<\/p>\n
ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard.<\/p>\n
ADI IGNATIUS: And I\u2019m Adi Ignatius, and this is the HBR IdeaCast.<\/em><\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Adi, how do you like to handle disagreement at work?<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: I don\u2019t think I handle it very well. I\u2019m very conflict avoidant. So I do an end run around disagreement and try to resolve the issue in some other way.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: That\u2019s the opposite of me. I think that I\u2019m sort of \u2013 it\u2019s not that I welcome disagreement, but I don\u2019t mind it. And so if I have an opinion, even if I know it might ruffle some feathers, I express it. I sometimes worry it\u2019s going to get me fired, but it hasn\u2019t yet.<\/p>\n The point is, we know that conflict and debate is good for teams and organizations, so it\u2019s useful for all of us to figure out how to embrace conflict in your case and then do it in a nicer way in mine. And disagreeing is really, really hard. In a workplace, there are different power dynamics, there are different relationships. So we wanted to talk to today\u2019s guest because she has studied disagreement in depth and she has some practical advice about how to do it better, meaning better outcomes for ourselves, for the person we\u2019re disagreeing with, and for our organization.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: I like that, just on its face, particularly in this moment when we are so polarized where we so quickly demonize people who don\u2019t agree with us. So this seems like a good topic.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yes. Our guest today is Julia Minson. She\u2019s a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. She\u2019s coauthor of the HBR article, A Smarter Way to Disagree and has a new book out called How to Disagree Better. And she spoke with me about the importance of observable behavior, curiosity, and finding common ground, plus a lot more. Here\u2019s our conversation.<\/p>\n So why do teams and organizations need to do a better job of disagreeing?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Well, I mean, disagreement is such a crucial skill for any organization. The reason we bring people together into teams is because we want their opinions. If I didn\u2019t want another person to express their views, why am I paying for their presence in the room? There\u2019s a great quote by William Wrigley Jr., Like the Wrigley Field and the Wrigley Chewing Gum guy who said, \u201cWhen two men in business always agree, one of them is unnecessary.\u201d<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And so what do teams normally get wrong? Is it they\u2019re not disagreeing enough or they\u2019re disagreeing in unhealthy ways?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So I mean, honestly, I think it\u2019s both because it\u2019s a system. So when we don\u2019t feel like our ideas are going to be received with appreciation, with receptiveness, we don\u2019t want to speak up. We can advise leaders and team members all day long about how disagreement is important, but it\u2019s important in these fairly abstract ways. It\u2019ll be good for the company, it\u2019ll be good for the team, but the cost to me as an individual, if I disagree with my boss or if I disagree with my team member, is very immediate and very real. And so people are always making this trade-off between, do I want to speak up for the good of the future and have a difficult and unpleasant and risky conversation right now? So there\u2019s a real tension there.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. I imagine that personality differences and cultural differences also come into pretty significant play here also.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Yeah. So I think there\u2019s always kind of different factors that predict how well we are at any skill. And so disagreement is like musical ability, some people are just better at it than other people, but all of us can get a lot better with a little bit of training and attention to how we\u2019re doing it.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Do you encourage the leaders that you work with to embrace disagreement, to sort of encourage it among their team members?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So what I really work on with leaders is a skillset that I call receptiveness to opposing views. And it\u2019s basically engaging in any disagreement in a way that shows the other person that you\u2019re thoughtfully considering their perspective. Because I can tell you that you should disagree with me all day long, but if you work for me, you\u2019re going to say, \u201cWell, does she really mean it? Am I going to get ostracized? Am I going to get kicked off this project?\u201d So I have to show with my behavior that I really mean it. And the way I show it is by showing you that I\u2019m really thinking about what you\u2019re bringing to the table and I\u2019m really engaging with it instead of just saying, \u201cOh, you should disagree because disagreement is good for us.\u201d<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah, given that most of us probably do have a distaste for disagreement, particularly in workplace settings and particularly in times that feel divisive and so you don\u2019t want to bring that divisiveness to the office, what\u2019s the first step in just sort of overcoming that hurdle as a leader yourself? Even before you start encouraging it on your team, how do you get into the mode of, okay, disagreement is healthy and I actually want it here?