What If We Are Truly Allowed to Disagree

**Summary**

This blog explores how tolerating fundamental differences is essential for leadership, collaboration, and societal resilience.

You only have to open the news: conflict. About climate, about pace, about justice. In coalitions, in neighborhoods, in families, and sometimes even within yourself. The tension is palpable—not only in the words, but in the charge with which they are spoken. As if we have forgotten that disagreement is not a sign of failure, but of engagement. As if conflict itself is not allowed to exist.

Yet there is a paradox. The more we strive for harmony and consensus, the less space there seems to be for the raw, uncomfortable conversation. We avoid friction out of fear that it will drive us apart, while it is precisely in that friction that new insights can emerge.

What if this time is not asking us to smooth out our differences, but to tolerate them? What if leadership right now means learning to live with fundamental difference—without it tearing us apart?

Value Separation Is Not a Rupture, but a Container

Value-driven conflicts are rarely purely substantive. They are relational and process-oriented. The difference itself is not the problem; the way we deal with it is. Is the conflict held, or avoided? Is it explored, or framed in terms of “right” and “wrong”?

From a psychodynamic perspective, conflict outside us often mirrors a tension within ourselves. The clash between speed and care. Between ambition and restraint. Between certainty and responsibility. What we fight outside ourselves is sometimes what we cannot tolerate within.

True leadership does not seek a quick solution, but creates a container in which difference is allowed to exist. Where there is space to voice perspectives, even when they seem mutually exclusive. Where the goal is not that the loudest voice wins, but that the system as a whole becomes wiser.

The Conversation That Stalled

A director of an innovative organization told me about a team day focused on sustainability. The conversation escalated. A young employee called the policy a “green façade.” A senior colleague responded sharply: “You have no idea of the complexity!” The rest of the team fell silent; the tension was palpable.

The director chose not to shut the conversation down. He named the charge in the room and asked one question: “What makes this so important to you?” That created space. Stories emerged—about hope, about distrust, about responsibilities that were not always shared. The conversation slowed down, but it also became more real.

What became visible was not a battle over who was right, but a clash of loyalties. One person felt obligated to act quickly, the other to weigh things carefully. Both perspectives were loyal to a deeper value: taking responsibility for the future. Only the form differed.

The Cost of Avoidance

Many teams unconsciously choose avoidance. They use softening language, move on with the agenda, or opt for technocratic compromises that truly satisfy no one. In the short term, this prevents escalation; in the long term, the undercurrent of unspoken tension grows.

Avoidance has a cost:

- Innovation stagnates because critical perspectives have no place.

- Trust erodes because people sense that things remain unsaid.

- Engagement disappears because energy leaks into holding back thoughts.

An organization that avoids conflict loses its vitality.

A Systemic Perspective: Difference as Part of the Whole

In systemic work, we see conflict as a signal that something in the ordering, the balance of giving and taking, or the recognition of positions is off. Difference is not something to eliminate, but an essential part of the whole. Without tension, there is no growth.

When leaders dare to see and acknowledge difference, they restore the natural flow in the system. This requires the courage to tolerate discomfort, and the skill to facilitate conversation in a way that allows all voices to be heard.

Psychodynamics: Dealing With Inner Polarization

Psychodynamic work shows that external polarization often begins with inner polarization. A leader who cannot internally balance decisiveness and thoughtfulness will, in a conflict, tend to identify with one side and fight the other. The conflict is then not clarified, but deepened.

Self-inquiry helps. Questions such as:

- Which side of this conflict feels familiar to me?

- Which side do I find difficult to tolerate?

- What does that say about my own values and fears?

Through this reflection, a leader can move more freely between perspectives, rather than becoming entangled in one camp.

Practical Guidelines for Leaders

To use difference not as a threat, but as a source of wisdom, leaders can:

1. **Name the tension** – Put words to what is felt in the room, without immediate judgment.

2. **Slow the conversation down** – Speed is often the enemy of depth. Pause with what is being said.

3. **Look for the value beneath the position** – Ask what is at stake for someone, beyond the proposed solution.

4. **Ensure equal speaking time** – Allow quieter voices to be heard as well.

5. **Close with acknowledgment** – Summarize what has been heard, even if no consensus has been reached.

Why This Matters Now

We live in a time of significant societal polarization. The tendency to reduce differences to “for” or “against” is amplified by social media, political rhetoric, and our own need for clarity. Precisely for that reason, it is essential that we practice tolerating complexity within our organizations—and within ourselves.

Difference is not the end of collaboration. It is the raw, uncomfortable fuel for renewal, provided we are willing to see it and carry it.

An Invitation to Encounter

What happens in your environment when you truly disagree?

Does it become visible—or does it disappear into nuance, politeness, or hardness?

And what does it ask of you to genuinely meet difference—not to defeat it, but to understand it?

Perhaps the key does not lie in resolving the difference, but in allowing it. Because sometimes the greatest strength of a leader is not being right, but creating space.

*Geschreven door: Rene de Baaij*