Disagreeing Together: Why discomfort is essential to academic leadership
We are navigating a period of profound complexity in our academic institutions as we deal with an onslaught of political polarization, economic pressures, and intense internal debates over social issues and institutional values. For higher education leaders, this presents a very real and urgent challenge: how can we take our institutions forward when disagreement feels so much harder than it used to?
The question for leaders is not whether disagreement will occur, but how it will be handled. Disagreement is inevitable, and discomfort is part of that reality. Avoiding difficult conversations may offer short-term relief, but it weakens institutions over time. Leading through discomfort, by contrast, strengthens trust and improves decision making.
Discomfort is often treated as a warning sign—evidence that something has gone wrong. Students may hesitate to speak in class or during a lunch conversation. Faculty avoid raising dissenting views in meetings. Leaders worry that allowing disagreement may escalate conflict or cause harm. The understandable response is to smooth things over, redirect the conversation, or shut it down altogether.
Yet in academic environments, discomfort is not a failure of leadership. In many cases, it is a sign that learning and inquiry are actually happening.
Discomfort and the purpose of the university
Universities were built on discourse. Academic research advances when we challenge established ideas. Peer review depends on critique. Seminars exist to test arguments, not confirm them. In our spaces, disagreement is essential.
However, in the current climate, disagreement is increasingly viewed as something to be avoided. When conversations touch on values, identity, or deeply held beliefs, leaders may feel pressure to eliminate discomfort.
In our institutions, we want to create cultures of psychological safety where everyone can speak up without fear of making a mistake or being chided. Psychological safety does not mean intellectual comfort. It does not mean that conversations will feel easy, or that ideas will go unchallenged. However, it does mean that we can speak openly in an environment of trust and support. It means disagreement can occur without personal attacks or fear of retaliation.
When leaders create environments where people can disagree respectfully and remain connected, they do more than manage conflict. They model the very principles that universities exist to uphold.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates believed that rigorous questioning was essential to learning and was renowned for teaching through dialogue, questioning others to examine their assumptions, identify contradictions, and clarify their thinking. This practice is known as the Socratic method, and it can ultimately help participants to reach a deeper, more accurate understanding. For Socrates himself, such questioning proved so deeply unsettling to those in power that he was put on trial and ultimately sentenced to death. His legacy is a reminder that universities exist precisely because uncomfortable questioning matters—and that leadership has always involved deciding whether to protect it or silence it.
In the book Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, constitutional scholar and Princeton University President Christopher L Eisgruber argues that universities can actually build on their tradition of free speech to influence more positive debate in wider society. He recognizes the polarization and turmoil on many US campuses and contends that we have a real opportunity to promote civil discussion that upholds ideals of inclusion and respect.
Leading through discomfort
Discomfort, handled with care and clarity, is not a threat to academic leadership. It is one of its most valuable resources.
Learning how to lead uncomfortable conversations is an important leadership skill. In academic leadership, we don’t simply need to react to disagreements and manage challenging situations. We also need to be confident about bringing up the kind of difficult but important topics that may actually spark disagreement. As a leader, you can introduce and reinforce the principle that disagreement is okay.
Of course, we should also be aware of the power and influence we have as leaders. Even when we’re not always aware of it, power dynamics are at play. As leaders, we need to create an environment where differing opinions are welcomed. Central to this, is understanding the impact of sharing our own ideas and therefore, when and if our view is needed. Align your power with the purpose of your institution.
Have we forgotten how to disagree?
Back in 2020, a Real Clear Politics study found that 60% of the students who responded didn’t feel comfortable openly disagreeing with their professors in the classroom.
It’s not unusual to feel uncomfortable if you have an opinion that's different from someone else’s.
Upholding the concept of free speech means that people will inevitably disagree with each other. And it’s okay to disagree. Create an environment of openness, respect and trust. Be open minded and try not to let your preconceived ideas color your initial response: Sit and listen, ask questions, seek to understand, and take your time. We can come together and reach conclusions without complete agreement.
The cost of avoiding disagreement
When leaders work too hard to avoid discomfort, disagreement does not disappear—it simply goes underground. Faculty stop voicing concerns in meetings. Students disengage or speak only in spaces where they feel affirmed. Decisions are made without the benefit of challenge.
Over time, this creates hidden costs. Innovation slows. Trust erodes. Leaders may be surprised by conflicts that appear to erupt suddenly but have in fact been building quietly for months or years.
Paradoxically, environments where everyone agrees are often the least healthy. Uniform agreement can signal fear rather than alignment. When people stop questioning, it becomes harder to identify risk, surface alternatives, or improve decisions.
Strong academic cultures are not those without disagreement, but those that know how to harness its power.
What it means to disagree together
Disagreeing together does not mean endless debate or lack of direction. Leadership still requires judgment, clarity, and accountability. Decisions must ultimately be made, and not every perspective will shape the outcome equally.
Disagreeing together means creating conditions where:
Disagreement is encouraged rather than punished
Ideas can be challenged without questioning someone’s legitimacy or belonging
Listening is valued as much as speaking
Decisions are informed by dissent, not insulated from it
In practice, this often begins with leaders acknowledging disagreement as a normal part of academic life. When leaders model curiosity by asking clarifying questions rather than immediately rebutting, when they encourage their own ideas to be questioned rather than immediately accepted, they set a powerful tone. When they acknowledge discomfort without rushing to resolve it, they give others permission to contribute with confidence.
This kind of leadership requires restraint. It asks leaders to tolerate uncertainty and resist the urge to “fix” tension too quickly. But it is precisely this restraint that allows more honest and productive dialogue to emerge.
The cost of avoidance
Leading through disagreement is emotionally demanding. Academic leaders are often navigating multiple, challenging roles at once, and some are understandably concerned that conversations may cross lines they are unprepared to manage. Sometimes, avoidance can feel like the safer option. However, avoidance often increases risk rather than reducing it.
How coaching can help
Disagreeing together is not an innate skill. It can be learned. For faculty leaders, questioning and being questioned is the norm, and a critical to sparking innovation and ensuring quality. As faculty leaders move to leading in other spaces, they can bring this experience with them and apply it in new situations.
However, many academic leaders are promoted for their scholarly or administrative expertise, not for their ability to facilitate difficult conversations. Few have had formal opportunities to practice staying grounded in moments of tension.
Coaching can play a critical role in developing this capacity. It offers leaders a confidential space to reflect on challenging situations, examine assumptions, and practice responses before they are needed in high-stakes moments. Coaching supports leaders in distinguishing between productive discomfort and harm, and in developing language that invites engagement rather than shuts it down.
Through coaching, we can explore how to have challenging conversations in a safe and supportive one-to-one relationship with a coach.
We can develop the skills of active listening: the ability to fully focus on others’ messages, to read verbal and nonverbal signals, and to build connections through greater understanding. We can learn how to set aside distractions, withhold judgement, and actively process others’ points of view. And once we have learned these skills, we are better equipped to develop them in others, too.
Rather than providing scripts or quick fixes, coaching helps leaders build internal resilience:the ability to remain present, curious, and intentional when disagreement arises.
Conclusion
Disagreement is not a problem to be solved. In academic institutions, discomfort is often the signal that inquiry and learning are alive. When leaders resist the urge to smooth over tension and instead create the conditions for people to disagree together, they strengthen trust and honor the core purpose of academia. curious, and connected when it matters most.
Let’s get comfortable with discomfort.