Rule #3: Work Through Disagreements in a Positive Fashion

A sure way to tell whether a project team is healthy isn't by watching how they work when everyone agrees - It's by watching what happens when they don't.

Over the course of my career, I've never been part of a successful project where everyone saw every issue the same way. Nor would I expect to.

Complex projects bring together people with different responsibilities, different experiences, and different priorities. Engineering often sees one set of risks. Construction sees another. Operations has concerns that maintenance may not share. Oversight frequently asks questions others haven't considered. Procurement, scheduling, quality, and project controls all bring different perspectives to the table.

That's not a weakness, it's in fact exactly what should happen.

The value of a multidisciplinary team isn't that everyone thinks alike. It's that each discipline sees the project through a different lens.

The challenge isn't disagreement, it’s what happens next.

Early in my career, I assumed the best teams were the ones that had the fewest disagreements. Experience taught me otherwise.

The strongest teams I've worked with weren't conflict-free. They simply understood that disagreement was part of the decision-making process—not the end of it.

They challenged assumptions and they asked difficult questions. They respectfully pushed back when something didn't make sense, and most importantly, they stayed focused on solving the problem rather than defending a position.

I've also seen the opposite.

• • A technical discussion slowly becomes personal.
• • People become more interested in being right than getting it right.
• • Departments begin protecting their own interests instead of the project's interests.
• • Conversations become debates.
• • Debates become frustration.
• • Eventually, people stop speaking up altogether because they decide it simply isn't worth it.

And that's when projects become vulnerable. Not because disagreement exists, but because productive disagreement no longer does.

One lesson I've carried with me throughout my career is remarkably simple:

Attack the problem. Never the person.

Those six words have influenced countless meetings, field discussions, and leadership conversations throughout my career.

When people know they can respectfully challenge an idea without damaging a relationship, better decisions usually follow.

Questions get asked that otherwise wouldn't, assumptions get tested, blind spots become visible, and risks surface while they're still manageable.

That's exactly what healthy disagreement should accomplish. Unfortunately, many organizations unintentionally teach the opposite.

• • Someone raises a concern and is viewed as being negative.
• • Someone questions an assumption and is labeled "difficult."
• • Someone offers a different perspective and is treated as though they're slowing the project down.

It doesn't take long before people learn that staying quiet is easier than speaking up.

The organization hasn't eliminated disagreement. It's simply driven it underground.

The project doesn't care who wins the argument - It only experiences the consequences of the decision.

That's why I've always believed leaders have a responsibility to set the tone. They don't have to agree with every opinion, but they do need to create an environment where different opinions can be expressed professionally, challenged respectfully, and evaluated objectively.

The goal isn't to avoid disagreement, it’s to make disagreement productive.

I've found that the strongest leaders aren't threatened by different viewpoints. They're curious about them, and they understand that every challenge, every question, and every opposing perspective is another opportunity to improve the quality of a decision before execution begins.

Looking back, some of the best project meetings I've ever attended weren't the ones where everyone immediately agreed. - They were the meetings where people respectfully challenged one another, worked through the differences, and ultimately left with a stronger decision than anyone brought into the room.

That's the kind of culture I've always tried to build.

One where disagreement isn't feared - It's valued.

Because when people trust one another enough to disagree professionally, projects almost always benefit.

For me, that's always been Rule #3: Work Through Disagreements in a Positive Fashion.