How to Disagree Without Dismissing a Coworker

How can you disagree without dismissing the feeling?

Acknowledge what your coworker says they felt, ask which moment or action they mean, then give your account in first-person terms and leave room to correct it. For example, as an illustration: “You felt cut off when I moved to the next agenda item. Was it when I started speaking before you had finished? I remember thinking we were out of time, not that your point did not matter. Have I got the moment right?” The feeling is received as their report; the interruption is a conduct you can discuss; the reason you acted remains your account of intent.

That sequence lets you take the impact seriously without agreeing that you meant to dismiss them. If they used a specific word for the feeling, reflect that word rather than naming an emotion they have not described. If their meaning is unclear, ask. Then state what you saw or intended with “I remember,” “I was trying to,” or “I understood,” rather than deciding what they must have thought. A coworker may correct your description of the moment, and you may still remember it differently. Keep the invitation genuine: you are checking the account, not setting a trap before delivering a verdict. If you learn that the impact came from a different moment, adjust your understanding before defending the first example. This keeps the exchange anchored to what your coworker actually raised.

Why can disagreement sound like dismissal even when you listened?

A person can treat agreement as evidence that a listener understood them. When the listener rejects the conclusion, that same person may infer that the listener missed the point, even if the listener followed the account. The study “Disagreement Gets Mistaken for Bad Listening” tested this perception across 11 studies involving 3,396 adults. The researchers varied agreement after conversations and, in some conditions, held listening behavior constant or manipulated it independently. Speakers repeatedly rated disagreeing listeners as poorer listeners. The authors connect the pattern to a familiar asymmetry: people tend to experience their own views as correct, so disagreement can look like evidence of incomprehension. The finding concerns judgments of listening, not a test of whose memory or interpretation was right. [0]

That distinction matters in a tense work conversation. A coworker who says “you weren’t listening” may be reporting a real sense of not being understood; the sentence does not, by itself, establish that you ignored their words. Their impression and your listening behavior are related but not identical. The disagreement itself can shape how the earlier exchange is remembered or evaluated. That possibility is not proof that the coworker is mistaken, either. It simply means the accusation cannot settle what happened on its own.

The same issue appears when the disputed point is what an action meant. Suppose one colleague says a decision was rushed because their concern was brushed aside, while the other remembers trying to keep a meeting on schedule. If the second person opens with “you’ve got it wrong,” the colleague may hear a rejection of the whole account—including the part about feeling brushed aside. Yet agreeing that a concern was raised does not require agreeing that the decision-maker intended to disregard it. The two claims concern different things: what the person experienced and why the other person acted. Keeping them distinct gives the disagreement somewhere more precise to go.

The experiments do not show that every coworker uses agreement as a listening test, or that a particular colleague failed to hear you accurately. They show that agreement can act as a proxy signal for comprehension in the studied conversations, even when listening cues are controlled. In a real exchange, you do not know from the feeling of being misunderstood alone whether your colleague missed the words, rejected your conclusion, or both. Nor can you infer from their accusation that your account was understood perfectly. Treat the report as information about their perception, then make the point of disagreement explicit enough to check.

This is why a brief demonstration of understanding can matter before you offer the different interpretation: name the point you believe they made in words they recognize, and let them correct that summary. You are not rehearsing agreement or asking them to certify your listening. You are making the content visible, so the next disagreement can attach to the claim or interpretation itself. If they say your summary still misses the point, ask what is absent before rebutting it. If they recognize their account but dispute your reading of the event, you have located the disagreement more clearly. The research supports caution about using disagreement as evidence of poor listening; it does not prescribe a script or guarantee the other person will feel heard.

Sources: Disagreement Gets Mistaken for Bad Listening

What does acknowledging the feeling actually communicate?

