Projects don’t fail because people disagree — they fail because people don’t think they’re allowed to disagree.
In one of my earliest technical consulting projects, I experienced the full weight of this when I was hired to create a customer service portal for a telecom company. The work was challenging enough but then came the critical demo sessions. The feedback went something like this:
“We love it. Great work,” they’d say, all smiles.
I’d leave feeling triumphant, only to receive emails a few hours later with polite questions demurely asking if revisions were possible. Some of the requested revisions were massive changes that threw the whole project into question. It was maddening.
The clients’ unwillingness to speak up in the demo sessions was killing the project. No one would say outright they didn’t like what I’d created. I tried asking politely, but directly, if something was wrong. Each time, I was reassured that things were just fine.
The hidden cost of niceness
After six weeks of this spiral, I decided that if they couldn’t tell me what they didn’t like, I would speak up on their behalf. At the next meeting, I bluntly outlined what I suspected they were thinking.
Their response was a lot of nodding and “yes, maybe that’s it” without much conviction. But it opened the door to an honest conversation. The executive director, finally alone with me in a follow-up meeting, admitted what everyone else wouldn’t.
The team had been hoping I’d read between the lines and magically show them a different solution, one that none of them had been bold enough to ask for.
This, I understood, was the issue: a room full of agreeable people who were too polite to say what they meant. By being nice instead of honest, they had dragged us through weeks of reworking ideas they never liked in the first place.
What came out of that project was a new set of rules I decided to enforce with every client since. No more unspoken complaints, no more endless positive feedback without substance. And if anyone’s afraid to give real feedback, I tell them directly: being nice costs more than it saves.
When collaboration needs conflict
Working with people who just want to be good team players has been one of the biggest hurdles in my career. Collaboration isn’t always pleasant. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable at times. If it isn’t awkward and challenging at times, we’re not doing it right. One project with a nonprofit taught me this clearly.
I was working with a team from different departments on a redesign of their donation management system. The project manager started each session with something they called “syncs.” Syncs, I learned, were just a way to keep everyone agreeable and keep the ideas on a low simmer instead of letting them boil over.
When I suggested a different design strategy a few weeks into the project, it was met with resistance. The new strategy was based on user interviews, which showed that the current system left most of the staff feeling confused and inefficient.
But no one wanted to shake up the agreed-upon design, the one they had all put a polite “yes” to on day one. They’d smile and say, “Good thought,” and we’d circle right back to the original plan.
Eventually, after repeated polite rejections of my suggestions and ideas, I walked out of the project frustrated. They kept the same structure, and within a year, I heard that they’d gone back to square one — on another expensive redesign.
The irony didn’t escape me: being “in sync” had kept them stuck with a system that barely worked in the first place.
Standing up to groupthink
A conflict-averse groupthink can also stifle innovation. Another client I worked for was so afraid of trying anything new that they settled for a subpar solution.
I was tasked with designing an employee-matching solution to connect new hires with a suitable mentor. At the first strategy meeting, I was full of excitement, bursting with ideas. That enthusiasm, it turns out, wasn’t what they’d expected.
My client manager at the time, a gentleman with a knack for politely redirecting people, watched as I presented a proposal for an interactive feature. He smiled and nodded, then thanked me and moved on to the next topic.
Later, he pulled me aside to gently explain that most ideas needed to be softened and that we wouldn’t want to push things too far. Best to run my ideas past him first in the future before presenting them to the team.
By the end of that year, I’d watched the project drift further and further into “safe” territory, stripped of anything innovative or transformative. It taught me something critical about groupthink. In a team where every opinion gets squashed to avoid disrupting harmony, you’re just a step away from mediocrity.
Building a culture beyond politeness
It’s one thing to recognize the dangers of endless agreeableness, but steering a team away from it takes intention. Over the years, I’ve learned a few simple strategies that help keep projects moving forward with both clarity and honesty. In my experience, these are some of the most effective ways to avoid the trap of staying polite at the expense of progress:
- Set expectations for honest feedback upfront: At the beginning of each project, I make it clear that constructive criticism isn’t just encouraged; it’s necessary. Everyone should know from the start that feedback, even when uncomfortable, is expected.
- Create structured opportunities to disagree: Relying on informal feedback can lead to hesitation, so I make it a practice to ask direct questions: “What’s missing here?” or “What’s working less well than we hoped?” Simple prompts often surface deeper insights that might otherwise go unspoken.
- Focus on goals, not opinions: Too often, disagreements feel personal. Framing feedback around the project’s goals keeps the focus on what’s best for the work rather than on personal preferences. This also makes critiques easier to give and receive.
- Normalize dissent as part of the process: I try to celebrate rather than smooth over disagreements. Highlighting moments when someone challenges an idea as a strength rather than an interruption shows that dissent is valued, not avoided.
- Model candor as a leader: If I want others to feel safe speaking up, I have to be willing to give honest feedback myself. This means addressing issues directly and providing specific, respectful critiques that others can follow.
With these practices in place, a team can keep the focus on quality without slipping into the easy comfort of politeness. But setting the stage is only part of it; sticking to these principles takes some nerve, which brings me to my final point.
Living with the discomfort
Prioritizing honesty over comfort hasn’t been easy, and even now, it often feels risky. But not settling for consensus has always paid off.
My own internal rulebook has a few key principles: first, be prepared to disagree. Second, keep the focus on what works for the project, not what makes everyone smile.
It sounds simple, but it’s not. I have to remind myself and everyone else that not every decision will feel great. We’re here to get results, not to be “happy” in the shallow sense.
A room full of people politely nodding is the most unhelpful meeting I can think of. It’s the ones who tell me my idea is terrible — then explain why — who bring out my best work and the best outcomes.
Getting along is easy; doing work that matters requires courage.