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So leaders have a tremendous amount of agency and leverage by modeling the type of behavior that they want to see. So if I can change my own behavior to demonstrate receptiveness to opposing perspectives, then my team members see it. And it\u2019s really useful to model the behavior we want to see in very public settings because if I\u2019m having a one-on-one conversation, then I have shown one person that I\u2019m receptive to their views. If I\u2019m having a regular team check-in, then every Tuesday I\u2019m showing 10 people that I\u2019m receptive to their views. And so as I start showing and behaving in the way that I want other people to behave, then I am telegraphing to the world, this is the type of thing that\u2019s welcome here and this is the values that we have as an organization.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. So I definitely want to dig into how you demonstrate receptiveness to others\u2019 views and opinions and disagreement. But first, let me just ask you, there are leaders who say, \u201cYes, I love disagreement,\u201d but what are the biggest mistakes that they make in modeling disagreement to others? What are the problems that you see out there in the world?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So I think people who say that they love disagreement, they probably do love disagreement, but they are not recognizing that they\u2019re a minority. Most people don\u2019t love disagreement, that\u2019s one difference. The other thing is that if you\u2019re a leader who loves disagreement, you might be forgetting about the status differences that give people different opportunities to act on the way they prefer to act.<\/p>\n So a colleague of mine and I were doing a training in a hospital system a couple months ago. That hospital system had one of these leaders that loves disagreement. And then when we got there and were talking to some of the other employees, fairly senior people, they basically said, \u201cLook, when the executive team disagrees, it sounds like mom and dad fighting.\u201d And so the people who were in the position of power felt very comfortable with it, but everybody looking on didn\u2019t feel nearly as great about it. So that appreciating the fact that other people have different circumstances than you do and different preferences than you do, I think is a really useful thing to do.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And what are some other ways that you think leaders subconsciously suppress disagreement while thinking that they\u2019re doing a good job of embracing conflict and embracing viewpoints?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So I think a really sort of high level upstream way that we suppress disagreement is by hiring people that we agree with. And it\u2019s a very funny thing because of course you should hire people you agree with because those are the smart people because they agree with you, right?<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Right. Maybe they\u2019re the smart people.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Right. Right. I work at a school of public policy and so a lot of our students manage large public organizations and many of them are very ideology driven. They went into public service because they have a mission. And so they will say things to me like, \u201cWell, Julia, I work at an environmental nonprofit, should I be hiring people who don\u2019t care about the environment?\u201d I\u2019m like, \u201cYeah, you should.\u201d Because otherwise, everybody at your organization is sort of drinking the same Kool-Aid. And that I think feels quite counterintuitive to folks, but by the time you have a team in place that feels really comfortable, you might have a problem.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. Yeah. So your research has identified reasons why most of us are pretty bad at understanding other people\u2019s perspectives. So just outline what you\u2019ve found about that.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Sure. So a lot of my work is grounded in an old social psychology theory called naive realism. And the idea behind naive realism is that people think that they get it. They naively believe that their perceptions are a reflection of an objective reality. I see the world as it is. I am a smart, reasonable, good person, basically, I\u2019m with the program. And that makes sense because how else could you get through the world? The problem with naive realism is that when we encounter disagreement, we have to say, \u201cWell, if I\u2019m a smart, reasonable person who basically gets it, why are we disagreeing?\u201d And the obvious answer to that question is that the other person doesn\u2019t get it. And because they don\u2019t get it, I\u2019m going to fix them.<\/p>\n And of course, fixing then takes different forms. So sometimes you say, \u201cWell, let me tell you how it really is. Let me show you the report, let me show you the data, let me give you the customer feedback, and then you will see that I\u2019m right and you\u2019re wrong.\u201d And that often doesn\u2019t fly because of course the other person, they also think that they get it and they\u2019ve seen the data and they\u2019ve interpreted the data in a different way and they have years of experience that dictate their understanding of the situation.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And they prioritize different things.