"Agree to Disagree” in Workplace, Business and Regulatory Disputes: Why It’s Often Not Enough
- Shiv Martin
- 17 hours ago
- 7 min read
Why clarity, governance and procedural fairness matter more than surface harmony in workplace, business and ombudsman dispute resolution.
“Let’s just agree to disagree” is a phrase that frequently appears in difficult conversations.
It is usually offered with good intent, often as a way to de-escalate tension, avoid further
conflict, or allow people to leave the room without openly confronting unresolved
differences.
In my work as a workplace mediator, business dispute resolution facilitator and regulatory conciliation specialist, I hear this phrase most often at moments of discomfort. It tends to surface when positions are entrenched, when there are multiple strong views around the table, or when the implications of a decision feel high-stakes. While “agreeing to disagree” can sound conciliatory, it is rarely a sufficient outcome in professional contexts where decisions, accountability and real consequences are involved.
Across workplace, business, partnership and regulatory settings, agreeing to disagree often postpones conflict rather than resolving it. The issue does not disappear. It simply re-emerges later, frequently with greater cost, confusion or relational damage.
When “agree to disagree” can be appropriate
There are contexts where agreeing to disagree is reasonable and even helpful. In matters of personal preference, values or style, alignment is not always necessary. People can hold different views about leadership approaches, communication preferences or ways of working without needing to resolve those differences, particularly where individuals retain autonomy over their own decisions. In workplace and regulatory dispute resolution settings, clarity about authority, evidence and decision-making responsibility is essential.
In ongoing professional relationships, agreeing to disagree can also be pragmatic where:
the issue is low risk
no immediate decision is required
the cost of continued debate outweighs the benefit
In these situations, the phrase can acknowledge difference without forcing consensus, and without closing off the possibility of revisiting the issue later.
Reflection question: Is this disagreement about preference, or about a decision that will affect others?
Why “agree to disagree” becomes a problem in Workplace, Business and Regulatory Disputes
Difficulties arise when “agree to disagree” is used in contexts where agreement, or at least clarity, is required.
In workplace, business, partnership and management disputes, disagreements often sit alongside obligations relating to:
legal and regulatory compliance
employee safety and psychosocial wellbeing
governance and fiduciary duties
operational and financial risk
organisational reputation and trust
In these contexts, someone must still decide what happens next.
Agreeing to disagree does not resolve:
which interpretation will guide action
whose authority prevails
what evidence is relied upon
who carries the risk if the decision is wrong
As someone who regularly facilitates important meetings with many different views around the table, this is where I see the phrase do the most damage. When people leave a room having “agreed to disagree” but without clarity about next steps, the conflict usually resurfaces. Often it resurfaces as a grievance, a complaint, legal action or a breakdown in trust.
Conversation starter
“If we agree to disagree, what decision will actually apply in practice?”
The problem of false equivalence and the role of evidence
Another risk with “agree to disagree” is that it can create false equivalence.
False equivalence occurs when all views are treated as equally valid, regardless of differences in evidence, expertise or responsibility. In professional environments, this can undermine sound decision-making.
Strong conviction is not the same as strong evidence. In workplace and business disputes, decisions should be grounded in:
facts and documentation
legal and policy frameworks
professional and industry standards
proportionate risk assessment
Treating all positions as interchangeable may feel respectful in the moment, but it can expose organisations to avoidable risk and weaken governance.
Reflection question: Are we prioritising harmony over clarity and accountability?
What about the truth?
This is often the most contested part of the conversation.
In mediation and facilitation, it is entirely possible to acknowledge that people experience the same situation differently. Those experiences matter and should be heard. However, acknowledging experience does not require abandoning the pursuit of truth or clarity.
In contexts such as investigations, disciplinary processes, regulatory reviews or serious management disputes, organisations are often required to determine what is more likely than not to have occurred. These processes exist precisely because some matters cannot be left unresolved.
Using “agree to disagree” in these settings can blur important boundaries between:
listening and endorsing
empathy and acceptance
procedural fairness and outcome relativism
Acknowledging someone’s perspective does not require accepting it as fact.
Conversation starter
“How do we acknowledge different experiences while still reaching a clear decision?”
Why “agree to disagree” does not work in regulatory and ombudsman organisations
In regulatory, ombudsman and statutory dispute resolution environments, “agree to disagree” is rarely an acceptable endpoint.
These organisations exist because unresolved disagreement has consequences beyond the immediate parties. Complaints, investigations and reviews are not optional conversations; they are mechanisms designed to assess conduct, apply standards and reach conclusions that serve the public interest.
