Last week’s explosive meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a stark reminder of the importance of a leader’s ability to constructively engage with diverse and opposing opinions. And this capacity isn’t just a political necessity—it is also crucial in business.
Most organizations today operate across geographical and cultural boundaries—with their employees, suppliers, partners and customers. In this complex environment, no one perspective can hold all the answers or propose that their truth is the only truth. Leaders who have the courage and confidence to actively seek out, embrace and leverage different viewpoints are much better equipped to navigate the complex challenges they face. It supports to forge stronger collaborations, align more easily on common goals and build strategic partnerships to successfully navigate change inside and outside their organizations.
Blindsided: the cost of believing you’re always right
Whether we lead teams or not, it serves us all well to consider the following questions: when was the last time you truly listened – with curiosity and without judging – to an opinion that challenged your own? And how could letting go of being right connect you to something far more meaningful than winning an argument?
The truth is, when we’re convinced that only our viewpoint is right, we create blind spots that can have serious consequences. When we block perspectives that challenge our own, we don’t just miss information—we miss entire realities! And this isn’t just a personal limitation; it echos through our teams and organizations.
Not being able to deal with the discomfort of engaging with dissenting views will lead to:
- Groupthink: teams that suppress dissenting opinions will make poorer decisions due to a lack of diverse input.
- Operating in silos: when leaders fail to engage different perspectives, departments may operate in “us-versus-them” isolation, which hinders growth, collaboration, efficiency and ultimately innovation.
- Missed opportunities: not seeking out alternative viewpoints can result in missed innovations, as valuable insights from various stakeholders are ignored.
- Erosion of trust and engagement: employees and partners who feel their perspectives are dismissed will become disengaged, reducing morale and productivity.
- Resistance to change: Leaders who impose decisions without sufficiently engaging others’ perspectives may face stronger resistance during times of transformation.
The power of constructive disagreement: why the voices that irritate you most may matter most
At the heart of constructive disagreement is the recognition that no single person holds a monopoly on the truth. Constructive disagreement requires all those involved in the conversation to have a mindset of curiosity, humility, and respect for the other’s opinion.
Effective leaders understand that seeking out different perspectives—particularly those that challenge their own—are not threats but opportunities for deeper insight and better decision-making. And let’s be honest: the inability to engage with opposing views isn’t a sign of strength—it’s a sign of insecurity. Leaders who shut down dissent or alternative viewpoints may feel powerful in the moment, but in reality, they’re exposing a fragile ego that prioritizes self-preservation over a curiosity to find the best possible answer.
In my experience coaching leadership teams, embedding this skill into an organization is critical to its long-term success. But it requires intentionality, commitment and practice. Here’s how organizations can cultivate it:
Set the tone from the top
- Lead by example: role-model humility and curiosity over certainty, acknowledge when you don’t have all the answers.
- Build the courage to challenge your own assumptions and invite dissenting opinions.
- Learn to hold the tension and discomfort of divergent views in a conversation instead of trying to resolve differences quickly.
- Publicly recognize individuals who voice constructive dissent, reinforcing the value of diverse input.
- Train for conflict resolution to equip leaders and people managers with the skills to mine for conflict and navigate disagreements productively.
Create an environment of psychological safety
- Explicitly communicate that different opinions are welcome and valuable.
- Establish ground rules for dialogue (e.g., listening without interrupting, asking questions before offering opinions).
- Reinforce that constructive disagreement is a sign of a healthy team, not a threat to its unity.
Address power dynamics
- Name the implicit power structures that could be silencing certain voices.
- Encourage those with more power to speak last.
- Proactively seek out perspectives from underrepresented voices or dissenting opinions.
- Guard against the meeting after the meeting—where side conversations undermine the openness of the initial dialogue and key decisions are revisited behind closed doors or through private discussions with favored voices.
Don’t rush to consensus
- Practice active listening by reflecting back what you hear without adding your personal opinion.
- Resist the urge to quickly align the group around the dominant view: insights and solutions emerge when diverse perspectives are invited into the conversation, not when one dominant voice prevails.
- Ask questions that expand thinking like: What might we be missing? What other perspectives could help us see this situation more fully?Who haven’t we heard from yet?
Embed organizational practices that build constructive disagreement skills
- Train leaders and managers in active listening skills and conflict mining, facilitation and resolution skills.
- Include diverse perspective-seeking as part of leadership competency models.
- Build feedback loops that reward openness and curiosity rather than just alignment.
- Recognize and reward those that challenge the status quo.
- Address favoritism by ensuring equal access to decision-makers and creating transparent decision-making processes.
True leaders understand that the best solutions don’t come from their isolated brilliance but from the friction of diverse perspectives.
So the question isn’t whether leaders can afford to invite dissent; it’s whether they can afford not to.