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: They prioritize different things. Exactly, exactly. And so when just sort of telling people facts doesn\u2019t work, you jump to a couple other conclusions that are even more nefarious, which is, \u201cWell, maybe they\u2019re not that smart. They went to the lesser business school, and so we can forgive them for not being very good at understanding complex relationships,\u201d or even worse, \u201cThey are biased. They don\u2019t want to get it. If they admit that I\u2019m right, it will look bad for them, their budget will get cut or their staff will get cut, or they will have to recognize that I\u2019m a better fit for this leadership position.\u201d And so once you tell that story to yourself inside your head, it\u2019s very hard to have a respectful conversation between adults.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. And at the same time, we also don\u2019t see how they are perceiving us, which is with all those same judgments, right?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Right. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. That\u2019s Exactly Right.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So one of the main points of your book and your article is that to disagree better, you need to focus on not your mindset or your emotions, but on your behaviors. We recently did a podcast with Amer Kaissi of Trinity University who talked about the importance of positive intent mindset. Why do you think that narrowing down on the behaviors rather than sort of what you\u2019re thinking and feeling ahead of time is most important?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Because honestly, like a very practical way, I am focusing on ROI. So I think that if we all had positive intentions and kind of warmer evaluations of our counterparts and had better emotional self-control, the world would be a better place. It\u2019s just that\u2019s really, really hard work and it takes a very long time. And there\u2019s something that gets in the way, which is interpersonal perceptions. So if I think the kindest, nicest, best intention things towards you, there\u2019s still two things that have to happen for that to impact our interaction. One is I have to be able to express all that and I have to be able to express it consistently and with signals that you understand. And then you have to interpret the signal.<\/p>\n And so at every step along that chain, we lose information and we misinterpret each other. So what often happens is I prepare for a conversation that I expect to be difficult by saying, \u201cI\u2019m going to be really patient and I\u2019m going to be curious and I\u2019m going to exercise intellectual humility and I\u2019m going to show empathy.\u201d And then I walk into the conversation, the person starts talking and half of my intentions are out the door because I\u2019m still trying, but I am not a Buddhist monk, so I don\u2019t have amazing control over my emotions. I just have medium decent control. And then I try to show my empathy and I try to show my curiosity, but I might accidentally ask a snarky question. I didn\u2019t intend it to be snarky, but it came out to be snarky. And then you are reading all of this, and of course this is a disagreement. So you have negative expectations about me. And so the question that I asked that was kind of snarky that wasn\u2019t intended to be snarky comes across as super snarky to you.<\/p>\n And so I\u2019m doing all this work in my brain, but what you\u2019re perceiving is not good. And so if that\u2019s the problem that we\u2019re trying to solve, then we need to get closer in the production chain to the thing that we want, which is the perceiver to experience us as being empathetic and curious and engaged with their perspective, and so that\u2019s behavior.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. Now this does presume that the goal of the person in the disagreement is to come to a common happy place as opposed to just win the argument. So what do you say to people who are like, \u201cWell, no, I actually want to win. So why should I approach things that way?\u201d<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Yeah. Okay, I\u2019m so glad you brought up goals because it\u2019s either my second favorite topic or it\u2019s tied with my favorite topic. The goal of winning an argument is generally unrealistic. When you are imagining your winning argument and the other person saying, \u201cOh, I\u2019m sorry, Julia, you were right. I\u2019m wrong. You are so smart.\u201d It\u2019s never going to happen.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: My husband\u2019s really going to enjoy this conversation, I have to tell you. Okay, go ahead.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So because in any argument, again, the math is that both people are living that fantasy. So at best, your odds are 50\/50, which are not great odds, but in reality, most conversations, if a person feels like they\u2019re being argued into a corner, they\u2019re just going to walk away. They\u2019re going to roll their eyes and they\u2019re going to say, \u201cI don\u2019t need this.\u201d<\/p>\n And I think that\u2019s something we often forget in conversations, it\u2019s an opt-in voluntary activity. And so if the other person doesn\u2019t like how you\u2019re treating them, the easiest thing for them to do is to just walk away. Probably the most familiar example of all of that is teenagers, but there are a lot of settings, so for example, in healthcare. If you\u2019re a healthcare provider and you\u2019re trying to persuade a patient to do something they don\u2019t want to do, get a vaccine or take their blood pressure medications or get a particular set of tests, if they don\u2019t want to do it, they will leave your office and they will just never show up again. And so that\u2019s the real risk. And so I think we need to be very, very careful and thoughtful about what our goals are, how realistic they are, and what they might lead to inadvertently.