3 Strategies To Help You Disagree Like A Leader
The Hatfields and the McCoys have long captured the American imagination, pitting neighbor against neighbor in the mountains of Kentucky and West Virginia. Sensational journalism brought national attention to the feuding families and spawned the hillbilly stereotypes that still denigrate rural Appalachians. But the real story is—as most are—more complex. Post Civil War industrialization brought with it a rapacious need for timber, coal and an expanded railroad. The now famous feud, magnified and distorted by self-interested tycoons, escalated a simple disagreement to encourage a land grab in the Tug Valley, destroying rich resources, economic livelihoods and a previously peaceful way of life.
We've just turned the page on a contentious election, leaving Americans feeling a lot like the Hatfields and the McCoys. But our sparring is just a symptom—of what happens when disagreement stops being dialogue and starts becoming demolition. Even among partners, even among friends, we're losing the ability to disagree without destroying each other.
In an era of cancel culture, viral outrage, and political point-scoring, disagreement has become dangerous territory. We urgently need to re-learn the lost art of disagreeing with respect. And it's not just on the global stage. In boardrooms, classrooms, hospitals, and homes, disagreement now feels like an existential threat. We shout, we shut down, or we stay silent. What we rarely do is stay present—with openness, humility, and grace.
But disagreement is not the enemy. Done well, it fuels progress, not division. Innovation, growth, democracy itself—none of it works without productive disagreement. So how do we navigate conflict without collapsing connection? How do we disagree—not just loudly, but wisely? Here are three strategies—drawn from research and real-world examples—that offer a way forward.
In many organizations, disagreement is seen as a problem to solve—or worse, a liability to avoid. The goal is harmony. Alignment. Consensus. But that mindset often breeds groupthink and mediocrity.
High-performing teams flip the script. They treat disagreement not as defiance, but as data. Not as disruption, but as a sign of engagement and a catalyst for smarter thinking.
Pixar mastered this early on. Its famous 'Braintrust' meetings brought together directors, writers, and producers to openly critique films-in-progress. The feedback was fierce—storyboards dismantled, ideas shredded—but the environment was psychologically safe. As co-founder Ed Catmull put it, the magic was in 'candor without fear.' People walked out with sharper stories, not bruised egos.
The science backs this up. A 2003 meta-analysis found that task-related conflict—disagreements over ideas, not identities—consistently improves team performance, especially when trust and psychological safety are present.
Silence isn't a sign of harmony. It's often a sign of fear.
Respectful disagreement doesn't just happen—it's engineered. It requires space, both cultural and structural. And in high-stakes or hierarchical environments, that space must be built with intention.
Consider the aviation industry. In the 1990s, Korean Air faced a disturbing number of crashes. Investigators uncovered a deadly pattern: junior crew members often spotted mistakes but stayed silent—especially when it was the captain who was wrong. Deference and politeness were literally killing people.
The fix wasn't just technical. It was cultural. Korean Air overhauled its communication protocols and launched a rigorous training program emphasizing open communication, teamwork, and the importance of all crew members speaking up, regardless of rank. As a result, the airline eventually became one of the safest in the world.
The lesson? It's not enough to remove barriers—you have to install supports and good communication. Leaders must actively invite dissent, reward courage, and build systems that make disagreement safe.
And no, that doesn't mean every meeting becomes a sparring match. It means building a culture where candor is expected, not punished.
When people can't speak up, organizations can't move forward.
Most of us don't avoid disagreements because we don't care—we avoid it because we're human. Our brains are wired for belonging, and conflict—especially unresolved conflict—feels like a threat to that connection. But discomfort is where learning lives.
In 1960, civil rights leader Diane Nash helped lead a group of Black and white students in Nashville through intensive nonviolent protest training. Before they ever sat together in protest at a segregated lunch counter, they rehearsed how to withstand verbal abuse, physical threats, and emotional pressure. The goal wasn't just to resist—it was to remain present, with dignity and discipline, long enough to shift public perception. It was hard, but it worked.
Today's workplace may not require that level of courage. But it does require staying power. Whether you're challenging a biased comment, unpacking a flawed assumption, or rethinking a failed strategy—real growth comes when we resist the urge to exit the discomfort too soon.
