Yesterday on Collective Contribution TV, we had an amazing conversation about disagreement. And one of the ideas that came up—dare I say, through disagreements—was a reframe that I haven't been able to stop thinking about.
If every single one of us experiences the world differently (which we do), and we can only bring our own knowledge, experiences, beliefs, relationships, and perspectives to the table, then isn't disagreement inevitable at some point?
And if we expect disagreement at some point, what would happen if we stopped treating it like something was going wrong?
What if, instead, we simply accepted that disagreement is a natural part of the timeline? And maybe even progress as a whole?
Not something we need to avoid. Not something we need to overcome as quickly as possible. Just something we can expect to encounter when different people come together.
That reminded me of how we interact on The Digital Download, which in turn made me think about this week's conversation where we were talking about the difference between broadcasting messages (one-way) and having conversations (two-way) in sales and marketing.
You see, with broadcasting, we can measure how people respond, but we're often left making assumptions about WHY they respond that way. With conversation, we have the opportunity to explore those responses, in real time, and potentially change our own understanding in the process.
And at the intersection of those two conversations, I started wondering...
What if our focus on getting people to agree with us is actually limiting our ability to create momentum?
So, let's explore!
Our Relationship With Agreement
When you stop to think about it, we spend an awful lot of time trying to get people to agree with us.
In marketing, we want people to agree that our product or service has value.
In sales, we want people to agree that our solution is worth investing in.
In leadership, we want people to agree with the direction we're heading.
In collaboration, we want people to agree on a shared goal.
And in everyday conversations, how often do we find ourselves trying to explain something just a little differently, hoping the other person will finally understand what we're saying?
Which, if we're being really honest, often means we're hoping they'll see it the way WE see it.
Because agreement feels good. It validates our thinking. It gives us confidence. It makes decisions easier. And, perhaps most importantly, it feels like we're making progress.
But are we?
If I share an idea with you, and you agree with me, what has actually changed?
Well, that depends.
Maybe we've discovered some common ground that we didn't know existed. Maybe we've created an opportunity to move forward together.
But have we actually expanded our understanding of what's possible?
Not necessarily.
And when it comes to moving something NEW into creation, I wonder if agreement alone can only take us so far.
Moving a Message Forward vs. Moving Our Understanding Forward
This is where the conversation about sales and marketing comes in.
For a long time, much of our marketing activity has been built around the idea of moving a message forward. We identify an audience. We develop a message. We choose the channels that will help us reach that audience. And then we measure how effectively that message influences the actions we want people to take.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
After all, broadcasting information is how we introduce people to ideas, share knowledge, build awareness, and invite people into opportunities they might not otherwise know exist.
I'm doing it right now, by writing this article. It's pretty much the entire reason Collective Contribution TV exists.
But broadcasting has a limitation.
The message can travel a long way without OUR understanding ever having to change.
We can reach thousands of people with a perspective that is entirely our own.
And even when people don't respond the way we hoped, our first instinct is often to adjust the message. Because it probably wasn't clear enough. Or maybe we didn't communicate the value effectively. Perhaps we just need to try a different angle.
But what if the problem isn't JUST the message? (Spoiler alert: it probably isn't.)
What if the people receiving it see something we don't? (They definitely do)
And if we never create an opportunity for them to share that perspective, we can't KNOW. So instead, marketers spend an ENORMOUS amount of time getting "better" at communicating something without ever discovering that our understanding of it was incomplete.
So, while it's all well and good to move our message, if we don't have a mechanism in place that allows US to move our understanding, we're still missing a piece of the puzzle.
How Disagreement Adds To Progress
Let's go back to the idea that disagreement is inevitable.
If I see something from my perspective, and you see something from yours, there will almost certainly be things we see differently.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean we'll disagree about everything. Sometimes our perspectives will simply add to one another. But sometimes those perspectives will challenge each other. Our assumptions won't match. Our interpretations will conflict. Or we'll see entirely different paths toward the same goal.
And when that happens, why are we so surprised?
And why do we so often interpret it as something that's getting in the way of progress?
