The first time I saw “disagree and commit” in the wild, it was on a slide in a change workshop as a newbie consultant. The slide was confident; the room was not. People were looking at each other like, “Is this where we all pretend we’re fine?”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!I’ve been thinking about that room a lot lately as I take on responsibility for Business Process Management in my organization. BPM lives at the intersection of “this is better for the system” and “this is not going to feel great for everyone,” which is exactly where “disagree and commit” likes to hang out.
If you need some background, check out the Business Insider article “‘Disagree and commit’: The famous Jeff Bezos phrase that’s making a comeback,” or, to go deep… Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside. Both look at how Amazon uses this principle in decision making (links in comments).
What strikes me is how different the original idea is from the way it gets used inside a lot of organizations. “Disagree and commit” was never meant to be: “Swallow your concerns, smile, and get back to your inbox.” At its best, its a grown-up agreement between adults: You voiced your concerns, understand the tradeoffs, and while you still do not love the decision you WILL still execute like a professional. Sounds simple but in practice, many teams get the off-brand version.
Leaders race through the “disagree” part without real time for questions. Feedback vanishes into the void with no clear explanation of why this path was chosen, only vague instructions about what “good” looks like now. Then the closer: “I hear you, we just need everyone to get on board.”
That is not disagree and commit, its disagree and comply.
Here is what healthy “disagree and commit” needs from leadership:
1. A real argument. Invite specific challenges: “What are we underestimating? What worries you most?”
2. Transparent tradeoffs. Adults can handle, “This is better for the company than for some individuals.” Trust dies when you insist everyone “wins” while visibly cutting someone’s oxygen.
3. A clear definition of “commit.” Commitment sounds like: “Given this decision, here is what good-faith behavior looks like. Are you willing to do that?” Some people will say no, BELIEVE THEM.
4. Receipts, not vibes. If you want commitment, pair it with clarity:
What will be funded? Measured? What can be stopped?
And if you are the one being asked to “disagree and commit,” you also have a job to do. This is where your SNAK quietly activates:
-SKILLS help you execute well, even when enthusiasm is low.
-NETWORKS give you honest perspective.
-ACTIVITIES reveal whether (or not) you are contributing.
-KNOWLEDGE helps you decide whether to grow where you are or move on.
Used well, “disagree and commit” can create trust, used badly it’s a loyalty test with nice branding.
So, tell us, where have you seen “disagree and commit” work as intended, and where have you seen it used as a silencer instead?