Acknowledgment means showing that you have registered the emotion your coworker reports, without claiming that you know more about it than they do. In “Emotional acknowledgment: How verbalizing others’ emotions fosters interpersonal trust,” a six-study program found that verbalizing another person’s emotion increased trust evaluations. The authors’ account links the effect to perceived willingness to spend effort or resources on the other person. In practical terms, putting the feeling into words can signal attention: the speaker sees that the emotion has entered the conversation and is worth responding to. The studies measured trust judgments and responses under study conditions; they did not establish that a particular sentence will restore trust after a workplace disagreement.

Accuracy mattered especially when the emotion was negative. Across the studies, inaccurately acknowledging a negative emotion carried a penalty compared with accurately acknowledging it. That asymmetry matters in a tense exchange: calling a colleague “furious” when they said they were disappointed adds a confident claim about their state. Even a sympathetic guess can sound like you are interpreting them from the outside. If they already feel misread, the label may become another point they have to correct before the original disagreement can move forward. The practical implication is not that positive feelings can be guessed freely; it is that a mistaken negative label can carry an extra interpersonal cost. Negative words may imply blame, hostility, or a judgment about how the colleague handled the event, even if you meant to show concern. The research supports attending closely to that difference in accuracy, rather than treating every label as an interchangeable sign of empathy.

Repeating the coworker’s own word is safer because it keeps the acknowledgment tied to information they actually supplied. If they say, “I felt embarrassed when the client question went unanswered,” you can say, “You felt embarrassed when we moved on from that question.” You have reflected their report; you have not declared what they must have felt or why. The accuracy here is fidelity to their description, not a ruling on whether their reaction was justified or whether your account of the meeting is correct.

When they describe an impact without naming an emotion, do not fill in the blank as though the label were a fact. You might say, “It sounds as though being left out of that decision was upsetting—is that close?” The tentative phrase makes clear that you are checking your interpretation. If they correct it—perhaps they felt frustrated rather than upset—use the correction. A question is useful only if the answer can change what you say next; otherwise the label risks sounding like a conversational formula.

This is a practical inference from the accuracy finding, not a tested guarantee about any coworker’s reaction. The evidence gives a reason to take care with emotional labels, particularly negative ones; it cannot tell you which word fits another person in a specific conversation. Their own wording is the best starting point. Where you are inferring, leave the interpretation open and let them revise it.

Sources: Emotional acknowledgment: How verbalizing others’ emotions fosters interpersonal trust

Which parts of the story can you check together?

A tense exchange often bundles three different claims: what the other person experienced, what each person did or said, and what someone meant by it. Keeping those claims separate makes room for disagreement without turning a disputed explanation into a dispute over whether the impact counts. Your coworker is the authority on what they report feeling. You can listen to that report without pretending you remember the event in the same way.

For example, suppose a colleague says a project handoff left them feeling exposed in front of a client. You remember sending the status file before the meeting and believe the missing context came from a later change. The colleague’s feeling is their account of the impact. The file’s send time, what it contained, and when the project changed are parts of the sequence you may be able to check together. Establishing one timestamp would clarify the sequence; it would not erase the impact they report.

Start with the conduct or sequence both of you can examine: which update went out, what information was available, when the decision changed, who received the handoff, or what was said in the meeting. Concrete details give the conversation something more stable than competing summaries such as “you left me hanging” and “I did everything I could.” A calendar entry, message, document version, or decision note may help, if it exists and is relevant. Sometimes a simple question about timing is enough. The purpose is to understand the work event, not to assemble a case against a colleague. Check only details that bear on the disputed point: if the question is whether an update reached someone before a meeting, the send time may matter; a record unrelated to that timing adds little.

Intent sits on a different footing. “You wanted me to look incompetent” explains why someone acted; unless there is direct evidence, it remains an inference. So does “I only meant to keep the project moving.” A person may state their own intention, but that statement does not prove the effect was harmless, and another person’s interpretation does not by itself prove that intention. Where evidence is missing, say what you know and what you are inferring: “I sent the file before the meeting; I can see it left you without the revised numbers. I thought the change was still pending.” That leaves room to discuss both the sequence and its impact without presenting motive as a checked fact.

