Disagreeing Without Doing Damage
“Strong relationships require both care and candor.” – Kim Scott, author
How do you navigate disagreements with colleagues, whether professional or personal? In last week's blog, we explored the challenges of talking about difficult things with colleagues. This week, we take a closer look at disagreement as one important subset of those challenging conversations, and why how we disagree matters as much as what we disagree about.
The fact is, in our work, disagreement is inevitable. We bring different training, lived experiences, values, and interpretations of evidence into shared spaces. In just one day this week, I’ve disagreed with colleagues over a patient’s care, a clinical policy, and a leadership action. With patients, we anticipate differences and develop skills in navigating them. With colleagues, however, disagreement can feel personal, threatening, or destabilizing, and has the potential to not only undermine relationships, but also our professional reputation.
Disagreement itself is not the problem. How we hold it is. When disagreement turns disagreeable, fear has usually slipped quietly into the room; fear of being dismissed, misunderstood, labeled, or excluded. I’ve felt this myself, even in conversations with colleagues I respect. A disagreement surfaced, voices stayed polite, but internally I felt unheard. Perhaps they did as well. I noticed my body tighten and my thinking narrow. At times I shifted into defense, assembling arguments; at other times I withdrew, saying less than I meant. The conversation ended, but the tension lingered. While it was a very human response, it did not represent my best professional self.
Looking back, I can see how approaching those moments differently, perhaps with a reframe, might have changed the outcome. Just as we do with patients, we can begin by naming purpose: “I care about our working relationship and about getting this right.” We can anchor ourselves in mutual commitments, to patient care, team function, or learning, before naming where views diverge. Staying close to observable experience (“What I’m noticing…” rather than “What you always do…”) helps keep conversations grounded and reduces unnecessary escalation.
Curiosity is the cornerstone skill in these moments. I’ve learned that conversations often shift when we ask, “Can you help me understand how you arrived at that view?” rather than “How can I convince you I’m right?” Understanding does not require agreement. In fact, clarity often increases respect, even when positions remain different. Slowing the pace, tolerating pauses, and noticing our own physiological cues, such as a tight chest, racing thoughts, or the urge to interrupt, can help us stay regulated enough to remain present rather than reactive.
This week, consider reflecting with your PeerRx partner on two questions: How do I typically show up when I disagree with colleagues? And what helps (or could help) me stay both grounded and present in those moments? You might experiment with one small practice: naming shared purpose, asking a genuinely curious question, or pausing before responding when emotions rise. Disagreeing without being disagreeable isn’t about being nice or neutral; it’s about being brave enough to stay relational while also sharing your truth. Our teams, our patients, and our own integrity benefit when we learn to do both. Together, let’s keep practicing until we more consistently get this right.