CHAPTER 1 Three Stories and a Why

In the hushed quiet of the evening, Jen picked up the phone. It was Alisha, her confidant, her ally, a woman who shared the same passion for literature, parenting, and undiscovered nooks of the world. They had met in a prestigious leadership program in their city, a chance meeting that had bloomed into an irreplaceable friendship. Their unique friendship grew to the highly critical thinking of critiquing independent films while consuming gourmet popcorn.

Alisha had recommended a film to Jen, a movie that she swore was a testament to cinematic excellence. She’d waited with bated breath for Jen’s review, confident that her friend would love the film as deeply as she did.

However, Alisha’s expectations came crashing down when she heard Jen’s words. The movie wasn’t great, Jen said. The storyline lacked coherence, and she struggled to see why Alisha would enjoy such a disorganized plot. Alisha felt a sting of insult, a rising defensiveness. Without thinking, she interrupted Jen, suggesting that her poor impression of the film was due to a bad day. She even lied, saying that four other friends adored the movie, and that it was highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes, though she hadn’t verified that herself.

Jen internalized this and remembered her childhood, when she was forced to comply and not given a chance to express her independent thoughts. Jen’s feelings were transported back to that little girl growing up in a household full of control and judgment. Jen snapped back, saying that even highly rated films could be disappointing. Jen wondered to herself why Alisha was taking this so seriously. After all, she thought, it was just a movie and didn’t warrant the type of response Alisha was giving her.

Alisha, her voice raised, accused Jen of missing the beginning of the movie, something Jen was known to do often. She just couldn’t believe that Jen had watched it entirely. If she had, Alisha was sure, Jen would’ve loved it. But Jen was firm—she had watched the entire film. However, Alisha refused to believe her.

Finally, with a forced calmness, Alisha—wanting to avoid further conflict at all costs due to her exhaustion from a marriage suffocated with it—suggested that they agree to disagree. But the damage had been done, as they both recalled every past perceived slight the other person uttered. The words left unsaid hung heavily between them, spoiling the friendship that had blossomed over shared interests, views, and (don’t forget) gourmet popcorn. The argument may have been trivial on the surface to the outsider, but it was a chasm that neither of them chose to cross because of a pride clutched so tight it was bursting at the seams. As they continued their friendship in a strained manner, they both held onto the shadows of this argument. It was a small disagreement that left a significant dent, forever altering the fabric of their friendship.

Mike and Henrietta were far more than just co-workers—they were a dynamic duo, a pair of seasoned professionals who worked together seamlessly. Their comradeship had been forged through the crucible of countless projects, each more challenging than the last. The shared late nights, the early mornings, and even the moments of frustration that came with the territory of their demanding work, had formed an unspoken bond between them. They had experienced the organization’s team-building retreats, coming out stronger after every trust fall and group discussion (even that one time Mike failed to catch Henrietta . . . ouch).

Their dynamic was an exemplary one—a dance of ideas and solutions that moved in sync, with each partner respecting and appreciating the other’s perspective. Therefore, Henrietta’s surprise was profound when she found out that Mike had disagreed with her latest strategic proposal, a project that was close to her heart, to expand their organization’s societal impact.

The news had come to her through the office grapevine, whispers of discontent murmuring through the corridors of their shared workspace. Her first reaction was disbelief, quickly followed by indignation and betrayal. Why had Mike not told her this himself? Why had he chosen to go behind her back, sharing his concerns with others instead of voicing them to her directly? She began to ponder how many other people might have felt this way and whether Mike was behind this misaligned mutiny.

The betrayal stung even more when she recalled how they had sat down together, poring over the proposal, discussing it in minute detail. At that time, Mike seemed to be fully on board, expressing his agreement with the directions she suggested. Had that been a facade?

As the shock subsided, Henrietta found herself speculating about the reasons behind Mike’s actions. A rumor had been circulating about a looming promotion, and she was considered one of the leading candidates. Was it possible that Mike was envious? Could his actions have been a misguided attempt at sabotage?

Confused and hurt, Henrietta decided to maintain a professional relationship with Mike but kept their interactions to a minimum. She felt deeply betrayed and embarrassed by trusting Mike, and she heard her mother’s voice in her head: “Never trust a man!” Not wanting to be labeled “emotional” and fearful of the fallout, Henrietta buried her feelings and never addressed the conflict. She avoided him whenever possible, a sharp contrast to the camaraderie they once shared.

Meanwhile, Mike was mystified. He noticed Henrietta’s distance but couldn’t understand the reason for it. It was only when the same colleague he had shared his concerns with revealed Henrietta’s feelings that he understood the cause of the rift. Henrietta felt backstabbed, a consequence of his own actions that he hadn’t anticipated.

Mike was a peacekeeper at heart, always opting for harmony over conflict. When he had disagreed with Henrietta’s strategy, he chose not to confront her, fearing it might cause friction. His intention was to maintain the project’s unity, keeping the team focused and motivated. He thought to himself that he should have just kept his mouth shut and not shared how he truly felt.

As the truth came out, Mike realized his silence had caused a misunderstanding. His fear of confrontation had inadvertently resulted in the very conflict he sought to avoid. Instead of simply respectfully disagreeing, he chose (for a myriad of reasons) to disrespectfully agree. It was a harsh lesson learned: the importance of clear communication and the consequences of avoiding difficult conversations. Yet, as he grappled with the fallout, he found himself unsure of how to rectify the situation. Could their partnership survive this unforeseen challenge, or had the dynamic duo danced their last dance together?

It was Christmas Eve, and the smell of cinnamon and roasted turkey wafted throughout the Baker household. Three generations of the Baker family were to gather for the holidays, a rare occasion since they were scattered across various states.