Accounts can remain different, records may be incomplete, and a shared reconstruction is not a prerequisite for speaking respectfully. You do not need to investigate every tense exchange or force agreement on the whole story. Check the details that could change a work decision or explain a misunderstanding. Keep the reported impact in view while you do so, and mark an explanation of intent as an explanation when the available evidence cannot settle it.

How can you state your disagreement without issuing a verdict?

A useful disagreement names the speaker's evidence or intention without assigning a defect to the coworker's understanding. “You misunderstood me” turns a difference in interpretation into a claim about the other person's competence. It invites a dispute over whether they listened before either person has compared accounts. A first-person account keeps the claim narrower: it describes what the speaker meant, noticed, or believed at the time, leaving room for the other person to explain the impact and the facts they relied on.

In “I understand you feel that way, but I feel this way: the benefits of I-language and communicating perspective during conflict,” participants assessed hypothetical conflict-opening statements. The researchers varied whether the statement used I-language or you-language and whether it communicated both parties' perspectives. Participants rated how defensive the recipient was likely to feel. I-language and communicating perspective each reduced anticipated defensiveness, and statements combining the two received the most favorable ratings. The experiment therefore concerns judgments about possible reactions to wording, not observed conversations between coworkers or later resolution of an actual dispute.

For a disagreement about intent, a practical structure is: “I can see why that action landed as dismissive. I was trying to [specific purpose], because I understood [specific information] at the time. I may have missed something; what did you see that led you to read it differently?” The first sentence recognizes impact without deciding that the coworker's interpretation of motive is correct. The next two locate the speaker's account in a purpose and the information available then. The question makes the account answerable: a colleague can identify a detail the speaker overlooked, or explain why the same detail did not change the effect.

This is an editorial application of the experiment, not wording tested by its authors. Its value is that it communicates a perspective while avoiding the verdict contained in “you misunderstood.” It also gives the listener something concrete to examine: the information and intention behind the choice. If the speaker cannot name either clearly, that uncertainty can be said plainly instead of hidden behind a confident defense. “I” at the start does not make a sentence fair by itself; a speaker can use first person to deny impact, shift blame, or imply that their own intention ends the discussion. The distinction is especially useful when the disagreement concerns motive, because motive is not directly visible in the same way as a message, a decision, or a sequence of events. Naming the information that shaped the choice gives the coworker a point they can challenge without requiring them to accept the speaker’s self-description. For example, they might agree that the information was available but disagree that it justified the choice; then the real issue is the decision standard, not whether either person can read the other’s mind. Keep the explanation brief enough that it does not crowd out the impact already described.

Keep the account open to correction. A colleague's description of an effect is not disproved by the speaker's good intention, and the speaker's memory does not automatically establish every detail of the exchange. If the other person identifies a specific decision, phrase, or missing piece of information, respond to that point before repeating the motive explanation. If their account remains different, the aim of the sentence has still been met when both perspectives are clear enough to identify the actual disagreement. The study gives a reason to prefer wording that communicates one's perspective without accusation; it does not determine which account is accurate or promise that the recipient will respond calmly.

Sources: I understand you feel that way, but I feel this way: the benefits of I-language and communicating perspective during conflict

What if you still disagree after both accounts are clear?

Understanding another person's account does not require adopting it. If both coworkers can state what they believe happened and still disagree about intent, they can name that remaining difference rather than keep pressing for a confession or a shared verdict. The conversation can then turn to a narrower question: is there a decision, responsibility, or working condition that still needs attention? That question gives the exchange a useful endpoint even when neither person changes their view.

“Understanding workplace incivility dynamics from the perspective of conflict mediators: a qualitative study” draws on descriptive phenomenological interviews with nine mediators, recruited through snowball sampling, about workplace incivility cases they had mediated. The mediators described how personal norms and attributions of intent could shape emotional reactions and subsequent interaction. Their accounts included people who reconsidered an initial interpretation after hearing another perspective, alongside people who maintained their reading, assigned blame, or rationalized the conduct. The range matters: perspective exchange sometimes opened a route to reconsideration, but the accounts do not support a predictable progression from explanation to agreement.

