Chapter 12: Good Disagreement

The Team That Never Argued

Anders is forty-four and leads a small team that designs signs and maps for a public transport service: the timetables at bus stops, the maps in stations, the direction signs that help travellers find their way. His team of six is friendly and pleasant. Anders is proud that there is never any conflict. Meetings are calm, everyone agrees and decisions are made quickly.

Last year, the team designed a new set of maps for a busy station that was being rebuilt. The meeting to approve the design lasted twenty minutes. Everyone said it looked good. A few weeks after the maps were installed, complaints began to arrive. Travellers could not find the exits. The colours used for different lines were hard to tell apart for people with certain kinds of colour blindness. The text was too small to read from a distance. The maps had to be redesigned and reprinted at considerable cost.

When Anders talked with his team afterwards, he discovered something troubling. Several team members had noticed problems with the design before it was approved. One had worried about the colours. Another had thought the text was too small. A third had wondered whether the exits were clear enough. But none of them had said anything in the meeting. When Anders asked why, they gave similar answers. The meeting had felt so harmonious, and nobody wanted to be the one who caused trouble.

Anders realized that the peace he had been so proud of was not entirely healthy. His team avoided conflict so carefully that important disagreements were never voiced. The result was not good decisions made in harmony, but poor decisions made in silence. Without meaning to, he had created a team in which disagreement felt like disloyalty.

Machiavelli held a surprising view about conflict. Writing about the ancient Roman republic, he argued that the disagreements and struggles between different groups were not a weakness but one of the main reasons for its strength. This chapter explores that idea, and how disagreement, handled well, can make a working group stronger.

The Noise That Kept the Republic Free

In the fourth chapter of the first book of the Discourses, Machiavelli addresses a common criticism of the ancient Roman republic. Many writers, he notes, had blamed the constant conflicts between the ordinary people and the powerful families of Rome, with their noisy protests and disputes. These writers saw the conflicts as a sign of disorder. Machiavelli disagreed sharply (Discourses, Book 1, chapter 4).

Those who criticize these conflicts, he writes, are blaming the very things that were the main cause of Rome's freedom. They pay more attention to the noise and the shouting than to the good results that came from them. In every republic, he explains, there are two different tendencies, that of the ordinary people and that of the powerful, and all the laws made in favour of freedom arise from the disagreement between them (Discourses, Book 1, chapter 4).

Machiavelli's point was that disagreement between groups with different interests, when it was channelled into proper forms such as debates, negotiations and new laws, forced the republic to find solutions that took everyone's needs into account. If one group had been able to impose its will without opposition, the result would have been tyranny. The noise of disagreement was the sound of a healthy system correcting itself.

It is worth noticing how unusual this view was. Most writers of Machiavelli's time, and many since, have admired order, unity and harmony, and have seen disagreement as a sign that something has gone wrong. Machiavelli looked at the same history and saw that the apparent disorder had produced lasting benefits. He was not praising chaos. He was pointing out that a group in which nobody can disagree is not truly united. It is only quiet, and quiet can hide a great deal.

This idea applies well to working life. In any team, there are different perspectives, different interests and different kinds of knowledge. When these differences are expressed openly and discussed properly, they help the team find better solutions, catch mistakes and avoid the blind spots of any single viewpoint. When they are suppressed, as in Anders's team, the team loses the benefit of its own diversity.

Machiavelli also observed, in another chapter, that ordinary people as a group often judge well, especially when they hear different arguments and can compare them (Discourses, Book 1, chapter 58). This suggests that open disagreement is not only a way of correcting mistakes. It is also a way of reaching better judgments, because it allows different views to be heard and weighed against each other.

Channels, Not Whispers

Machiavelli did not praise every kind of conflict. He was very aware that disagreement could also destroy a republic, if it turned into factions, violence or the secret spreading of accusations. The key, in his view, was whether conflict was expressed through proper, open channels or through hidden, destructive ones.

In the seventh and eighth chapters of the first book of the Discourses, he discusses this difference. He praises the Roman practice of allowing citizens to bring public accusations against those they believed had acted wrongly, before proper courts where the matter could be examined openly. This, he argues, gave an outlet for anger and suspicion that might otherwise have grown in secret and exploded. By contrast, he warns against the spreading of slanders, which are made in private, without evidence and without any chance for the accused to answer. Slanders, he says, cause great harm, because they create hatred and division without any means of resolving them (Discourses, Book 1, chapters 7–8).

