The Dangers of Soft Agreements

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been working with an organization as they’ve tried to transition from articulating broad aspirations in their strategic planning to identifying the actual initiatives that they will pursue.

On the face of it, much of this work has the tone of reaching “alignment” among senior leaders. Yet, when I saw how the initiatives were shaping up, I had a realization: Instead of agreement, we should seek disagreement. 

Here’s the reason: Strategic initiatives that don’t compel argument probably aren’t all that compelling. 

For example, you don’t need to argue if strategy doesn’t force you to do anything differently or sacrifice anything. 

You don’t need to argue if an initiative is so vaguely worded that it could hold everyone’s interpretation. 

You don’t need to argue if everyone’s ideas are included in the final version, rather than prioritizing the best ones and saying No to the rest.

Of course, good strategy requires focus, clarity, and reinforcing activity. So if the alignment conversation is oriented toward consensus, or doesn’t inspire robust debate, it’s unlikely to lead to an effective result. 

Ensuring good strategy debates is a central theme of Making Great Strategy by Stanford professors Jesper Sorensen and Glenn Carroll. In the book, they talk about how robust argument is a cultural no-no at most organizations. They write that “many executives we have talked to about this matter feel that arguments should be avoided at all costs. Perhaps this aversion arises from a wish to maintain organizational unity or control.” 

But Sorenson and Carroll also argue that leaders’ reluctance to argue the merits and logic of the strategies they chose simply delays the inevitable conflict. They write: 

“For example, two colleagues might agree that outsourcing part of the product development process is preferable to doing the work in-house—but they may each believe that for very different reasons. That may not seem to matter at first—at least they agreed and avoided a fight! But when it comes to implementation and subsequent decision-making, these unstated disagreements can be quite consequential. One person may favor outsourcing because he thinks it will be cheaper than internal development; the colleague may favor it because she thinks it will allow access to superior product development capabilities. At worst, the two will work at cross-purposes, for example, by alienating a high-quality developer through penny-pinching. At best, the fight simply got postponed.”

Soft Agreements v. Hard Agreements

The way I’ve most often seen this manifest in organizations is when leaders articulate aspirations or intentions, but claim they are strategic initiatives. For me, the giveaways are any strategies that articulate “thinking words,” like focus on, or be more.

Instead, the sign of an initiative that is worth debating contains “acting words” like create, eliminate, invest, and move.

Acting words compel debate because they require something of leaders. If you ask me to “Be more agile,” my reaction is, “Sure. Sounds good.” But if the request is instead to “Increase agility by reducing process steps and time by 50%,” then I’ve got real work to do. 

If the strategy is listed as “Focus on growth,” it’s easy to claim success. If instead the strategy is “Shift at least $2m of capital expenditure from stable businesses to those with at least 40% growth potential by Q2,” there’s a set of real decisions to be made. 

In the examples above, the first kinds of strategies can generate soft agreement—i.e., a vocal yes, with uncertain commitment to action. But the second statements demand greater engagement and debate because they require a harder agreement. Through the “hardness” of the debate, better solutions are likely to emerge.

So let’s argue it out!