”As people, you lack the ability to respectfully disagree among one another. You are as Paul and Peter, whose disagreements resulted in jarring and sharp contentions. Nevertheless, they both loved me and I loved them. You must do better.”
Recently, some fellow coworkers and I decided to break off and form our own company. The four of us finally got things up and running now. We have each taken on different roles that need to be done but have tried to be equals from the outset. Along the way there have been some common challenges that have come up. One of them is due to the fact that there are 4 of us as founders. If there were an odd number, any vote could always have a clear “majority”. With an even number, and having just 4, we can easily get a split decision. There is also the matter of deciding: should a vote be clearly unanimous (all 4 in favor with no abstaining or objections)? what things can proceed with only a clear majority (if just one objects or abstains)? and what to do if a matter is split 50/50?
An issue came up where a decision was 75/25 with the one different, not just abstaining, but clearly objecting. Because it was obviously not unanimous, there needed to be some decision about whether this matter required a unanimous vote or not. It was decided that it did not. Then, without having a unanimous vote those who were in favor wanted to proceed with the decision as a “united” group behind that decision. That brought up it’s own discussion because the vote clearly was not unanimous. To proceed as if the decision really had the full backing of everyone would be a fraud because it clearly faced an unconvinced objection. If this was a matter that we really needed to “united” on, then does it actually require a truly united “unanimous” vote? Or is there a way to be “united” about something, when there is a clear objection to it?
After some discussion, it came down to, what does it mean to be “united”? Can we be “united” on something that clearly does not have a unanimous vote and even faces objections? If so, what does such “unity” look like? In this case the discussion about being “united” came down to a definition where it simply meant not seeking to undermine or destroy the group. It is being able to accept the outcome, even though there are clearly objections to it and for both sides being able to respect each other, even though the decision was in no way unanimous.
It’s an interesting dynamic because this group of friends decided to break away and form a company together, precisely because we felt we had a lot in common and could get along well with each other. Being “not unanimous” felt quite uncomfortable for some. It requires an ability to respectfully disagree.
For some, knowing that there was clear disagreement felt worrisome. Could they really trust the one who clearly disagreed? Or would the one who disagreed, use that to undermine everything and destroy any trust in the decisions of the other three? On the other hand, could the one who disagreed, trust the other three or would they now “unite” against him, so they would not face any potential objections down the road since this one obviously showed that he is willing to speak up if he disagrees? Since dealing with disagreement is time consuming, would they be better off just getting rid of one who may disagree on a number of items? How can you proceed? Can those who voted in favor, live with the idea that the one who did not, is still around and can voice why they did not agree? Can the one who did not agree trust that they are still just as much a part of the team as anyone else and not be relegated to some lesser status or going to be picked on with continual prodding about their difference?
Ultimately, I think the answer has come down to, “can we respectfully disagree”? or “can you genuinely respect someone, even though you disagree with them”? If you can, then disagreement is not that big of an issue and things are fine and there is no threat to the company to be worried about. If you cannot, then there can be a threat that presents some lingering cloud over the company.
Sure it would be great if everyone always agreed about everything. But what do you do when you don’t agree? Now that is something that can really reveal the character of the group. Does disagreement tear them apart? Do they demand absolute conformity on everything? Or is there enough genuine respect among them that they really can be free to express themselves without fear of it ruining their relationship with each other?
What kind of group do you want to be? One that can only survive by having yes-men who cannot really disagree or any disagreement can break them apart or they be cast out? One where any real disagreement has the potential to bring ruin and destroy the group? Or one where there is enough genuine respect that even when they disagree, they can still get along and be productive together?
How do you deal with disagreement? Do you have to force full agreement? Can you respectfully disagree, not just in word but in very deed?