"Disagree and Commit": Great approach or a way of alienating your team?

In the fast-paced world of startups, fostering healthy debate and making quick decisions is of vital importance. Patrick Lencioni's "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" highlights the importance of overcoming "Lack of Commitment," and it references the concept of "Disagree and Commit" like a way of approaching situation in which there’s a need to make a decision and move forward, and consensus or team buy-in can’t be achieved. However, as a CTO and Executive, I've found this approach does not always work the way we expect it, and it’s by no mean a magic wand to overcome the lack of commitment.

The Power of Disagreement:

"Disagree and Commit" encourages honest debate. This is gold for startups. Different perspectives expose blind spots and lead to better solutions. Imagine a critical architectural decision: one team member argues for a future-proof, scalable solution, while another prioritizes a quick launch. Disagreement fosters a deeper understanding of the trade-offs and leads to a more informed choice.

The Commitment Conundrum:

The "commit" part gets tricky. Forced buy-in on long-term, high-stakes decisions can be a recipe for disaster. Team members who feel unheard or overruled may become disengaged, leading to the very dysfunction we're trying to avoid. Imagine forcing a skeptical engineer onto a project they believe is doomed. Their lack of ownership will likely hinder success.

Finding Balance:

So, when does "Disagree and Commit" work?

• Small Decisions, Big Impact: For quick wins with low risk, this framework shines. A/B testing a marketing campaign is a perfect example. Debate the approach, commit to a short trial, and learn from the results.
• Agile Experimentation: Startups thrive on an iterative approach. Disagree on a feature's details, build a minimum viable product (MVP), gather user feedback, and adapt. This fosters continuous learning and commitment.
• Psychological Safety: The key to success is psychological safety. Team members must feel comfortable voicing concerns without fear of reprisal. Active listening and open communication create an environment where disagreement leads to growth, not resentment.

And when should we avoid it?

• Long Term Decisions, or Executive Decisions: Having success in the startup world is already hard enough when your team is fully aligned. Now, imagine trying to succeed when your leadership team is not in agreement on the company’s direction, or how to manage the budget, etc. You can attempt to ask them to commit to the plan, but if they don’t believe in it, the results will be catastrophic.

When is it worth the risk?

It’s important to note that this approach could be employed as a great way to build leadership equity, but it does come with a level of risk.

Picture a situation in which you are the decision maker, and your whole leadership team prefers to go with Plan A, while you adamantly feel Plan B will lead to an easier path to success. As the decision maker, it’s difficult to go against everyone on your team. Overruling may cause discontent. People may start wondering why you hired them, and if it’s worth to remain as part of the team. Siding with them, when you think the approach may not succeed, puts your company (and their jobs) at risk.

This is not perfect, but I have found success focusing on these 3 questions when facing situations like this:

• Do we truly have enough information/data to make this decision? In many cases, leaders operate with a gut-feeling of them knowing better than the experts on each area of the company. Sometimes they do, but often they don’t. It’s of paramount importance to use a data-driven approach to get better results on the “commit” part of the equation. People may not like it, but data is king most of the time.
• How fast can we see the results of either option? Would one of the options be faster to provide results? Whether this results are positive or negative, getting fast feedback could allow you to try the option you are not sold on, without compromising the relationship equity with your team.
• How costly would be to pick the “wrong” option? If we try the option that is not optimal first, would we have enough budget to course-correct later on? This is very important, and usually the key moment in which I feel overruling your team could pay the most dividends if you are right.

In summary, "Disagree and Commit" is a powerful tool, but like any tool, it needs careful application. For startups, the key is to foster open debate while recognizing the limitations of forced commitment. By finding the right balance and prioritizing healthy debate, you can leverage the power of disagreement to propel your team and your startup forward.