How to Disagree Without Damaging Your Work Relationships |
Start from shared goals to turn disagreement into collaborative problem-solving.
Assume positive intent to reduce defensiveness and keep conversations productive.
Lead with curiosity; ask questions and seek understanding before responding.
Regulate emotions and focus on the bigger picture, not winning the argument.
A few years ago, I had a pretty significant disagreement with a colleague. As college professors, we both cared about the same thing, student success, but we disagreed on the path to get there. We were both pretty entrenched in our views, convinced we were right, and busy trying to defend our position to others.
The problem with this approach is that competition like this inevitably leads to conflict. Conflict, in turn, stifles progress and creates a tense, awkward working environment. It doesn’t have to be that way! When an organization encourages diverse viewpoints, that's when creativity and innovation flourish.
It’s not always comfortable, but think of disagreement as fuel for new ideas, processes, or solutions. The next time you find yourself in the middle of a disagreement, try these conflict resolution techniques to have the best possible outcome.
Start from a place of agreement
If you view a disagreement as “me versus you,” the conflict is likely to intensify. Instead of being set in my ways and trying to argue my viewpoint, I would have been better served by starting from mutual agreement. We both want what’s best for student success, but we disagree on the ways to get there.
Research shows that when you emphasize a shared group membership (belonging to the same unit, or working for the same organization), it reduces bias, hostility, and conflict (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Instead of viewing a disagreement as a competition, think of it as a difficult problem you need to solve together. This cognitive reframing helps shift disagreement from an interpersonal threat to a shared problem to solve, reducing ego investment in being “right.”
Assume positive intent
Attribution theory (Ross, 1977) suggests that we judge ourselves by intent but judge others by impact. If we are late for an important appointment, it's because we got caught in traffic. If someone else is late for an important appointment, it's because it wasn’t a priority. We’re quick to blame environmental factors for our own shortcomings, but we attribute lateness to an internal character shortcoming in others.
When we assume harmful intent, we become defensive and hyper-vigilant, which tends to escalate conflict rather than de-escalate it. When we’re in the middle of a disagreement, if we can assume the other person is coming from a positive place, it allows us to cool the temperature down a bit. Then we can re-focus on our shared goals and build from there.
The one caveat is that assuming positive intent can be easier for those who are not routinely harmed by bias or discrimination. For individuals from historically underrepresented or marginalized groups, assuming positive intent may mean overlooking ongoing sexism or microaggressions that create chronic stress and heightened vigilance. None of this should have a place in a healthy workplace.
Approach disagreement with curiosity
When at odds with someone, it’s better to ask questions than make accusations. Practice active listening and seek to understand rather than only listening to prepare counter-arguments.
One of the most replicated findings in conflict research is the practice of perspective-taking. Studies show that asking individuals to actively imagine another person’s constraints and pressures increases empathy and reduces hostility (Galinsky and colleagues, 2008). Additionally, with perspective-taking, far more than empathy alone, individuals can arrive at mutually beneficial outcomes where both sides can feel like they “won” at the bargaining table.
When you approach disagreement with curiosity and genuinely try to understand the other person’s perspective, you’re far more likely to reach an outcome both sides can support.
Keep your eye on the prize
Once we identify a perceived weakness in someone else’s plan, we often start seeing more and more problems, picking apart every detail. This is a real-world example of the classic idiom, “can’t see the forest for the trees.” The expression is meant to convey that you’ve become buried in the details and lost sight of the big picture.
When you’re mid-disagreement, pause. Reflect, don’t react. John Gottman’s research demonstrates that productive conflict requires keeping physiological arousal below a certain threshold. When physiological arousal becomes too high, people stop processing information effectively and shift into a fight-or-flight state that interferes with listening, empathy, and problem-solving. Do you want to be right so badly that you must pick apart every detail? Or can you set aside your pride and ego and focus on the bigger picture?
When emotions run high, step away from the email. Sleep on it and revisit the conversation later. Keeping the larger goal front and center will move you closer to resolution than picking your colleague apart line by line. Disagreements are a normal part of working with other people. Rather than treating them as battles where it's you versus them, and you need to win at all costs, try incorporating some of the techniques suggested here for better outcomes and healthier working relationships.
Looking back, my disagreement with that colleague wasn’t a failure of collaboration. It was a missed opportunity to approach conflict differently. Fortunately, these skills can be learned.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work: A practical guide from the country's foremost relationship expert (Revised ed.). Harmony Books.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173-220.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.