These are mediators' interpretations of selected cases, not recordings of a representative group of coworkers or a count of how often people reconcile. The study is useful here for challenging a tidy expectation that once each person has been heard, one account will yield. In a particular disagreement, the explanation of intent may remain unavailable or unpersuasive to one party. Repeating it more forcefully rarely adds new information. A more bounded statement could be: “We still read the intention differently. I don't think we need to settle that now. Is there a work decision we still need to make?” That leaves the disagreement visible while asking whether there is a practical matter to resolve.

The boundary also protects the conversation from turning into an endless trial of character. A person can say what they are prepared to discuss—such as the effect on a project, a future expectation, or a specific decision—and pause if the exchange is no longer productive. This is not a claim that the relationship is repaired or that the unresolved question is unimportant. It identifies what is and is not available in this conversation. If the coworker has no remaining work request, the parties may stop without manufacturing agreement; if a task or decision remains open, they can address that item separately from the disputed motive. A boundary can be modest: return to the matter later, move the task question to its proper decision-maker, or end this exchange for now.

Treat this as a practical option derived from the mediator accounts, not a procedure evaluated by the study. Some people may revise their interpretation when they hear new context; others may retain it. Either response is possible, and neither should be presumed in advance. The immediate test is whether both accounts are now clear enough to stop repeating them and whether anything concrete still depends on a decision. If so, state that issue in neutral terms and agree on the next responsible step within one's role. If not, end the discussion with the difference accurately named and the conversational boundary intact.

Sources: Understanding workplace incivility dynamics from the perspective of conflict mediators: a qualitative study

What changes when the disagreement has affected the work?

Sometimes the exchange ends while a practical consequence remains: a colleague lacks a handoff detail, a decision has no clear owner, or a deadline depends on an unresolved choice. Address that consequence directly. In “Feeling Heard: Experiences of Listening (or Not) at Work,” researchers interviewed 41 employees in interdependent roles at one bank and collected 81 stories about workplace listening. The accounts describe listening as involving more than what happens in a conversation: in some stories, people also looked for a response or follow-through afterward. This is qualitative evidence about how these employees described their experiences, not a measure of how often follow-through matters across workplaces or proof that a later action causes repair.

That finding makes a practical distinction useful. Acknowledging what the disagreement felt like answers an interpersonal question; restoring clarity about the work answers an operational one. One can matter even when the other remains unresolved. Suppose a project decision was discussed, but the handoff document still lists an earlier deadline. The colleagues can leave their views of the tense exchange unsettled and still identify what the next team needs: the current date, who owns the update, and when it will be sent. If the missing detail is yours to supply, correct it. If ownership is unclear, ask the relevant people to name an owner. If the decision belongs to a lead or another authority, request that it be reopened through that person rather than implying you can reverse it yourself.

Make the next step concrete enough that nobody has to infer whether the task is finished. “I’ll update the handoff with the revised date by 2 p.m.” is a bounded commitment if you control the document and can meet that time. If you do not control the decision, say what you can do: “I’ll send the open question to Priya, who owns the approval, and ask when we can expect a decision.” A useful update names the missing information or decision, the person responsible for the next action, and a time to check progress when timing matters. It need not become a broad promise to fix the relationship or prevent every future misunderstanding.

The scale of the response should match the consequence. For a missing file detail, a corrected note may be enough. For a choice that changes another team’s work, the responsible decision-maker may need to confirm the change and communicate it to everyone relying on the earlier version. When a deadline is uncertain, agree who will provide the next update and by when; do not announce a date as settled if approval is pending. These are practical applications of the work problem, not interventions tested in the bank study. Their value is that they leave the task in a more usable state, even if neither colleague has changed their account of why the exchange became tense.