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. And in a workplace setting, you might not walk away, you might see whoever has less power in that situation. I mean, you would see a client walk away, but whoever has less power would perhaps agree with you and then walk away feeling hugely resentful, maybe talk about you behind your back, say you\u2019re a terrible boss, and then eventually leave, which is costly to the organization.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Right, exactly. Exactly.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So when we talk about behavior change, what exactly do you want people to do?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So the kinds of behaviors we care about are behaviors that are visible and interpretable. So there\u2019s all kinds of behaviors I could be doing that you don\u2019t notice or you can\u2019t interpret correctly. And it turns out that the thing that is the most visible and the most interpretable in a disagreement is words. So this is another place where a lot of my research sort of diverges from popular wisdom, which is that I think body language is not the thing we should be focusing on because body language is very easy to misinterpret.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Or not even notice.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Or not even notice, right? Because again, we are not trained actors, so our nonverbal signals are really, really messy. Language is also easy to misinterpret, but we are far more consistent at interpreting each other\u2019s language than we are at interpreting nonverbal behavior. So if we want to clearly communicate engagement with opposing views, we need to use our words.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And do we need to get better at both articulating our own views as well as soliciting the opinions of others?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: What tends to happen is that people are very, very focused on articulating their own views and they just don\u2019t spend enough time soliciting and really engaging with the opinions of others. What I often notice in courses and workshops is that as soon as I ask people to engage with other perspectives, they start playing like amateur therapist. And so then they ask questions and they never express their own views. They go completely to the opposite extreme, which is unrealistic in real life because in real life, at some point you need to say what you believe. So I think one of the ideas that I really want to get across to folks is that you can do both. You can express your beliefs and you can engage with the ideas of other people and those two things are not at odds with each other, you should be able to do both an equal measure.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. And so how do you start training people to pay more attention to their linguistic behavior, to what they say?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Pay attention to your linguistic behavior, being aware of that is step one. And then thinking about what are you trying to do? What are you trying to accomplish? What I always tell people is that a constructive disagreement is a disagreement that leads the two parties to want to talk to each other again. It\u2019s not reaching agreement, it\u2019s not building consensus, it\u2019s not finding a negotiated compromise, it\u2019s, can we disagree, but in a way that makes you want to talk to me and makes me want to talk to you at some point in the future. And so if that\u2019s the goal, what are the words we use?<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: I\u2019d love to walk through just a few role play scenarios here so our listeners and viewers just get an idea of what language you\u2019re actually talking about. So say I\u2019m a middle manager who disagrees with my executive level boss on a decision. How should I approach that?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So the first thing I would do, and I suspect it\u2019s going to be true for every role play you put in front of me, is try to understand the other person\u2019s perspective better. People often jump into persuasion mode. If I explain to them how things really are, then they will recognize the correctness of my view. And maybe that\u2019s true, but you have no idea where they\u2019re coming from and you\u2019re just as likely to frankly make a fool of yourself because you\u2019re arguing without insight about the other person\u2019s perspective. So I would start with really exploring the other person\u2019s view, which takes time and usually takes more time than we expected to, but it really sort of protects you from making your own argument with kind of no awareness of the landmines.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. So what language specifically would I use? Again, if I\u2019m a subordinate talking to a boss.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So I would say something like, \u201cI\u2019m really glad we\u2019re having this conversation. I\u2019d like to understand more about your perspective.