I Disagree

It’s OK. Just say it:

I disagree

It’s short, simple and yet effective. A few weeks ago, I heard a co-worker said it during a meeting and it just struck me that, turned out you can just say I disagree as a fully independent sentence - no buts, no ands, no actuallys - just plain vanilla I disagree. It’s just, so, refreshing! So much so that I decided to write a about it. :)

It’s not always easy to say I disagree outright in a workplace, as in human nature we want to avoid conflicts, especially when people may come from different cultural backgrounds. I’m gonna ramble a few things around this.

Challenges

High Context vs Low Context Cultures

I don’t play this card a lot but English is actually not my first language. There was a short phase of time in my life when I voiced my disagreements, I almost always led with “with all due respect”. And apparently there are also many other variants of I disagree prefixes, for example¹:

• That’s a fair point, but I disagree. …
• I understand where you’re coming from, but I disagree. …
• There’s truth to what you’re saying, but I disagree. …
• I see what you’re saying, but I disagree. …
• I’m not sure that I agree with those findings.

Later on I learnt more on why people like to go with all these politer versions as I lived longer in Canada as an immigrant. Get this, there’s even a thing called sandwich feedbacks. That is, the intended true negative feedback is wrapped between two positive ones, to ease the impact. It’s probably not uncommon in Canada (or Minnesota²), as people are just too polite to give constructive feedbacks, let alone issuing disagreements - after all, this is a country where “sorry” does not necessarily constitute an admission of guilt in the eyes of the law³ cuz people say that way too often.

I’m not saying sandwich feedbacks are harmful, but they sure can backfire. In the event of a sandwich feedback, to correctly decode it, the receiver would perhaps need to rely on other non-verbal contexts or cues (read the between the lines), or even gestures (read the room). After all, I was taught that 2 > 1 - with all things being equal, 2 positives plus 1 negative should still be positive right? But who knows all that is just an elaborated effort in telling the one negative in the middle. I’d say this would be an example of high context.

In the meanwhile, some cultures just like more direct communications. Explicit expressions and concise words are used at most times, hence the low context.

Honestly I think either style works. But expectations should be established properly at the beginning. Some people prefer cutting to the chase; but others may appreciate a bit subtlety. It takes time to align the communication styles.

Social and Organizational Hierarchy

The co-worker who said I disagree in the meeting aforementioned, is a very senior engineer, with a principal+ title - not sure if it helps under circumstances but it sure won’t hurt. :)

Hierarchy definitely matters in communications at work. To an extent that I’ve heard some companies have actually started hiding people’s titles in internal communication tools. In that way, you won’t know if you’re talking to a junior software developer or a principal engineer, so you may feel free to express your opinions. I can see both pros and cons in this, but will not elaborate here.

Disagreeing in a meeting with people with more seniority or higher titles than you, is no small feat. Naturally, you’d want to keep you head down and just listen (and nod). But if you see something that’s gonna yield catastrophic outcomes, then by all means, voice your disagreements, even if that contradicts what your highers up just said - they will thank you for it afterwards.

Assert yourself. It’s important to be heard. And more importantly, we all should learn how to influence without authority.

Facts vs Opinions

Facts are immutable truths that can be checked and verified. Opinions are just what you think.

It’s important to know the distinction in the discussions. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is generally considered a fact. If someone proclaims “I think 1 and 1 add up to 3”, you can probably just say I disagree with great confidence.

But when someone presents a proposed solution or design, with different pros and cons on different options, it’s more likely an opinion when you disagree with the analysis / projections as you’d probably need to do more research on it or find more data to back up, e.g. you don’t think the trade-offs are properly stated but that remain a hypothesis until proven otherwise.

Avoid Ad Hominem

This is a very common fallacy in many cultures. It happens all the time. An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) attack is basically criticizing the person rather than challenging the facts or arguments. To name a few:

• What makes you an expert on xxx, aren’t you just out of college?
• You wear T-shirts to work, we can’t possibly take your argument seriously
• You like Hawaiian pizza. We’re not the same people. I won’t listen to your proposal on xxx
• Just go with plan A. I don’t think you’re bright enough to understand it anyways

The list goes on. And it could easily escalate to name calling or other unacceptable workplace behaviors that may result in employment terminations. We all can easily see why this is not cool or helpful to win others over. Yet when people are caught up in the moment, these might just pop up.

Avoid it at all costs. The key is simple: focus on the facts, logics and arguments. Don’t take or make it personal. Have composure and be particularly mindful when you enter a heated discussion. Being respectful is a must-have here.

Disagree and Commit

We hear “agree to disagree” a lot, but as a team, we should do better than that. At the end of the day, we’d want to disagree and commit.

I have to come clean that I first heard about all these from a recruiter when I began job hunting in Canada in 2018, as I did make it to the final rounds of onsite interviews at Amazon’s Vancouver office. Unfortunately I did not even know LeetCode was a thing back then (today I can write a LRU cache in two different languages before my toaster finishes the bread. :D). I also made the rookie mistake of using C++ for programming challenges. Anyways, you probably guessed what results would come out from the big day already. Nevertheless, as a byproduct of the preparation, this particular leadership principle kinda stuck in my mind. I stand by it:

Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly⁴.

One shall not hesitate to just say I disagree when needed. But as a team, we always find a way to move forward, despite our differences. I disagree with anyone who disagree with this. :)

It’s worth noting that not just managers and principal engineers are leaders - every one in the team, can demonstrate and exercise leadership. There comes, of course, a burden to leadership and responsibilities.

---