I recently told a colleague that his emails were too long and that he seemed to rely on AI more than his own judgment. Looking back, whether those observations were fair isn’t really the point. The way I delivered them did little to improve our communication or our teamwork.
That experience forced me to reflect on something much bigger than one difficult conversation. It highlighted a skill that I believe is becoming increasingly rare, not only in emergency management, but across our society: the ability to disagree constructively.
The problem isn’t disagreement.
The problem is how we disagree.
Disagreement is essential to good decision making. It challenges assumptions, exposes blind spots, and helps teams avoid mistakes. In emergency management, where decisions can affect lives and communities, thoughtful disagreement is not a weakness. It is a necessity.
Yet too often, disagreements become personal, defensive, or simply disappear because people decide that speaking honestly is not worth the risk.
None of those outcomes serve us well.
You Don’t Always Have to Win
I learned this lesson early in my career.
A supervisor once observed me providing critical feedback to members of my team. Afterward, he shared something I have never forgotten.
My corrections were accurate.
My tone was respectful.
But he noticed that the sheer volume of corrective feedback was becoming overwhelming.
“You don’t always have to win,” he told me.
At the time, I understood the words. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the wisdom behind them.
Being right is not the same as being effective.
There are times when proving a point damages the relationship needed to solve the problem. There are times when the goal quietly shifts from finding the best answer to defending our answer. There are times when a conversation that begins with good intentions ends with people more committed to their positions than when they started.
The objective of disagreement should never be to win.
The objective should be to improve.
Why We Struggle
Most of us genuinely want to work well with other people. Yet productive disagreements remain surprisingly rare.
Part of the challenge is that we often confuse disagreement with conflict. We assume that questioning an idea is the same as questioning the person who offered it. It is not.
Other times, we become so invested in our own solution that we stop exploring alternatives. We begin defending our position rather than seeking the best possible outcome.
Our workplaces contribute as well. Deadlines shorten conversations. Email replaces dialogue. Hierarchies can discourage candor. Before long, people stop saying what they really think because speaking up seems unlikely to help.
Emergency management can be especially vulnerable to these challenges. We operate under pressure. We value decisiveness. We often must make difficult choices with incomplete information. Those realities are necessary, but they also make it even more important that teams create space for thoughtful disagreement before decisions are made.
The strongest teams are not the ones that avoid disagreement.
They are the ones that know how to use it.
When We Fail to Disagree Well, Everyone Pays the Price
The consequences of ineffective disagreement are rarely limited to the disagreement itself.
During one response, disagreement developed between emergency operations center leadership and field leadership about the number of meetings and reports required. Both sides had legitimate concerns. The field felt overwhelmed by processes that were taking time away from operational priorities. The EOC needed consistent information to coordinate response activities.
The problem was not that people disagreed.
The problem was that they never created an environment where the disagreement could be productively explored.
The EOC did not meaningfully revisit the process. The field responded by sending junior representatives to meetings and falling behind on reporting requirements.
At first glance, this may appear to be a simple communication problem. It was much more than that. The immediate consequence was frustration.
The second order effect was declining trust. Each side began to interpret the other’s actions through a negative lens. The field saw unnecessary bureaucracy. The EOC saw a lack of cooperation.
The third order effect was operational risk.
When relationships between coordinating organizations deteriorate, information sharing suffers. People become less willing to raise concerns. Small issues that could have been resolved early become larger problems during the moments when coordination matters most.
This is particularly dangerous in emergency management. The public does not experience our internal disagreements. They experience the consequences of them.
I have also seen organizations ask people to solve difficult problems without providing the authority, resources, or decision making ability necessary to succeed. When those concerns were raised, the response was essentially, “Figure it out.”
Again, the immediate issue appeared to be disagreement.
But the deeper issue was organizational design.
When people are given responsibility without authority, they eventually face an impossible choice: accept accountability for outcomes they cannot control, or raise concerns and risk being labeled as resistant.
Over time, these patterns affect morale. They increase frustration and burnout. They encourage talented people to disengage or leave. They create cultures where people protect themselves rather than solve problems.
As Patrick Lencioni describes in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, the absence of trust creates a fear of conflict. Without healthy conflict, teams struggle to commit to decisions, hold one another accountable, and ultimately focus on results.
Avoiding disagreement does not create harmony.
It often creates silence.
And silence is not the same thing as alignment.
What Better Looks Like
Improving disagreement requires more than telling people to “be respectful.” Respect is the foundation, but it is not the skill.
Constructive disagreement is a behavior that can be learned, practiced, and improved.
First, leaders must model it. People watch what happens when someone challenges a leader’s idea. If disagreement is met with defensiveness, people learn quickly to remain quiet. If thoughtful questions are welcomed, teams become more comfortable exploring difficult issues.
Second, teams should intentionally study effective disagreement. Read books such as Think Again, Crucial Conversations, The Fearless Organization, and The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Do not simply read them individually. Discuss them as teams. Identify behaviors that strengthen communication and behaviors that damage it.
Third, use examples. When a disagreement goes poorly, do not simply move on. Use it as a learning opportunity. Ask: What happened? Where did communication break down? What assumptions did we make? What could we have done differently?
The same applies to successful disagreements. Too often, we celebrate the outcome but fail to examine the process that produced it.
Fourth, create habits that encourage curiosity. Before defending a position, ask questions. Before criticizing a solution, seek to understand the reasoning behind it. Before concluding that someone is being difficult, consider whether they may be identifying a legitimate concern.
Simple questions can transform conversations:
“What am I missing?”
“What risks should we consider?”
“What evidence would change our thinking?”
Finally, remember the purpose of disagreement. The goal is not to prove who is right. The goal is to help the team become right.
Emergency management has spent decades teaching unified coordination. We should spend just as much time teaching constructive disagreement.
Coming Full Circle
Remember the colleague I criticized?
Recently, I asked our four person team to set aside time for a meeting with only one agenda item: not the issue we disagreed about, but how we communicate with one another. How we disagree. How we challenge ideas without damaging trust. How we become a stronger team because different perspectives are welcomed rather than feared.
We will not always agree.
That is not the objective.
The objective is to create an environment where disagreement sharpens our thinking instead of hardening our positions.
If we can do that, we will make better decisions, build stronger relationships, and ultimately serve our communities more effectively.
I’m working on it.
I hope our profession will too.
Resources for Further Learning
This column is not intended to be the destination. It is a starting point, a steppingstone, and perhaps an invitation to look deeper. Meaningful growth rarely comes from reading one article or adopting one new technique. It requires ongoing commitment through professional development, formal training, thoughtful reflection, and continued learning.
Too often, we define our professional development by the technical lane we occupy. Logisticians pursue logistics training. Planners sharpen planning skills. Human resources professionals focus on HR practices. Leaders study leadership. Those areas of expertise are essential, but every professional, regardless of role, benefits from developing the ability to communicate clearly, navigate disagreement, build trust, and work through competing perspectives.
The ability to disagree effectively is not a soft skill. It is an operational capability.
Whether responding to a crisis, managing a project, leading a team, or serving a community, professionals who can engage in productive disagreement are better equipped to solve problems and achieve shared goals.
Opportunities for growth:
- Think Again by Adam Grant
- Crucial Conversations by Grenny, Patterson, McMillan, Switzler, and Gregory
- The Fearless Organization by Amy C. Edmondson
- Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
- The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge
- The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni
Dan Stoneking is the Owner and Principal of Stoneking Strategic Communications, the Author of Crisis Communications and Emergency Management, the Founder and Vice President of the Emergency Management External Affairs Association, the Founder of Message Prism, and an Adjunct Professor in the Communications Department at West Chester University.