\u201d So let\u2019s say we\u2019re talking about a product launch and let\u2019s say the boss thinks that the product can be launched sooner and I think we need more time.<\/p>\n I might say, \u201cHelp me understand why it\u2019s important to launch it on this particular timeline. We as the team have some concerns about the timeline, but you have been doing this for a long time and I\u2019d like to hear your vision for how this can get accomplished.\u201d And you try to ask follow-up questions that again, show curiosity and show your desire to learn about the other person\u2019s perspective because their big risk is that they\u2019re going to say something you don\u2019t agree with, then you\u2019re going to start arguing. You went in being, \u201cOh, I\u2019m going to learn and I\u2019m going to understand,\u201d but then as soon as the other person says one thing, you start arguing, you have to be more patient.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: That\u2019s really hard though. So if my trigger is the boss saying, \u201cWell, why wouldn\u2019t you be able to get that done in a week\u2019s time,\u201d and they\u2019re not respecting my opinion, how do I disagree better with them when they\u2019re not disagreeing better with me?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: It takes quite a lot of self-control. I absolutely agree with you there. It takes self-control and it takes time. I think about the goal of modeling receptiveness as sort of a north star. The north star is supposed to be your guiding principle that you don\u2019t get distracted from. And what often happens in conversation is I go in with that guiding principle and somebody says, \u201cWell, why can\u2019t you get it done in a week?\u201d<\/p>\n And I get distracted by that feeling of, oh, I\u2019m being disrespected or let me tell you why we can\u2019t get this done in a week. And so you really have to sort of exert some self-mastery to stick to the goal and say, \u201cWell, I have some concerns, but I would like to hear why it\u2019s so important to get this done in a week. What is at stake for the team, for you, for the organization? Maybe we can figure something out, but let\u2019s discuss where we\u2019re coming from and what our priorities are.\u201d So don\u2019t take the bait, I guess is what I\u2019m saying.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So I suspect that the scripts will all be the same for other scenarios, but just if you\u2019re dealing with a peer or an employee on your team, it should all be handled in the same way?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Yes, although here\u2019s how status plays into it. In some sense, the boss scenario, you have the least ability to just power your way through because in the end the boss is still the boss. So trying to understand and trying to really make that person feel like you\u2019re paying attention to their requests is a more sure way to get your way when you are the lower status person. If you\u2019re the higher status person, you can just shove your way through, but then the risk is that you\u2019re now back to modeling the negative behavior that you don\u2019t want to take hold on your team and you have just told the lower status person, \u201cThere\u2019s no point disagreeing with me because I won\u2019t listen anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And then they might treat their colleagues or their subordinates that way.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Right. Or next time they observe something that\u2019s potentially catastrophic, they don\u2019t bring it to you because there was no point.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So when you\u2019re training people to do better at this, what does it look like? Do they do role plays? Do they memorize scripts? How does it work?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Yeah. So what we do in workshops, we talk a little bit about psychological theory, naive realism, the importance of expressing your desire to learn. And then we actually pair people up to actually disagree on an opinion they hold dear, which is hard because first you have to find out what people truly believe.<\/p>\n What we have developed is a long list of issues that people can disagree about. And on that list are hot button political issues. On that list are personal decisions like, should a person have children to have a happy and fulfilling life? On that list are managerial and leadership decisions, can you fire an employee for what they said on social media? And we ask participants to give us their views and then we match them with somebody they actually disagree with on a topic that\u2019s important. And then we put them through rounds of practice with the skills we give them to really sort of try it on.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: When you\u2019ve worked with leaders to do this, what improvements have you seen in terms of how people perceive them, how their teams operate, even performance?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So we\u2019ve actually done a lot of experiments where we look at how leaders are perceived who are more receptive. And it\u2019s a very interesting question because a lot of leaders are concerned, if I\u2019m receptive to opposing perspectives, won\u2019t people think that I\u2019m uncertain? Won\u2019t people think that I\u2019m weak, that I don\u2019t have the courage of my convictions? And what we find very consistently is that receptive leaders are seen as better leaders because people want to feel heard. And even if I am giving air time to an opinion you disagree with, I am coming across as a more thoughtful person. I\u2019m coming across as a better leader, even though I am talking to somebody you might not want me to talk to.