This distinction is very useful in working life. Disagreements and complaints that are raised openly, in meetings, in direct conversations or through proper procedures, can be discussed, examined and resolved. Disagreements that are expressed in whispers, gossip and complaints behind people's backs cannot be resolved, because the people concerned never have a chance to respond. They poison the atmosphere and divide the team.

So Machiavelli's view of conflict has two parts. The first is that disagreement is valuable and should not be suppressed. The second is that disagreement should be expressed through open, fair channels, not through hidden, destructive ones. A healthy team is not one without disagreement. It is one where disagreement is voiced openly, discussed respectfully and resolved fairly.

There is a simple test for whether a disagreement is being handled through an open channel or a hidden one. Ask whether the person being disagreed with knows about the disagreement and has a chance to respond. If they do, the channel is open, even if the conversation is uncomfortable. If they do not, because the complaint is being shared only with others, the channel is hidden, and the disagreement is more likely to grow into resentment than into a solution.

For a leader like Anders, this means creating channels for disagreement: making it clear that dissent is welcome, setting aside time in meetings for concerns, asking specifically for objections and treating those who raise them with respect. For every team member, it means having the courage to raise concerns openly and the discipline not to spread them in whispers.

Anders Invites the Noise

After the station maps were redesigned, Anders decided to change how his team made decisions. He did not want to create unpleasant conflict. But he wanted the team's concerns to be heard before decisions were made, not after.

Anders introduced a simple practice. Before any design was approved, the team would spend at least fifteen minutes on what he called "the critics' round". Each person in turn would name one possible problem with the design, however small. Nobody was allowed to argue during the round. Problems were simply listed. Then the team discussed which problems were serious and how to solve them.

At first, the critics' round felt awkward. People were not used to criticizing each other's work. But Anders made a point of thanking each person for their contribution, and he included his own designs in the process, inviting criticism of his work as readily as anyone else's. Gradually, the team became more comfortable. The round revealed problems that would otherwise have been missed: a sign that would be hidden by a pillar, a timetable that used confusing abbreviations, a map that did not show step-free routes clearly.

Anders also invited outside voices. Before finalizing a design, the team began to show it to a small group of travellers, including elderly people, people with disabilities and people who did not speak the local language well. Their comments, sometimes surprising, improved the designs greatly. This was Machiavelli's insight about the judgment of ordinary people in practice: those who use the maps every day often see things that designers miss.

A year later, complaints about the team's designs had fallen sharply. Meetings were sometimes a little noisier than before, but the team was still friendly, perhaps more so, because people felt that their views mattered. "I used to think a good team was a team without arguments," Anders says. "Now I think a good team is one where people can argue about the work without fighting about each other."

Olamide and the Whispering Committee

Olamide is thirty-five and volunteers on the committee of a community garden association, which manages a large shared garden used by more than fifty families. The committee has seven members. For the past year, it has been divided into two groups. One group wants to use part of the garden for a children's play area. The other wants to keep all the land for growing food. Both views are reasonable.

The problem is how the disagreement has been expressed. In committee meetings, everyone is polite and the issue is avoided. But outside the meetings, members of each group talk about the other group behind their backs. Olamide has heard rumours that one committee member wants the play area only because her own grandchildren would use it, and that another opposes it because he dislikes children. These rumours are spreading among the garden's families, and the atmosphere has become bitter.

Olamide recognized what Machiavelli called slanders: accusations made in private, without evidence, without any chance for the people concerned to respond. She saw that they were dividing the garden far more than the original disagreement ever had. The question of how to use the land was a normal, healthy disagreement. The whispers were turning it into a feud.

Olamide proposed bringing the disagreement into the open. She suggested that the committee hold a meeting open to all the garden's families, where each side would present its case clearly, with its reasons, and where families could ask questions and express their views. After the meeting, families would vote. She also asked committee members to agree, in writing, to stop discussing the issue behind each other's backs and to raise any concerns directly.

The open meeting was lively. Both sides presented their views, and many families spoke. Someone suggested a compromise: a small play area on a corner of the land that was poor for growing, with the rest kept for food. The compromise was accepted by a large majority. The rumours faded, because the disagreement now had an open channel, and the committee began to work together again. "The disagreement was never the problem," Olamide says. "The whispering was. Once we brought it into the light, it became something we could solve."