Let's use an F1 team as an example.
Drivers feel what's happening in the car. Teams of engineers watch performance on every single component. Other team members are watching the weather for temperature or precipitation insights. Together, everyone sees more.
But what happens when the driver's experience doesn't match what the engineers are seeing in the data? Well, now they have something to explore. And if they're willing to get curious about WHY those perspectives don't match, they might discover something that neither side could have identified independently.
Which could lead to better answers. And better performance.
So What Actually Creates Momentum?
It's the thing I'm always coming back to. Because if we associate agreement with forward movement, but agreement is actually just one point along the timeline, what happens when we start paying attention to everything that makes that agreement possible?
And, at the same time, we probably have a bunch of evidence that shows us that when we are actively in the process of disagreement, we can explore a lot and get nowhere.
But what about those moments of what I'll call productive disagreement?
Perhaps the difference is whether we're using the disagreement to defend what we already believe, or to discover something we don't yet understand.
Those moments when someone discovers something they didn't know before. When someone identifies an assumption that needs to be tested. When one team member realizes they're not actually trying to solve the same problem. Or when someone discovers a new possibility that neither party had considered when the conversation began.
The movement in THOSE types of disagreements can lead us somewhere new. Somewhere that makes a decision possible. Or an experiment worth trying. Or even a completely different question worth exploring.
And sometimes, that movement leads us to agreement.
But perhaps agreement isn't even required for us to keep moving.
I See Something. We See More.
Let me welcome you back to the concept of Collective Contribution; the entire premise of which is that each of us has something unique to contribute. And when we bring those unique contributions together around something meaningful, we have the potential to create more than any one of us could create independently.
And in so doing, assuming our contributions are genuinely unique (which they are), then we can EXPECT them to be different. Which in turn means we can EXPECT there will be times when they don't immediately fit together...
And it's precisely those differences that can help us discover what might be worth doing together. Because "I see something. WE see more." doesn't mean that I share what I see, you agree with me, and now we both see the same thing.
It means I see something. And you see something different. And if we're both willing to explore what the other person sees, we might discover something that wasn't visible to either of us before.
So, while disagreement doesn't automatically create momentum, our willingness to explore it just might 😉
Agreement vs. Disagreement: The Ultimate Battle?
If you haven't picked up what I'm putting down yet, I don't actually think the answer is as simple as choosing disagreement over agreement. Or agreement over disagreement. But rather that they both have an important role to play as we move along the timeline of momentum.
Disagreement helps us discover what we're missing. It can challenge assumptions, introduce new information, and expand our understanding of what's possible. It can allow us to diverge into new opportunities that would have otherwise stayed hidden.
Agreement helps us commit to action. It can create clarity around a shared goal. It can allow people to coordinate their contributions and move something forward together. It can allow us to converge powerfully to move into empowered doing.
And even after an empowered decision, there are bound to be additional rounds of disagreement along the path of execution.
So, perhaps, instead of treating agreement as the goal of any conversation, we simply treat it as one of the things that emerges along the way.
And if that's true, it changes how we might approach all kinds of interactions.
In marketing, instead of only asking how we can get people to understand our message, we could ask what we might learn from how they respond.
In sales, instead of treating objections as barriers to overcome, we could explore what those objections tell us about the reality our potential customers are experiencing.
In leadership, instead of assuming alignment means everyone sees things the same way, we could create space for different perspectives to improve our decisions.
In collaboration, instead of rushing toward agreement, we could become more curious about the things we don't yet understand.
Because the point of bringing different people together isn't to make everyone think the same way. It's to create something more valuable from what each of us uniquely contributes.
It's addition. And sometimes, when we're willing to explore what happens between our different contributions, we create something that none of us originally brought to the table.
Something that didn't exist before.
But only if we design it to be. 💞
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it: the next time someone disagrees with you, instead of treating it as an obstacle to getting where you're going, get curious about what their perspective might help you see.
Because if we're truly invested in Collective Contribution, the most important question isn't whether we agree. It's whether we're willing to see more together than we could see apart.
And what we might be able to move forward because of it ✨
