Understand, Disagree, and Commit
“Disagree and commit” has been a cornerstone of leadership advice for decades. First popularized at companies like Intel and Sun, and later refined by Amazon’s addition—“have backbone”—it’s a principle that makes a lot of sense: if you disagree with a plan, it’s your responsibility to speak up. And once a decision is made, it’s your responsibility to commit to making it successful. At Heroku, we had a similar phrase: “strong opinions, weakly held.”
But a few years ago, I hit a wall with “disagree and commit.” I’d raised concerns about a plan, suggested alternatives, and watched the decision maker choose the original path. I tried to commit, but deep down, I couldn’t. I didn’t believe in the decision, and my attempt to support it was lukewarm at best. My frustration leaked through, and the relationship with the decision maker strained under the weight of my unresolved judgment.
The worst part was that I could tell there was logic behind their choice. I just hadn’t put in the effort to see it.
Over time, I realized the problem wasn’t with the principle but with how I’d approached the disagreement. I hadn’t built empathy for their perspective, and that lack of understanding made it impossible for me to fully commit.
This wasn’t the first time I’d learned the importance of empathy. At Heroku, a manager had reminded me of Stephen Covey’s principle: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Earlier in my career at Canonical, another manager introduced me to Crucial Conversations, which emphasizes mastering your own story and building empathy before raising a concern. These lessons all pointed to the same truth: understanding is the foundation of effective disagreement and meaningful commitment.
That’s why I’ve adapted the principle to include an essential first step: Understand, Disagree, and Commit.
This version isn’t just about voicing your concerns and committing afterward. It’s about doing the work to deeply empathize with the decision maker’s perspective before you even begin to disagree. Without that understanding, your disagreement may lack impact, and your commitment may lack authenticity.
And here’s a hard truth: if the decision maker is your manager or leader, and you find yourself unable to fully commit even after seeking understanding, it’s time to question your fit in the role. As leaders, our ability to commit is non-negotiable. Holding ourselves to that standard is essential, for our teams, our organizations, and our own integrity.
So before you disagree, pause. Ask yourself: have I truly sought to understand? If the stakes are high enough to voice your dissent, they’re high enough to invest the time in empathy. Because without understanding, disagreement is just noise, and commitment becomes a lie.
"A mediocre plan executed with conviction is better than a great plan followed half-heartedly." This is easy to embrace when you're the one selling the idea, but real challenges arise when committing to someone else’s plan. When I dug deeper into that, I realized that a profound bias had been growing alongside my experience. Challenging that bias led me to the key: trust—trusting in the decision-maker’s experience.
Often, their experience is very different from mine, and exploring those differences has been where I’ve made my biggest leaps in growth. I’ll always advocate for being upfront with doubts and starting the conversation—because no matter what, you’ll learn something. It might be a better decision-making process, a deeper understanding of your own value, or the realization that it’s time for a change.
Have you noticed how often people start answering with "I get it" when they don't? The feeling that we understand the argument stops us from looking further.
Two effective ways to argue against somebody:
Either you get to understand their point deeply enough that it might just change your own opinion, or...
You replace objective phrases like "the proper way" or "better because..." with subjective ones: "the way I find more effective" or "better in that..." That lets people disagree without anybody losing face - no more zero-sum game!