Henrique and His Sister

Henrique is fifty-two and runs a bakery with his younger sister, Leonor. They inherited it from their parents fifteen years ago. They love each other and they love the bakery, but they disagree about almost everything: how to price the bread, whether to open on Sundays, how to treat the staff, whether to try new recipes. For years, their disagreements have turned into arguments, often in front of staff and sometimes in front of customers.

Their arguments have caused real problems. Staff feel caught between them and do not know whose instructions to follow. Decisions are delayed for months because the siblings cannot agree. Sometimes one of them makes a decision without telling the other, which leads to further arguments. Both are exhausted by the constant conflict, and both have wondered whether they should sell the bakery.

A friend who runs a family business of her own suggested that their problem was not that they disagreed, but that they had no proper way of disagreeing. "My brother and I disagree all the time," she said. "But we have rules. We discuss things once a week, in private, never in front of staff. We each say our view without interrupting. If we cannot agree, we have a way of deciding, so it does not drag on forever."

Henrique and Leonor decided to try. They agreed to meet every Monday afternoon, in the small office at the back of the bakery, to discuss any decisions. Each would explain their view fully before the other responded. They agreed that some areas would be led by one of them and some by the other: Henrique would decide matters of baking and recipes, and Leonor would decide matters of staff and customers, with each consulting the other. For major decisions, if they still could not agree after two meetings, they would ask their accountant, whom both trusted, for her view.

The arguments in front of staff stopped almost immediately. Decisions were made more quickly. The siblings still disagreed often, but their disagreements were now channelled into the Monday meetings, where they could be discussed properly. Henrique says that some of their best decisions came from those meetings. "Leonor sees things I never see, and I see things she never sees," he says. "When we argued in the shop, we just hurt each other. When we argue on Mondays, we actually find good answers." This is Machiavelli's insight on a small scale: disagreement, given an open and fair channel, produces better results than either suppressed silence or uncontrolled conflict.

Saoirse Learns to Disagree

Saoirse is twenty-six and works as an assistant in the planning department of a regional health service. She is the youngest and least experienced person in her team. In meetings, she listens carefully but rarely speaks. When she disagrees with something, which happens more often than anyone realizes, she stays quiet. She is afraid of seeming arrogant or of being wrong.

Recently, Saoirse noticed a mistake in a plan that her team was about to approve. The plan assumed that a new clinic would be easy to reach by public transport, but Saoirse, who did not own a car, knew that the bus route near the proposed site ran only twice a day. She felt sure this was important, but she was afraid to speak. She thought someone more senior must have noticed it already.

Saoirse thought about Machiavelli's argument that disagreement is valuable, and about the open channels he praised. She realized that if she did not raise the problem, she would be adding to the silence that had caused trouble in so many workplaces. But she also wanted to raise it in a way that was respectful and constructive, not as an attack.

In the meeting, she raised her hand and said, carefully, "I may be missing something, but I wanted to check the transport assumption. I take the bus in that area, and as far as I know, the route near the site only runs twice a day. Would that affect access for patients?" There was a short silence. Then the team leader said, "That is an important point. Nobody here has checked the bus times." The plan was revised, and the site was changed to one with better transport links.

After the meeting, the team leader thanked Saoirse privately and told her that her perspective was valuable precisely because it was different. "We all drive," she said. "You see things we do not." Saoirse began to speak more often in meetings, always respectfully, often beginning with a question. She found that her colleagues welcomed her contributions. "I thought disagreeing would make me seem difficult," she says. "Actually, it made me useful. What matters is to disagree about the work, kindly, with reasons."

Practical Steps: Disagreeing Well

The first step is to see disagreement as valuable. When you notice that you disagree with something at work, remember that your view may contain information others lack. Silence does not protect the team. It deprives it of your perspective.

The second step is to use open channels, not whispers. Raise disagreements in meetings, in direct conversations or through proper procedures. Avoid complaining about people or decisions behind their backs. If you hear gossip, gently encourage the person to raise their concern openly.

The third step is to disagree about the work, not the person. Focus on the plan, the decision or the idea, not on the character of the person who proposed it. Give reasons. Begin with a question if that feels more comfortable: "I may be missing something, but have we considered...?"

