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986).
Encouraging Constructive Disagreement in Practice
Several industries exemplify how companies have capitalized on diverse opinions to make stronger decisions and drive progress. At IDEO, the renowned design firm encourages "constructive friction" between teammates by assembling individuals with varied specialties and playbooks (Kelly & Littman, 2001). This disagreement of perspectives yields new solutions through the combination of different mental models. Similarly, Pixar fosters an environment where any employee is empowered to challenge ideas, no matter their seniority, ensuring that blockbuster films undergo rigorous debate from all angles (Catmull & Wallace, 2014).
In the healthcare sphere, the Cleveland Clinic realized conventional wisdom could stagnate care quality. Its innovation hub incentivizes physicians to question guidelines and norms, leading to new procedures that save lives (Isaacs, 2017). In Silicon Valley, tech giants like Google expect disagreements and see them as opportunities rather than threats. By bringing together engineers and researchers with contrasting ways of thinking, they have solved complex problems and engineered industry-leading technologies (Duhigg, 2016). Across industries, high-performing companies strategically invite multiple viewpoints and manage friction productively.
Cultivating Constructive Disagreement in the Workplace
With research and examples underscoring disagreement's benefits, how can organizations systemically encourage it? The following four tactics can help disagreement remain constructive:
Establish Psychological Safety: For dissent to emerge, employees need an environment where "it is safe to take risks around new ideas and having unpopular opinions" (Edmondson, 2018, p. 3). Leaders foster this safety by communicating their openness to different viewpoints, responding non-defensively to criticisms, and rewarding, rather than punishing, those who question the status quo. When speaking up invites no social or professional costs, disagreement will proliferate freely yet respectfully.
Train in Civil Argument: To handle disagreements skillfully and keep interactions positive, teammates require practice. Trainings can equip employees to voice opposing views persuasively yet politely, question claims concisely without hostility, acknowledge other viewpoints graciously, and reach consensus amicably in the end. Mastering these "disagreement competencies" makes friction a pleasant experience rather than an unpleasant one.
Employ Diverse Teams: As evidence demonstrates, diversity arising from varied experiences prompts more dissent—and thus stronger outcomes. By assembling teammates from an array of backgrounds, demographics, expertise areas, personalities, and mindsets, organizations naturally introduce "cognitive conflict" into the decision-making arena (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This friction, handled constructively, drives debate and innovation.
Institutionalize Disagreement: For dissent to transcend individual efforts, businesses must systematically prioritize and normalize it. Google formally designates "naysayers" on projects to challenge proposals (Duhigg, 2016). Similarly, firms could create "Red Team" roles focused on arguing against any position or playing devil's advocate. Leaders must also guide progress reviews to unequivocally welcome criticisms from all levels. Such institutional commitment to constructive discord fosters debate as a core driver of growth.
Conclusion
When handled respectfully and for the right purposes, disagreement should be a prized asset rather than a problem in companies. While the natural human tendency favors accord over discord, the evidence clearly shows that harnessing diverse and dissenting viewpoints through civil debate strengthens decision-making, problem-solving, creativity and, ultimately, an organization's adaptability and learning. Business leaders wise enough to understand disagreement's merits and empower their teams to disagree will cultivate cultures that consistently outperform through innovative thinking and breakthrough solutions. The workplaces achieving the greatest feats welcome and actively provoke constructive friction among peers.
References
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. Random House.
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
Edmondson, A. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Isaacs, A. N. (2017). Innovation at the Cleveland Clinic: How to transform healthcare by putting ideas to work. W. W. Norton & Company.
Kelly, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America's leading design firm. Broadway Business.
Page, S. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How good ideas spread-the lessons from a new science. Penguin Press.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.5465/256063
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.473
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Encouraging Constructive Disagreement in the Workplace. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.1.13
Comments