Respectful disagreement requires lingering a little longer. Listening past your own rebuttal. Asking the second question. Resisting the simplicity of certainty and choosing instead to sit—briefly—in the complexity of someone else's view.
Growth doesn't happen when we win the argument. It happens when we stay in it.
The infamous feud didn't serve the Hatfields or the McCoys. It served the industrialists—timber, coal, and railroad barons—who capitalized on the chaos. As the families fought, outside interests moved in, seizing land, extracting resources, and destabilizing communities. The story is a reminder: when we become too consumed by conflict, we risk falling victim to someone else's agenda.
The same is true today. The problems we face—at work, in politics, in our communities—are too complex and too urgent to let discord divide us. Especially when that division leaves us vulnerable to manipulation, distraction, or inaction.
We don't need fewer disagreements. We need better ones—because the right kind of conflict builds trust, sharpens thinking, and moves us forward. It's not about being right. It's about getting it right—together. Instead of resisting the arguments of others, ask yourself: What am I missing? What might they see that I don't? The goal isn't to win. It's to stay in the room long enough to solve the problem. Because if we can't learn to disagree with respect, we'll lose far more than the argument. We'll lose the very tools we need to build what's next.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stewartstown residents share opposition to MARL transmission line
Jun. 21—dbeard @ MORGANTOWN — Stewartstown-area residents gathered at the community building Saturday afternoon to learn about and share their concerns about the NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic Resiliency Link project. "This is a raising local awareness effort here today, " said Kent Hunter, who lives on the next hill over from the community center. "We probably can't stop this but we can maybe impact where the route eventually ends up." MARL, as it's called, is a proposed transmission project to build a new 105-mile 500-kilovolt transmission line stretching from Greene County, Pa., to Frederick County, Va. Depending on the route selected, it could pass through Monongalia and Preston counties, along with Hampshire County and Mineral counties, Allegany Garrett county in Maryland and Fayette County in Pennsylvania. The project also consists of building a new 500 /138-kV substation in Frederick County, Va. Hunter was one of four speakers to address the residents. He said he learned about MARL in December after NextEra met with the Monongalia County Commission. He was among the landowners on the possible local routes who received a postcard from NextEra in February. Concerned, he contacted former Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer and Delegate Evan Hansen, and they got involved in the awareness-and-opposition effort. Among the concerns Hunter and others cited is, who pays for this. "It just takes away our land, " he said. "It doesn't help us in any way at all that we can find." And it will likely decrease property values of those whose land it crosses. At a May open house, NextEra's Kaitlin McCormick answered a question from The Dominion Post about the expected local benefits. She cited three: reliable power ; the opportunity for high-demand customers to interconnect ; and local tax revenue — $50 million to $100 million over the 40-year life of the project. Residents remain skeptical, though. Speakers several times cited a study by Cathy Kunkel, energy consultant at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, that indicates West Virginia ratepayers will pay more than $440 million in increased electricity rates over the next 40 years for MARL and the related Valley Link Transmission line that is planned to run from the John Amos plant in Putnam County eastward to Frederick County, Md. PJM Interconnection, the regional 13-state power grid operator, selected MARL and Valley Link, among a number of projects, based on its long-range Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, to address reliability issues associated with loss of power generation sources, support for new power sources and additional electricity demand in the region. Public perception — echoed in Kunkel's report — ties much of that new demand to data centers in Virginia. Fleischauer, one of the speakers, said there's not enough local benefit to justify the rate hikes. "We don't see the value in being a pass through." Speaker Rachel Stevens, who lives just north of Bruceton Mills and whose neighbors are on a potential route, listed several areas of concern about the line. Along with diminished property values and higher electric bills, she cited possible environmental impacts along the route and the impacts on landowners who will be subject to possible eminent domain proceedings for the line's 200-foot right of way. Speaker Jim Kotcon, a retired WVU professor, explained some of the process ahead. After selecting a route, NextEra is looking to file applications with the state Public Service Commission and other state's regulators early this fall. A project timeline shows expected state regulatory approvals in spring 2027, start of construction in fall 2029, completion by fall 2031 and lines in service by winter 2031. PSC has 270 days from NextEra's application date to grant or deny approval, he said, and any eminent domain proceedings to gain access to land would begin after that. He suggested four strategies to respond: take the best possible offer for the right of way (but don't be the first to agree because they get the worst offers); work to get the line moved to another route ; make sure the line avoids public lands (though this would affect more private landowners); or simply just oppose the line. Fleischauer continued that line of thought. "There's hope that we can do something about this, " she said. The key fight will be when the PSC is considering approval. And "not in my back yard " won't sway them. They will need clear evidence that the line won't benefit West Virginia. During a public Q &A session, residents cited some other concerns, including the effects on Cheat Lake recreation and business with new, big, unsightly power lines passing overhead. One lakeside landowner said, "It's very disturbing." There was a general understanding that landowners along all the proposed routes aren't going to want the line in their yards and will be opposing it. Fleischauer said, "If we are going to succeed, we are going to have to make the most noise." Another community informational meeting is set for 1 p.m. June 29 at Rexroad Auction in Bruceton Mills.