Jill Baker, the family matriarch, was excited. She had insisted on decorating every corner of the large home and cooked everyone’s favorite dish with true delight. She always believed in the magic of Christmas, and for her, it was a time of joy and unity. However, she was not oblivious to the political divide that had formed among her children.

Her oldest, Sarah, was a journalist in New York and identified as a liberal. Sarah was passionate about her beliefs, often participating in protests and marches. Michael, the middle child, had taken over the family business and, with it, had developed conservative views. He often voiced his opinions on social media, much to the chagrin of Sarah. Lastly, there was Emily, the youngest, a college student and a self-proclaimed moderate—the Switzerland in family disputes.

When Sarah arrived, the atmosphere was still pleasant. Emily, always the peacemaker, had created a list of safe topics: movies, music, fashion, and technology. But as night fell and the wine flowed, the tension began to mount.

It began innocently enough. Michael commented on the economy and how the current administration had affected his business. Sarah, feeling the need to defend her stance, pointed out the social policies and how they impacted the less privileged. The conversation quickly spiraled. Emily tried to change the subject by asking about Sarah’s new partner and Michael’s recent vacation, but the damage was done.

Jill, seeing her children argue, felt a pang of sadness. It wasn’t just about differing opinions; they were now questioning each other’s intelligence and integrity. Michael accused Sarah of living in a media bubble, while Sarah retorted that he was nothing but a privileged elitist.

At the height of the argument, Jamie, Michael’s eight-year-old son, broke down in tears. “Why are Aunt Sarah and Daddy yelling? Don’t they love each other anymore?” he sobbed.

The room went silent. Emily took Jamie in her arms, comforting him while the others looked down in guilt. Jill, gathering her strength, finally spoke, “Look at what we’ve become. We’re a family. We might not always agree, but that doesn’t give us the right to belittle each other. We must respect each other in the midst of our differences.”

Sarah and Michael, reflecting on their behavior, felt ashamed. The weight of the moment was not lost on them. Both of them approached Jamie, apologized, and hugged him tightly.

The rest of the evening was subdued. The family played board games, sang carols, and shared fond memories. The political disagreements were still there, lurking beneath the surface, but they had realized something much more import-ant—their love and respect for each other.

The night ended with a promise. While they might always have differing views, they would never let them get in the way of their bond. It was a lesson learned the hard way, but one they would never forget.

Can you spot your reflection in these three narratives? Perhaps you’ve never quarreled over a film choice with buttery popcorn (though I find that hard to believe), adopted a conciliatory role in a tense project meeting, or made a child weep over a holiday dinner. But chances are, you’ve experienced moments of quiet conflict. You’ve held your tongue at work, suppressing the urge to challenge an ill-considered remark for fear of disrupting the status quo. Or you’ve silently stewed at the Thanksgiving table, biting back a reply to a thoughtless statement aimed at an absent group.

Perhaps you find yourself at the opposite end of the spectrum—always dissenting or debating, your ceaseless challenges leading to repeated misunderstandings and tattered relationships both in real life and the digital realm. You might have found yourself struggling through childhood trauma and harmful structures of power, constantly feeling less than.

What if there were a different way forward? What we require is an infusion of humanity, a greater number of individuals willing to engage with others in ways that are constructive, empathetic, and ultimately humanizing.

These stories, these scenarios, hold a mirror to a profound truth about our interactions—one that is as vital to acknowledge as it is impossible to ignore. Disagreement is woven into the fabric of our existence, as inherent to our being as the air we inhale and the water we consume. Yet we frequently find ourselves ensnared in a cage of silence, stifling our thoughts, muffling our beliefs, paralyzed by the fear of disrupting harmony or inciting hostility.

Contrastingly, some of us are caught in an unending tempest of conflict, our dissenting views splintering relationships, causing misunderstandings, or even catalyzing estrangements. This predicament underlines the delicate balance we all attempt to strike—a precarious tightrope walk between the honest expression of our truths and the preservation of our valued relationships. While the conflicts we face are both big and small, what is constant is their frequency in our lives and their ability to leave a profound impact on us. Learning how to better handle these conflicts can help us have better conversations, relationships, and workplaces. This is our WHY!

Moving from Disrespectful to Respectful

From these pillars, my team has designed practical strategies to transition from disrespectfully (dis)agreeing to respectfully disagreeing. Passive aggressiveness has pervaded organizational and working life and has hurt our ability to have meaningful and respectful disagreements. Not only do we sometimes demean others in our disagreements, but we also disrespect others and ourselves when we pretend to agree! In this book and through the pillars, I provide hope and a way to counter that. Table 1-1 includes a few examples of transitioning to respectful disagreement.

In a world that often seems more divided than united, this book is your companion for creating connections, not chasms, through respectful disagreement.

TABLE 1-1: How to Respectfully Disagree

DISRESPECTFULLY (DIS)AGREEING	RESPECTFULLY DISAGREEING
Cutting people off and jumping into the conversation	Allowing a person to share their full view and perspective (Pillars 1 and 2)
Only considering examples that bolster your view	Looking for all relevant facts and information and empathetically considering their view (Pillar 2)
Only focusing on what you want to share and give to them	Focusing on both learning and sharing (Pillars 2 and 5)
Assuming what people “really” mean or are thinking	Asking questions for greater clarity and understanding (Pillar 3)
Seeing only where you disagree and all the negative aspects of the disagreement	Finding the shared perspective and where there might be alignment (Pillar 4)
Externally sharing that you agree when internally you disagree	Sharing your truth with a posture to always acknowledge the other (Pillar 5)