I'm not a CIO, but I've built Rattan Imports from the ground up and learned that disagreement becomes toxic the moment it stops being about the work and starts being about ego. When one of my customer service reps wanted to call every single person who added items to their cart, I thought it was excessive--but I asked her to track conversion rates for two weeks. She was converting 40% of those calls into sales with our older demographic who genuinely appreciated the human contact. I know I'm being viewed as disagreeable when my team starts completing tasks exactly as I outlined them instead of improving the process along the way. We had a rep who stopped suggesting personalized follow-up emails because she thought I wanted everyone using the same template. The moment I noticed she'd gone quiet in our weekly reviews, I knew I'd shut down her ownership of the customer relationship--which is the opposite of how I want to operate. The biggest mistake I see from my 10 years in UK hospitality is leaders who've never actually sat with a confused customer trying to steer a website or assemble furniture with unclear instructions. I still jump on customer calls monthly, especially with baby boomers struggling through checkout. When I push back on a process change, my team knows it's because I just spent an hour walking someone's grandmother through placing an order, not because I'm protecting my original idea. What makes this work is that my reps now come to me with "here's what I'm seeing with customers" before asking for changes. They know I'll say yes if the data supports it, because I care more about their direct customer insights than defending whatever system we set up six months ago.
CIOs need to push back without breaking trust with their teams. I've found that framing disagreements as cybersecurity risk discussions keeps things from getting personal. Instead of saying "I don't like that," I'll point out "here's how we could get attacked." My approach is to ask for honest feedback, explain the tough calls, and stay approachable. The team knows I'm firm on security but they can still talk to me.
At Tutorbase, when people disagree, I focus on testing the idea, not dismissing the person. If I see everyone avoid eye contact or go silent, I know I need to back off and try again. Here's my rule: say what you think clearly, but always acknowledge what they brought to the table. That's how you keep people talking instead of shutting down.
At Vodien I figured out how to disagree without being a jerk. We had a big argument over a cloud migration plan, but the conversation stayed respectful and we found a better way. My trick is to actually listen, watch my tone, and say "I'm just trying to get this right." It makes people comfortable giving honest feedback.
Why should a CIO disagree without taking it personally? Because innovation requires friction, not conflict. The opportunity for a CIO to challenge the worthiness of an idea - with respect - creates an environment for honest exchange around how information is shared, and that can be particularly important when the implications of a technology decision touch security, compliance, and future scalability. How does a CIO now if they are disagreeable? Note some of the behavioral data that supports that. A less frequent, proactive update, a meeting that produces no one sharing their opinion, or a team that is elevating decisions that don't seem to matter, are all behavioral indicators that are more likely related to people feeling unsafe with you. Silence is the biggest red flag because it means people are feeling safer avoiding you, than collaborating with you. What is the best approach to be firm, but still agreeable? Decouple the idea from the individual. Don't say, "that won't work," just say, "walk me through your thinking." People are much more likely to be receptive to a firm decision when they feel heard. What do CIOs get from being firm but agreeable? Better intelligence. Teams will elevate problems sooner, aligning teams will be much easier, and even the speed of execution will be quicker. Simply being approachable increases trust and honesty, and being firm identifies direction. Doing both, helps mitigate costly technology decisions that have an organizational ripple effect, especially in security and infrastructure. What is the worst mistake CIOs make? The biggest mistake is over indexing on the expertise instead of influence. It does not matter if you are technically correct if you are unable to bring the organization with you.
In business, getting to "yes" is key, and for a CIO, you need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable. This is important because it allows for constructive dialogue, better decision-making and a culture where employees aren't afraid to raise issues and challenges. I think it's fair to say that none of us wants to be someone that people are "not sorry they've heard from". To see if this is the case, I'll often look out for patterns of behaviour and ask myself questions like, "do I speak to a lot of people who then go silent on an issue?". "Is my feedback very one-sided, i.e. do I only hear from a small set of individuals?" and "Am I approached for input and advice, or do people tend to bypass me?" The more of these 'symptoms' that are present, the more likely it is that the problem is one of delivery or tone and not necessarily the content of what is being said. When done right, being assertive yet still being agreeable should lead to better outcomes for everyone. A good leader can be resolute with their ideas while also remaining respectful of other people's views and opinions, as well as being clear with their strategic priorities and vision. On the flip side, where you lose this balance, you lose respect and are more likely to become that person that people dread having to work with or for. As a result, the long-term effect can mean that you are often bypassed, which ultimately slows decision-making and problem-solving. In my experience, one of the biggest challenges CIOs can make in this area is equating "assertive" with "being difficult".
Disagreement in leadership is a form of dialogue that sharpens thinking and strengthens solutions. A CIO who can challenge ideas while remaining calm and respectful shows that questions are welcomed, not feared. Staff notice when their opinions are considered rather than dismissed, which encourages honesty and creativity. Maintaining this balance allows technical and strategic discussions to be rigorous without creating tension, and it builds an environment where team members feel safe to share perspectives that may otherwise be withheld.
1. First, it is essential because to be able to disagree without being unpleasant resorts to forcefulness or negativity, teams become defensive, innovation stalls, and collaboration suffers. Disagreement should focus on ideas, not people. It allows the staff to be heard and not being hurt. 2. I would suggest to pay attention to the following factors: 1) lack of response or minimum responses at the meetings; 2) hesitate challenges. Emotional awareness and reflection are essential tools for any leader to spot any issue or problem with an employee's attitude. 3. To separate facts from opinions and remain solution-oriented. A CIO should be able to answer why a decision is made, reference data or business context, and invite dialogue. 4. Teams feel safe speaking up, which encourages innovation and prevents costly mistakes from going unnoticed. I believe it also affects how effectively staff understand the reasoning behind each decision. Over time, this balance fosters loyalty, accountability, and a culture of open communication. 5. The most common error is not adjusting communication style to different audiences or groups of staff you are talking with.
1. The maintenance of issue-solving focus depends on disagreeing without creating unpleasantness because it prevents people from focusing on tone reactions. People maintain their engagement when the conversation maintains a professional tone because they avoid defensive behavior. 2. I monitor three specific indicators which include reduced questioning and decreased opposition and people seeking alternative opinions before directly approaching me. My delivery method becomes too forceful when others start to show these behavioral changes. 3. The combination of strong delivery with clear communication helps me achieve my goals. I present my position followed by an explanation of my reasoning before asking others to evaluate its strength. The approach enables open dialogue while delivering a direct path forward. 4. Leaders who maintain approachability receive better information and achieve faster corrections in their decisions. Team members start sharing their thoughts earlier which leads to enhanced decision quality and fewer avoidable errors. 5. The main error occurs when leaders force decisions without providing any explanation about their reasoning. People fail to commit to decisions when they lack understanding about the underlying reasons even though the decision itself remains valid. 6. The practice of summarizing decisions along with their underlying reasons serves as an effective method. The practice helps people understand decisions better while demonstrating appreciation for all participants who contributed to the process.