You Can Be Right and Still Fail as a Leader. Understanding Disagree and Commit.
Leaders don't blindly follow decisions, but they also don't dig in their heels forever. Here's how to know when to fight, when to fold, and how to own the decision once it has been made.
Welcome to my newsletter! I'm Dave Anderson, an ex-Amazon Tech Director and GM. I write this newsletter I've called Scarlet Ink, which is a weekly newsletter on tech industry careers and tactical leadership advice.
Free members can read some amount of each article, while paid members can read the full article. For some, part of the article is plenty! But if you'd like to read more, I'd love you to consider becoming a paid member. 99% of my articles are intended to be evergreen (readable and valid forever). Some weeks I have fresh content; other weeks I'll update/rewrite something from 4+ years ago because I want to keep the quality of all articles high.
Many years ago during a presentation at Amazon, a (very) long tenured Amazon gave an amusing anecdote regarding the leadership principle of disagree and commit. If you've read my newsletter at all, you'll know that I'm a big fan of the leadership principles.
She said that she spent many years misunderstanding the phrase disagree and commit. At the time, she believed that if you, a good and smart employee, had a different opinion than your co-workers, that you were supposed to disagree, and commit to disagree. As in, "I hereby commit to dig in my heels and disagree forever."
This is both funny but also painfully close to how many people act in the office.
The leadership principle of disagree and commit is a bit more nuanced. We absolutely do expect leaders to have the ability and predilection to dig their heels in and disagree strongly if needed.
However, we also expect leaders to recognize the time to commit to a course. That course may be something we agree with, or something different. Regardless, a leader needs to commit to that new direction.
I think this is one of the most important concepts to be a good leader (and good employee, as all employees should be leaders). Let's get into it.
What's the purpose of this leadership principle?
Amazon has some very obvious leadership principles.
Bias for Action
Speed matters in business. Many decisions and actions are reversible and do not need extensive study. We value calculated risk taking. - Amazon LP
I think that's pretty easy to understand. Easy two-way door? Let's get that decision made and move on. When in doubt, move fast. Great. I think we can all get on board.
However, disagree and commit is a bit more complex because it speaks to two conflicting ideas.
Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit
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 wholly.
So what is this leadership principle about? It's certainly not about the chain of command or saying "ok boss!" to orders. Because it clearly says that leaders are tenacious and have conviction.
But it's also not just about digging your heels in, because it says that leaders commit to decisions. Even if you don't like them.
The two elements this principle drives are results quality and productivity. And those elements conflict at times, and that tension is lightly written into this principle.
Results quality.
If you're making a critical choice, you know that a wrong mistake can be catastrophic. "Should we shut down this product?" is a one-way door. And impactful to the business.
However, if you're only worried about choosing the best results, you can end up making no decisions. You've quite possibly seen this before. People worry about making the wrong decision, so they debate, and gather more data, and find yet another small and inconsequential point to make.
Because until you decide, you're not wrong. And if your only priority is making the best choice, it almost precludes making any choice.
Productivity.
Decisions block the flow of getting things done. Decisions are expensive roadblocks. They are bottlenecks on moving forward.
If you were optimizing only for the volume of work completed, you'd say that a leader should decide, and everyone should immediately do what they say. This would be the fastest way to unblock a group of people.
Zero debate and discussion is the fastest way to operate. If you're making unimportant decisions, the less optimal decision now is frequently better than the right answer tomorrow.
Imagine you're ordering pizza for a group of 7 friends. One friend wants cheese pizza. Another wants pepperoni. A third agrees that pepperoni is good, but thinks that onions would be nice as well. A fourth wants Chinese food, and we tell him to shut the heck up. Everyone has an opinion.
If you all had to agree on what to order, it could take a long time. You've probably been here before. The more important thing is that you get the order placed, so you can go back to whatever you were doing. So you quickly pick a couple of mildly acceptable pizzas, order them, and move on with your life.
But if you operate that way for everything, it means that you'll make frequent and costly mistakes. Because many things matter more than pizza.
Finding a middle ground.
In many situations, you want some debate, and you want a decision made in the end. This is the middle ground between optimizing for the best results and productivity.