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
What Does Barrel Proof Mean? A Beginner's Guide To High ABV Whiskey
Glass of whisky cognac or bourbon in ornamental glass next to a vinatge wooden barrel on a rustic ... More wood and dark background. Walk into a whiskey bar or scroll through a whiskey subreddit and you'll see it pop up again and again: barrel proof. Sometimes you'll see it called cask strength. Sometimes it's labeled full proof. And always, it seems to have a sort of rugged mystique — like it's the purest, bravest version of whiskey you can pour. But what does 'barrel proof' really mean? Is it just whiskey marketing bravado? Is it dangerous to drink? And why does it cost more? Pull up a stool — let's unpack this together, neat or on the rocks. What Is Barrel Proof, Anyway? Starburst on Lights in Bourbon Aging Warehouse Corridor In the simplest terms, barrel proof (or cask strength) means the whiskey in your bottle has not been significantly diluted with water after aging in the barrel. Most whiskey — whether it's bourbon, rye, Scotch, or Irish — is barreled at a high proof (meaning high alcohol by volume, or ABV) and then brought down to a more palatable strength with water before bottling. For example, a typical bourbon might go into the barrel around 120 proof (60% ABV) and be bottled at 90 proof (45% ABV). A barrel proof whiskey skips that final big dilution step. It's bottled pretty much at the same proof it was when it came out of the cask — maybe filtered, maybe blended across a few barrels to ensure consistency, but otherwise untouched. So if you buy a bottle labeled barrel proof, you're getting whiskey at the full strength nature (and time) delivered. It's the whiskey equivalent of tasting a cake batter right out of the bowl before it's been frosted or adjusted for mass appeal. How Strong Is Barrel Proof Whiskey? "" Brace yourself: barrel proof whiskeys are usually strong. Really strong. While typical whiskeys hover between 40–46% ABV, barrel proof bottles often clock in between 55% and 65% ABV — sometimes even higher. In proof terms (remember, U.S. proof is simply ABV x 2), that means anywhere from about 110 to 130+ proof. This doesn't mean it's undrinkable — it means it's potent, layered, and can carry an incredible concentration of flavors you might never taste at lower proof. Why Do People Love Barrel Proof Whiskey? Glass of whisky cognac or bourbon in ornamental glass next to a vinatge wooden barrel on a rustic ... More wood and dark background. The short answer? Flavor and authenticity. Whiskey geeks chase barrel proof bottles because they believe it's the closest you can get to tasting whiskey straight from the barrel — raw, uncut, and unfiltered (sometimes literally). There's a depth and intensity that dilution can soften. It also gives drinkers control: you can sip it neat, drop in a cube of ice, or add a splash of water to 'open up' the aromas and flavors to your exact preference. Plus, barrel proof releases often come in small batches and limited runs, which adds a bit of thrill to the hunt. Does Barrel Proof Mean Better? Pouring whiskey from bottle into glass on wooden barrel against black background, closeup Not necessarily — but it does mean different. High proof doesn't guarantee greatness. An overproof whiskey can taste hot and harsh if it wasn't well distilled or properly aged. A master distiller's skill shines in balancing bold alcohol content with maturity and complexity. Some drinkers love the fire and boldness; others find barrel proof bottles overwhelming and prefer the smoother, more polished profile of standard proof whiskeys. Neither camp is wrong. It's all about personal taste. Tips for Enjoying Barrel Proof Whiskey Whiskey with ice cubes in glass on background of lights. If you're new to the world of high ABV whiskey, here are a few friendly tips: A Few Barrel Proof Bottles to Try Latin American man at the supermarket buying a bottle of whiskey - grocery shopping concepts Curious where to start? Here are a few great options to seek out: Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (Heaven Hill) A fan favorite that comes out in batches three times a year. Expect dark caramel, toasted oak, and a rich, lingering finish. Stagg Jr. (Buffalo Trace) This powerhouse packs big cherry, chocolate, and spice notes. A cult classic for barrel proof hunters. Booker's Bourbon (Jim Beam) Always uncut and unfiltered, with bold vanilla, peanut brittle, and smoky oak. Laphroaig Cask Strength (Islay Scotch) For peat lovers, this delivers smoky, briny punch in full force.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is $15 an hour enough? Only for DINKs in these states, data shows