A correction does not certify either person's motive story. A colleague may still believe the earlier choice showed disregard; you may still understand it as a response to incomplete information. The work can nevertheless become clearer: record the current decision, its owner, and any unresolved approval, while leaving intent as an open question. If you cannot make the correction yourself, identify who can and ask for a route or update you are able to follow through on. The bank interviews make follow-through a plausible part of some employees’ experience of being heard; they do not require a particular promise. Keep the commitment within your role, access, and capacity, then do the specific thing you said you would do.

Sources: Feeling Heard: Experiences of Listening (or Not) at Work

When is a direct conversation the wrong next step?

A private conversation is one possible route, not an obligation. It may be reasonable when the disagreement is bounded, both people can speak freely, and neither faces a credible risk for raising the issue. Pause before choosing that route if the conduct is serious or repeated, raises a safety concern, involves a substantial power imbalance, or falls under a workplace policy or process that should be used. Those conditions do not decide what happened or dictate a single outcome; they change who may be equipped to help and what protections or procedures might apply.

The Acas-commissioned research report “Defining and enabling informal workplace conflict resolution” drew on 33 in-depth interviews with experienced managers and practitioners, a rapid evidence review, and focus groups. Its discussion treats informal resolution as dependent on context, including power dynamics and whether the route is suitable or working. Acas identifies the page as research, not formal Acas guidance. The methods therefore support a cautious point about choice: an informal conversation should not be treated as the automatic first step for every workplace conflict. They do not establish a universal threshold or supply a legal test for when a particular case must be escalated.

Consider what would happen if you raised the concern directly. Can you disagree without risking retaliation, intimidation, or pressure to accept the other person’s account? Is this an isolated misunderstanding, or part of a repeated pattern that informal discussion has not changed? Does a safety issue, reporting requirement, or workplace rule make a designated route relevant? If the answer raises concern, check the policy that applies and consider speaking with an appropriate manager, HR contact, union or other representative, or another support person available in your workplace. Which route fits depends on the circumstances and the procedures that actually apply; an article cannot determine that for you.

You can ask for information without committing to a formal complaint or assuming that a process will resolve the matter. For example, you might ask a representative what options exist, or ask HR how the relevant policy handles a repeated concern. Keep a note of concrete events and work effects if that will help you explain the issue accurately, while distinguishing what you observed from what you infer about motive. If there is an immediate safety concern, use the appropriate urgent workplace or local support route rather than waiting for a private conversation to become possible. The aim is to select a route that fits the seriousness, power relationship, and applicable process, not to make a legal judgment from a checklist.

At the same time, tension alone does not mean a direct conversation is unsafe or inadequate. When both colleagues can participate freely and the issue is limited, they may choose a short, bounded exchange about the disputed interpretation or the work decision still open. Either person can pause or seek support if the conversation changes. If the direct route feels unsafe, has been tried repeatedly without progress, or conflicts with a process that applies, it is reasonable to consult the relevant policy or support before proceeding. The Acas-commissioned study offers context for that judgment; it is not a guarantee that informal discussion, management involvement, or a formal process will produce agreement or a particular remedy.

Sources: Defining and enabling informal workplace conflict resolution

What should you do next?

Choose the next move by what remains unresolved. If the exchange feels safe, the issue is bounded, and both of you can speak freely, make one clear response: name the impact you heard, state the part of your account you disagree with, and ask whether a specific work decision still needs attention. You do not need to settle intent before agreeing who will update a handoff, clarify a deadline, or make the next decision. If the conversation feels unsafe, the concern is repeated or serious, or a workplace process applies, pause the direct exchange and consult the relevant policy or support route instead.

Afterward, reflect on one behavior you can observe in yourself: did you ask what the other person meant before defending your account, or did you move straight to rebuttal? Pick one adjustment to try in a future disagreement, such as asking a clarifying question before explaining your intent. For structured private self-reflection, the 32-item Emotional Skills Profile at /assessment can help you examine your own emotional habits and scenario judgments. It cannot establish what your coworker meant or decide which account is true. Whether or not you use it, take the next concrete step within your role: send the clarification, request the appropriate support, or name the work decision that still needs an owner.

Questions readers ask