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. And then what about organization-wide? If a company would implement this, every leader would model the right behavior, there might be training. What sorts of improvements would you expect to see?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So I would expect people, first of all, to just be happier at work, which matters because so much of our mental distress comes from conflicts we\u2019ve had that we worry about having handled poorly or conflicts we anticipate. And if you know that you have a toolkit for handling disagreement effectively, it just reduces all of that sort of mental angst. I would expect people to make better decisions because more voices are speaking up and every fork in the road is really examined more carefully and more vocally. I would expect fewer disasters because when people speak up, they\u2019re more likely to say, \u201cHey, here\u2019s a risk of this idea. Maybe we should do it a different way.\u201d So I think there\u2019s a tremendous amount of potential with honestly very little downside.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And is there a person that you\u2019ve worked with or seen in your own life \u2026 Because I think a lot of the pushback on this might just be like, \u201cThat\u2019s just not how I behave.\u201d So is there a person who you\u2019ve seen just dramatically change the way they manage disagreement, like going from a yeller to a questioner? Is there a good example you have?<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Can I say myself?<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yes, please. Yeah.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: So I have to tell you, so I am actually, I\u2019m a first generation immigrant from Russia. And so I come from a culture of people who are very, very direct. I come from a family that\u2019s very, very direct. I will tell you how to live because I love you and it\u2019s good for you.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: I identify with that.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Right. So a lot of people at Harvard do.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: And what I have found is that it leads other people to shut down. It doesn\u2019t matter how right I am. I\u2019m a very smart person, I\u2019m right a lot. But when the other person can just walk away from the conversation or can just sort of sit there silently waiting for me to finish the rant, I know I\u2019m not getting the best out of them. I\u2019m not getting the full power of their intellect and their ideas.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And it\u2019s important to say that your intentions are good.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Yes.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: You want what\u2019s best for that other person.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Exactly.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m sure.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Exactly.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: But saying it directly to them isn\u2019t always the way to make it work.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: And it turns out people don\u2019t like to be fixed. And so it\u2019s been sort of a real journey from my teenage self that had a very loud opinion about everything to my probably much more correct and accurate and smarter self, who is now ironically much quieter. I know a lot more, but I say a lot less.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Wonderful, Julia. Well, it\u2019s been such a pleasure talking with you today and I will definitely learn from the book and the article and this conversation. Thank you so much.<\/p>\n JULIA MINSON: Thank you, this was wonderful.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: That\u2019s Julia Minson, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, coauthor of the HBR article, A Smarter Way to Disagree, and author of the new book, How to Disagree Better. Next week, Adi will dive into sustainability strategies that put customers first.<\/p>\n If you found this episode helpful, share it with a colleague and be sure to subscribe and rate IdeaCast<\/em> in Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to help leaders move the world forward, please consider subscribing to Harvard Business Review. You\u2019ll get access to the HBR mobile app, the weekly exclusive insider newsletter, and unlimited access to HBR online. Just head to hbr.org\/subscribe.<\/p>\n Thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Dooe, audio product manager, Ian Fox, and senior production specialist, Rob Eckhardt. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast.<\/em> We\u2019ll be back with a special episode on Thursday. I\u2019m Alison Beard.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n #Learn #Disagree #Effectively<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard. ADI IGNATIUS: And I\u2019m Adi Ignatius, and this is the HBR IdeaCast. ALISON BEARD: Adi, how do you like to handle disagreement at work? ADI IGNATIUS: I don\u2019t think I handle it very well. I\u2019m very conflict avoidant. So I do an end run around disagreement and try to resolve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3277,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-management"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n