(NEXSTAR) — Since 2009, the federal minimum wage in the U.S. has been $7.25 an hour. A new bill introduced in the Senate hopes to raise it to $15 an hour next year, followed by incremental increases to reflect inflation. In some states — including those that already have a minimum wage of $15 an hour or more — that rate isn't enough to cover the average costs a resident may have, according to MIT's Living Wage Calculator. The calculator takes into account the basic needs a family of varying sizes may have, like food, housing, child care, and transportation, to determine how much a worker must earn hourly to be 'self-sufficient.' Estimated living wages are available for all 50 states, their counties, and major metro areas. A Nexstar analysis found that, based on MIT's calculations, a $15 an hour rate isn't enough for a single adult, working 40 hours a week every week, to cover their basic needs in any state. The closest is West Virginia, where an hourly wage of $19.43 would suffice. It also wouldn't be enough for a family of four, with both adults working, to be self-sufficient in any state. Mississippi has the lowest hourly rate necessary for both adults at $22.43 an hour. In 15 states and Washington, meanwhile, the Living Wage Calculator found that for the same family, both adults would have to be earning $30 an hour or more to cover the same basic needs. In Massachusetts, an hourly living wage for two adults with two children is $37.71, according to MIT's calculator. Other states where the living wage is double the proposed federal minimum wage are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. (A recent study found that a family of four would need an annual household income of more than $200,000 to live comfortably in 43 states — that equates to both adults earning more than $40 an hour, before taxes and other withholdings.) The situation is vastly better for adults considered to be a 'DINK': dual-income, no kids. In 18 states, a household comprised of two adults who are both working, the pair could cover their needs while both earning under $15 an hour. According to MIT's Living Wage Calculator, Arkansas has the lowest necessary rate at $13.59 an hour. Close behind is West Virginia at $13.60. Other states where the estimated living wage for two working adults falls below $15 an hour include: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. An hourly wage of $15 is nearly enough in Texas, where DINKs require $15.04 an hour to cover their basic needs. These calculations are estimates, and every family's situation is different. A working couple with no kids in the Little Rock, Ark., area, for example, has a living wage rate of $13.90 an hour, which is higher than the state average. The same couple in Hot Springs, Ark., would each need to earn at least $13.36 an hour, more than 20 cents below the state average. According to the data produced by MIT's Living Wage Calculator, no state's minimum wage is enough to be considered a living wage for a single working adult, DINKs, or a family of four where both adults are working. In the District of Columbia, however, the current minimum wage is higher than the living wage outlined for a dual-income, no-kids household. MIT's Living Wage Calculator estimates DINKs in the nation's capital may need an hourly wage of only $17.01. The minimum wage in D.C. is $17.50 an hour, and will increase to $17.95 an hour on July 1. Several of the nation's largest metros have higher minimum wages than their respective states. In Denver, the minimum hourly wage is $18.81, $4 higher than the state's $14.81 rate and nearly 50 cents higher than the estimated living wage for DINKs living in the city. You can find the estimated living wage for your region at MIT's Living Wage Calculator. The bill has bipartisan support, with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) cosponsoring the legislation. The GOP-controlled House and Senate, though, have also been focused on Trump's priority legislation. President Donald Trump previously referred to the current rate of $7.25 an hour as a 'low number' in December, but the White House declined to comment on Hawley's proposed legislation to The Hill earlier this month. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
