The subtle art of expressing your views at work without being disagreeable

In most workplaces, silence feels safer than speaking up. 

You nod along in meetings, agree with the consensus and swallow the objection forming at the back of your throat. After all, nobody gets into trouble for agreeing.

But what happens when your boss is pushing for a direction you don't believe in? Or when the group seems united behind a mistake, except you're the lone dissenting voice? 

Should you raise your hand and risk being labelled "difficult", or do you keep your thoughts to yourself and hope for the best?

I think of the Titan submersible disaster in 2023, where OceanGate engineers repeatedly raised safety concerns about the vessel's design. 

One was even dismissed after refusing to stay silent. Leadership pressed ahead, dismissing warnings and prioritising innovation over oversight. In the end, the implosion claimed five lives.

Of course, most workplace disagreements don't carry life-or-death consequences. But the principle still applies: When the unspoken rules of hierarchy and harmony make disagreeing feel like a breach of etiquette, errors may go unchallenged.

I've seen both ends of the extreme at work – offices where everyone nods politely, as well as offices where disagreements spill out freely. One feels safe but stagnant; the other feels tense but alive. 

So, which makes for a healthier workplace?

IS SILENCE GOLDEN?

There's a reason silence prevails in many offices. From childhood, many of us were taught that politeness begins with deference, especially towards authority.

Questioning a superior can be perceived as a sign of disrespect. Disagreeing with colleagues risks coming across as combative. And so, the easiest path is to keep your head down.

Once, we had a senior creative who insisted on a bad pun for an advertisement. Not only was the pun lame, but it was a play on words that had an offensive meaning in another language.

When we brought it up, we were simply brushed aside as being oversensitive. Despite our admittedly mild protests, he went ahead.

No surprise to anyone except the senior creative, the ad went out, went viral but in the catastrophic way no one wants and the client went ballistic. 

A workplace without disagreement and a respect for different viewpoints may look harmonious, but it's often just disengaged. People stop caring enough to challenge bad ideas, or they've decided it's not worth the trouble.

The opposite is a workplace where disagreements are allowed and even expected.

In my own agency, debates break out all the time over colour temperatures and music choices. 

It might seem chaotic at first glance but it is a sign of a healthy workplace to me. 

Navel-gazing and self-congratulatory pats on the back don't produce sharp, finely tuned and nuanced ideas – as long as the debate stays on the ideas.

The energy in such rooms is very different. Instead of polite nods or disinterested shrugs, there is curiosity – the act of discussing the idea signals investment and the intention to collaborate. 

This creates an environment where people are willing to keep pitching ideas, even if their last ones weren't chosen.

HOW HEALTHY DEBATE TURNS DESTRUCTIVE 

That said, disagreement is not always healthy or productive.

I recall a time working in a former company where two senior staff members locked horns over photography selection for a story in a publication. 

The life-altering decision was between having a portrait or a landscape orientation of what essentially was the same photo. 

Each framed it as a matter of principle but underneath it all, they were just unwilling to back down and "lose face".

Their standoff paralysed the team, because the debate stopped being about the work and became about ego. In the end, the story ran without the photo because neither party would give in. 

That's when disagreement becomes destructive. Are you disagreeing to make the work better or to prove yourself right?

Sometimes, it can be hard to catch our own ego when voicing our opinion, especially if we're in a position of power. We feel like we have the expertise and experience and we know better.

That is why leaders must actively model healthy disagreement. 

These days, when I push back against an idea, I try to thank the person who raised it, take the time to explain my considerations, and give suggestions as to what might work better. 

It may sound performative, but it's a subtle cue: dissent is not only tolerated, but valued. 

Over time, it creates a culture where people feel safe to speak up, even if their view goes against the grain.

LET'S AGREE TO DISAGREE

How, then, can we agree to disagree? 

There are ways to express dissent without coming across as disagreeable. Whether it's with superiors, peers or subordinates, the trick is how you frame it. 

Feedback will sour long-term trust if it comes across as a personal attack. "That's kinda lame" rarely lands well, even if it might be the truth. 

Instead, look for ways to open space without closing doors: "Can we explore … instead?" 

The best colleagues I've worked with are those who argue fiercely for their ideas but can pivot when a better solution emerges. They are the ones who may not understand TikTok humour, but understand how it might work better to reach the young Gen Zers.

They fight for the work, not their ego.

You'll notice the difference in energy when it is not about proving you're right, but about making the work better, the culture healthier and the people around you sharper.

All in all, there is nothing wrong with showing a bit of fight in the office. Just be sure you're fighting with your colleagues, not against them. This way, everyone wins. 

Kelvin Kao is the co-owner of a creative agency.