In 1899, Commandant Adrien de Gerlache of the Belgica had a grave decision to make. With winter fast approaching, and already having lost a beloved young member of his crew to the dangerous conditions of the Antarctic, he surveyed his officers and scientists to determine whether to continue south past the 70th parallel for glory, or return home without reaching their destination. No one had ever wintered south of the Antarctic circle, and the risk of long-term entrapment in the ice was great - and unprepared for. Nearly all of his crew petitioned heavily to turn back north. But after consulting with his Captain in private, the two shook hands with the latter shouting at the helmsman, "To the South!"
This decision led to the Belgica and its crew being stuck in an ice shelf in as low as -30 degree temperatures for just over 13 months. Fighting scurvy, insanity, and pushed to the brink of starvation, the crew eventually emerged from the horrifying conditions largely intact. De Gerlache's gamble yielded an important collection of scientific data and the first annual cycle of observations from Antarctica. These invaluable lessons fueled the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, and the crew of the Belgica returned as heroes.
Not all organizations have to weigh the life or death consequences that De Gerlache and his crew faced, but it is absolutely crucial - regardless of the organizational structure - for all parties to get on board once a decision is made. Abraham Lincoln, referencing Napoleon, said, "It has been said that one bad general is better than two good ones...an army is better directed by a single mind, though inferior, than by two superior ones at variance and cross-purposes with each other."
This applies from the largest armies to the smallest family unit. Consider the child affected by the
Pathological Triangle, raised by one or more co-dependent parents that conspire to backbite and undermine the other's authority with the child. Unsurprisingly, these families were found to experience
increased levels of conflict and stress.
Or consider an even smaller unit, a husband and wife. Everyone may structure their relationship and decision-making processes differently, but there must be some guiding principles that allow for tough decisions that aren't fully agreed upon to be made - sometimes with little time for consideration - without destroying the union entirely. It can't be a pure democracy. What happens when both parties vehemently disagree on a course of action, even after many rounds of discussion and spirited debate?
Do they do nothing? Many times that is a course of action and decision in and of itself. Do they separately pursue their respective choices? Sometimes that's not possible and most times it's foolhardy. Whether the final decision be sealed with the flipping a coin or a game of Mario Kart, both individuals must put away their disagreements and present a united front to the world, especially their children.
Critics of the "Disagree and Commit" ethos will point out that it can be difficult to challenge a more powerful and/or senior individual in an organization. To me, this is largely irrelevant and a different discussion entirely. The approach I am espousing is mostly agnostic to how decisions are made. If a work culture is unhealthy or rigidly hierarchical - or an individual too non-assertive to disagree openly and honestly - then competing frameworks for decision-making will likely be ineffective also.
Foster (and pursue organizations with) a culture where it's clear how decisions are made and constructive disagreement and debate are encouraged. And once a final decision has been made, get on board and work together towards the common goal.