In ombudsman complaint handling and statutory dispute resolution frameworks, findings must be defensible, transparent and grounded in evidence.
Regulatory and oversight bodies are required to:
assess evidence against statutory or policy frameworks
make findings based on what is more likely than not
provide reasons that can withstand scrutiny
ensure consistency, transparency and procedural fairness
Agreeing to disagree undermines these obligations. It suggests that competing positions can simply coexist, when in reality the organisation must determine which position informs action, remedy or systemic improvement.
From my work supporting regulatory and ombudsman organisations, this tension often arises when staff are trying to balance empathy with impartiality. A desire to appear neutral can inadvertently lead to avoidance of necessary conclusions.
Impartiality does not mean treating all views as equally correct. It means applying standards consistently and without bias.
Reflection question: Where might a desire to appear neutral be obscuring the need to make a clear finding?
Conversation starter
“How do we acknowledge disagreement while still meeting our statutory obligations?”
If your team is navigating the tension between neutrality and authority in regulatory or workplace dispute resolution, our Introduction to Conciliation eBook provides a practical framework for understanding when evaluation, guidance and clarity are required and how to apply them ethically and confidently.
Case study: when agreeing to disagree wasn’t an option
I was engaged to facilitate a senior management meeting following a breakdown in trust between a leadership team and a business unit head. There were strongly held and conflicting views about whether a performance management process had been conducted fairly.
Several participants suggested that the group should “agree to disagree and move on”. While this would have lowered the immediate tension, it would have left unresolved questions about procedural fairness, decision-making authority and legal risk.
Through facilitated discussion, we shifted the focus away from who was “right” and towards:
the standards that applied to the process
the evidence available
the risks associated with different paths forward
The group did not reach full agreement about the past. However, they did reach agreement on:
the decision that would stand
the rationale for that decision
changes to process to reduce future risk
That outcome required more work than simply agreeing to disagree, but it delivered clarity, accountability and a defensible way forward.
A more effective alternative to “agree to disagree”
In workplace, business and regulatory disputes, more useful language often clarifies responsibility without dismissing differing views.
For example:
“We see this differently, and based on the evidence and risk, this is the decision we are making.”
“We don’t agree on the interpretation, but we do agree on how we will proceed.”
“Your view is noted. Let’s be clear about what applies going forward.”
These approaches respect difference while still meeting the need for leadership, governance and resolution.
Building Capability Beyond “Agree to Disagree”
If your team regularly finds itself navigating disagreement in high-stakes workplace, business or regulatory settings, the issue is rarely personality. It is usually capability and role clarity.
Moving beyond “agree to disagree” requires practitioners who can:
distinguish empathy from endorsement
balance neutrality with authority
assess evidence and risk clearly
communicate decisions without escalating conflict
maintain procedural fairness while providing leadership
This is not instinctive. It is learned.
To support this work, Shiv Martin Consulting offers a structured three-level professional development pathway for dispute resolution and regulatory teams.
• Level 1 – Core Dispute Resolution Skills: For new starters or professionals working in complaints, case management or early resolution roles.
• Level 2 – Managing Challenging & High-Risk Interactions: For experienced conciliators, mediators, complaints managers and regulatory officers.
• Level 3 – Community of Practice for regulatory professionals: For experienced staff committed to reflective practice and continuous improvement.
All 3 levels can be offered in-house, simply book a free confidential consultation to discuss your specific needs and we can tailor training to suit your team.
Final reflection
“Agree to disagree” is not inherently wrong, but it is frequently misapplied.
In my work facilitating complex workplace, business and regulatory conversations, it is rarely an adequate outcome on its own. Where decisions matter, where others are affected, and where risk must be managed, disagreement can be acknowledged, but responsibility cannot be deferred.
Good conflict resolution is not about forcing consensus. It is about creating clarity, making informed decisions and ensuring that people leave the room knowing what happens next.
In those settings, agreeing to disagree simply does not cut it.
Hi, I’m Shiv Martin. I’m a nationally accredited mediator, lawyer, conciliator, and conflict management specialist with over a decade of experience working across government, business, and community settings. I support teams to navigate complex and emotionally charged situations through mediation and conciliation, conflict skills training, facilitation, and practical advice on policies and processes. My approach is grounded in law, psychology, and real-world dispute resolution, with a strong focus on clarity, fairness, and workable outcomes.
If you’d like to talk about how I can help you or your organisation, you can get in touch here.
Comments