BookYol
tren

Concept

Disagree and commit

Disagree and commit, the third layer of Lencioni's pyramid and a rule Andrew Grove used at Intel, means commitment is clarity and closure rather than consensus: after the full argument the accountable person decides, and everyone, including those who argued the other way, commits as if the decision were their own.

Teams that wait for everyone to agree either never decide or decide so vaguely that each person leaves with a different version. The alternative depends on the layer below: people who were genuinely heard can support a decision they lost, because they know their objection was weighed rather than ignored. Commitment then has a form. At the end of every meeting the decisions are said aloud, with who does what by when, and the same words go to the people who were not in the room; Lencioni calls this cascading. A meeting that ends without that summary produced opinions, and the corridor will finish it. The manager's question at the close, can everyone commit to this, including those who wanted the other way, is the moment the honest no gets asked and answered in the room instead of expressed later by not doing the work.

A real-life example

Two engineers who lost an argument about cutting a feature keep building it quietly, and the decision is half-reversed within a fortnight. Their manager adds a closing ritual: decisions read aloud, owners named, and the question whether everyone can commit. One says no; they talk for five minutes, he commits, and the feature stays cut.

How to use it

  1. 1End every meeting by reading the decisions aloud with owners and dates.
  2. 2Ask whether anyone cannot commit, and deal with the no in the room.
  3. 3Send the same list in writing within the hour, including to people who were absent.