The Problem with “I Don’t Disagree” in People Analytics

The title of this article should really be Why I Think the Statement “I Don’t Disagree” is Full of [insert your word of choice here], but out of consideration that some on here may want more PG content, I have retitled it.

Over the past six months, I have had 100+ conversations with People Analytics enthusiasts and practitioners across various organizations and continents. The one theme that has emerged loud and clear to me is that in addition to the technical and business acumen companies often require People Analytics practitioners to have, there are also the unstated requirements for the profession, such as:

• Persuasion because we often need to turn a “no” to a “yes, go ahead” from our stakeholders

• Intuition because we need to pick out or articulate an analytics problem from a myriad of other business challenges

• Tenacity and perseverance through rejections because of how often we hear “but [insert reason why the data/insight/outcome is perceived to be incorrect]” or a variety of other reasons why PA doesn’t work for the question at hand

• Ability to read the room so you can anticipate and prepare for questions and concerns before they are raised

The list goes on.

At the core of it all, there is a curious and tenacious problem solver within every People Analytics practitioner. This is precisely why I despise it when I get the “I don’t disagree” statement from a stakeholder.

I first heard this sentence years ago during an HR transformation project with a large global organization spanning four continents with tens of thousands of employees. I distinctly remember my confusion after sharing the opportunities we discovered during the project in a presentation and hearing one of the HR leadership team members say, “Well, I don’t disagree with this…” Since then, I have heard this statement many times. What remains consistent each time I hear this is a deep cringe towards the dynamic in the room, the desire (or lack thereof) to partner, and the hunch that the results of the activity in question will be at least 10-20% less effective.

Here’s the thing: in my mind, you can either agree with something or disagree with it. I think it’s much easier to state your agreement if you agree. If you disagree with it, it’s also relatively easy to state your disagreement, and we can work through it together. To me, the sentence “I don’t disagree” is like burning calories to say the words but not really convey anything in the process—it’s inefficient.

Throughout my career, there are a few telltale signs that “I don’t disagree” conveys:

• There is a lack of trust in the room. There is something that isn’t sitting well with the person conveying the sentiment, yet there is not enough comfort/security/trust to share whatever that thing is directly with those in the room

• A lack of partnership. In not conveying the specific challenges the person is experiencing, it is almost impossible for the room to band together and solve the challenge collectively. That sentence tends to turn a “us vs. the problem” conversation into a “you vs. me” conversation

• A lack of clarity or logic in the moment. Sometimes, the sentiment is expressed when everything presented is logically sound, but there is still something that “feels off” to the listener. At this point, either the listener needs to dig deep and figure out what’s bothering them, or the Analytics practitioner needs to apply the gift of gab and help the other party put words around their discomfort. Either way, this does indicate that the problem you are solving currently may not be the root cause or the real problem

Regardless of the specific situation, in my opinion, “I don’t disagree” is a conversation killer for People Analytics because your stakeholder already indicates a level of distrust or politicking that you can expect down the road. It’s simply not productive for the outcome you are looking to achieve.

Now, I understand that some may have been taught that this is what you say when you want to be friendly and not disagree directly. But here is where I tell you that in the professional environment, there is a distinct difference between being nice and being kind (refer to Brene Brown for more on this one). Being nice in this case and saying one does not disagree is counterproductive in the environment, as the goal is to solve the problem together. In saying you disagree you are being kind by progressing the conversation into the next stage of issue identification (why do you disagree) and resolution (how can we overcome that).

I’ll end with this: Trust is not built on niceness. Trust is built on kindness through truth, even if the truth may not be what you want to convey or hear 100% of the time.