The fourth step, if you lead others, is to create channels for disagreement. Set aside time for concerns before decisions are made. Ask specifically for objections. Thank people for raising them. Invite criticism of your own ideas. Consider bringing in outside voices, such as the people who will use what you are making.

The fifth step is to agree on rules for disagreeing. In teams or partnerships where disagreement often becomes conflict, agree on simple rules, as Henrique and Leonor did: where and when to discuss disagreements, how to listen, who decides which matters and what to do when agreement cannot be reached.

The sixth step is to accept decisions once they are made fairly. Good disagreement includes the willingness to accept a decision that goes against you, once it has been made through a fair process. You can still raise new information later. But a team cannot function if every decision is reopened endlessly.

Not All Conflict Is Good

Machiavelli praised conflict that was channelled into open, fair forms and led to better outcomes. He did not praise all conflict, and neither does this book. Conflict that turns into personal attacks, humiliation, threats, bullying or harassment is not good disagreement. It harms people and teams, and it should be addressed. If you experience such behaviour at work, keep a record of what happens, seek support from someone you trust and use the proper channels to report it.

It is also worth recognizing that some people find conflict much harder than others, because of their temperament, their experiences or their position. A junior worker, like Saoirse, may feel much less safe disagreeing than a senior one. A person from a background where disagreement was punished may find it very difficult. Good leaders and good colleagues pay attention to this, and make it easier for everyone to speak, not only the confident.

Finally, good disagreement requires a basic level of trust and respect. In a team where people assume the worst of each other, even reasonable disagreement can feel like an attack. Building trust, through fairness, honesty and kindness, makes good disagreement possible. And good disagreement, in turn, builds trust, because people learn that they can differ without being rejected.

One small habit helps a great deal: after a disagreement has been settled, do something together that has nothing to do with it. Share a coffee, work side by side on another task or simply ask about each other's weekend. This reminds everyone that the disagreement was about the work, not about the relationship, and that the team is still a team.

A Short Exercise: Rules for Disagreeing

This exercise helps you think about how disagreement works in a team or partnership you belong to, and how it could work better. It takes about twenty minutes.

Choose a team, partnership or group where you work with others. Take a page and answer three questions honestly. First: when people disagree here, what usually happens? Do they speak openly, stay silent, argue personally or complain behind backs? Second: what has this cost the group? Think of mistakes that were not caught, decisions that were delayed or relationships that were damaged. Third: what is one disagreement you have kept to yourself recently, and why?

Next, write three to five simple rules that would help the group disagree well. For example: "Concerns are raised in meetings, not in corridors." "Everyone speaks once before anyone argues." "We disagree about ideas, not people." "Once a decision is made fairly, we support it." "Anyone can raise a safety concern at any time."

If you lead the group, consider sharing your rules and inviting others to add to them. If you do not lead it, choose one rule that you can follow yourself, starting this week. Write down one disagreement you will raise openly, and how you will raise it respectfully.

Anders did this exercise after the station maps. His answer to the first question was: "Everyone agrees in meetings and keeps doubts to themselves." His answer to the second was: "We reprinted a whole station's maps." His rules became the basis of the critics' round. The first rule, written in large letters on the wall of the team's office, says: "If you see a problem, you owe it to the travellers to say so."

Chapter Summary

In the Discourses, Machiavelli argued that the conflicts between the ordinary people and the powerful families of ancient Rome were not a weakness but a main cause of the republic's freedom, because laws favouring freedom arose from their disagreement (Book 1, chapter 4). He also observed that people as a group often judge well when they hear different arguments (Book 1, chapter 58). But he distinguished sharply between disagreement expressed through open, fair channels, such as public accusations examined before proper courts, and hidden slanders spread in private, which create hatred without resolution (Book 1, chapters 7–8).

Anders and his silent team, Olamide and the whispering committee, Henrique and his sister and Saoirse learning to speak up all found that disagreement, voiced openly and handled fairly, produces better decisions and stronger relationships than either silence or uncontrolled conflict. Not all conflict is good: personal attacks, bullying and harassment should be addressed through proper channels. Good disagreement depends on trust and builds it.

In the next chapter, we will look at how reputations are built, and why Machiavelli believed that a good name comes, above all, from deeds.