A frequent dilemma in the workplace is figuring out how to challenge ideas we dislike without damaging our working relationships.
We need to solve problems and resolve differences in our work, and we need to build and sustain relationships. Knowing how to challenge ideas with calmness, structure, and tact — and handle challenges to our own thinking — is a valuable asset in a collaboration-driven world. Everyone benefits.
Simply reacting to a proposal with “That’s a bad idea!” or “That will never work!” is not the ideal. Those are vague, unsubstantiated objections that don’t move toward a solution. They also tend to put people on the defensive. It is more productive to have a formula for disagreeing constructively and collaboratively, and to model that approach for others.
Challenging successfully in the workplace requires tact and good judgment, and there are concrete steps we can take to demonstrate our preparation, organised thinking, and desire for collaboration. What follows is a simple, three-step approach for disagreeing with colleagues or clients in a structured and collaborative way.
A first suggestion is simply to study the idea carefully before you react to it. This may be an obvious tip, but it seems to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. It is usually a good idea to think before we speak, and this can be particularly true when presented with a new idea.
Having controlled the temptation to react immediately, the second step is to invest the time and mental effort to break a proposal into its component pieces. Unbundle and analyse the elements and try to understand how they fit together. For complex proposals it may be helpful to be reminded of several critical elements:
· Issues — these are the controversies, points in question, or topics that need to be debated or discussed. We sometimes use ‘issues’ interchangeably with ‘problems’, but there is a distinction: a problem is something to be fixed or resolved, whereas issues are addressed. A subtle difference, but one to be aware of.
· Position — this is what people say they want, in a negotiation, for example. This tends to be a surface statement and doesn’t usually address why they want it.
· Interest — this is the why: the underlying reasons, values, or motivations for taking a position. A challenging aspect of a negotiation can be getting beyond stated positions to understand the genuine interests. Understanding the distinction between positions and interests can be useful in many situations.
· Facts — these are things that have occurred or are verifiable. They can be proven or checked.
· Assumptions — these are beliefs that cannot be proven. An example: ‘The branch fell to the ground’ is a fact: it can be verified. But ‘Gravity made the branch fall’ is an assumption, a theory. We are comfortable with the concept of gravity, but it is still an assumption, not a fact. Distinguishing between facts and assumptions — and gauging the validity and robustness of the assumptions used — are crucial steps in understanding a proposal or idea.
· Reasoning — this is generally accepted to mean starting with facts or premises, then thinking logically to arrive at sensible judgments, inferences, or conclusions. In layman’s terms, how is this person thinking about the question? What is his or her thought process?
· Finally, other relevant factors that might influence the proposal.
Sorting this out takes time and effort, but is a fairly rigorous way to study an idea. And breaking the elements down in this way can also provide insights into the thinking of those behind the proposal.
Once you have unbundled and studied the elements, a third step is to initiate a conversation with those making the proposal. Make clear that this is not intended to be a debate or an argument, but rather a dialogue, to gain a better understanding of his or her thinking.
Here is a suggestion for language you might use to kick off that conversation: “I’ve studied it carefully and this is what I understand from your proposal… This is where I agree with you, because we do agree on several points… and this is where I disagree… and this section I still don’t quite understand. Could you explain your thinking to me?”
This phrasing allows you to define areas of disagreement or confusion with precision — as opposed to rejecting the entire concept — and signals that you are looking for a constructive dialogue. You are trying to understand, not just win the point or prove the person wrong. Precision and dialogue.
The language you use in challenging ideas is crucial: are you genuinely trying to understand, or simply win? Think about your intentions and convey them through your use of language.
These three steps for opposing an idea or proposal — study it before reacting, disaggregate to analyse, dialogue rather than debate — are useful tools for teamwork, influence, and effective leadership. Make sure you have them in your toolbox.