Feel awkward arguing with others? Try this.

As an introvert – I never liked arguing with people.

In fact, to this day: I still remember a personality test I took during my first year at Google.

I filled out a long questionaire, after which I found out about the "colors" that characterized my working style.

The results? Everyone on my team was fairly "red" (strong-willed, not afraid of confrontation).

Me, on the other hand?

I was the only person who was "green." I cared about people getting along. I preferred harmony above all else.

I was the odd one out.

Of course, the results of the personality test weren't a huge surprise to me.

But it did start making me more self-conscious whenever I observed other "red" people at work – especially when it came to conflict resolution.

Specifically, I would notice how these people:

• Never seemed to shy away from an argument
• Always appeared to be assertive and confident
• Could challenge others directly without feeling "bad"

Meanwhile, I imagined putting myself in their shoes – and it'd simply make me cringe.

Because when it came to disagreing with others? I simply couldn't make myself more "red." It just wasn't my style.

I cared about speaking up for what I believed in (but I didn't like doing it in a way that could potentially embarrass others).

I cared about letting logic and reason prevail (but I rarely found it justifable to have the loudest voice in the room).

I cared about expressing my point of view (but I also found it stressful to toe the line between constructive debate and heated confrontation).

And so, for many years: I chose to accept the narrative.

I told myself that disagreeing with others would always feel awkward for me – because I was a "green" person at the core.

And that there was very little I could do.

👋 Join 5000+ readers and subscribe to Herng's Newsletter for free:

Why is this hard?

Regardless of whether or not you identify as a "green" person – disagreeing with others is never a fun task.

(Especially if the other person is more senior, more experienced – or just simply louder.)

Because in those situations, you might worry about things like:

• "Will I offend this person by being too direct?"
• "What if I win the debate, but leave a sour taste?"
• "Will I jeopardize our working relationship in the future?"
• "Am I confident enough in my view to take a strong stand?"
• "Is this battle worth fighting, or should I just let it go?"

If any of these concerns resonate? You might find what's coming next helpful.

Because in these situations, there is a reframing exercise that has helped me tremendously over the years.

It has allowed me to remain a "green" person at heart, without requiring me to bite my tongue or shy away from confrontation.

It's called leading with curiosity – and it's one of the best pieces of advice I've received over the years.

How "leading with curiosity" works

Let's illustrate this with a hypothetical example.

How would we go about tackling this?

Sure, we can try things like:

• Invoke authority ("This is unfortunately non-negotiable, as it's an org-wide decision")
• Appeal to reason ("This will pay off in the long run, as we'll get valuable insights about our business")
• Compromise ("Can we agree on doing monthly updates, instead of weekly updates then?")

Or – we can lead with curiosity.

This means that we might approach the conversation by saying:

I assume we're optimizing for the same things: we want to protect everyone's time while also ensuring a degree of business rigour...

I believe that this new system that we're rolling out can address both goals – especially given all the new features it brings...

However, it seems like that's not been your team's experience – and I'm curious to understand what exactly I might be overlooking...

Why is reframing this way important?

Well, it turns out that when you lead with curiosity, a few good things can happen.

Benefit #1: It no longer becomes "personal."

Why does disagreeing feel awkward sometimes?

The main reason is this: it's hard to attack someone's argument without feeling like you're also attacking the person.

Because the conventional way of disagreeing goes like this:

• You said that the issue is X...
• However, the facts show that it's Y...
• Therefore we should agree it's Y.

Meanwhile, if you lead with curiosity? You reframe the conversation so it goes:

• You're saying that the issue is X...
• Meanwhile, I'm seeing things that suggest it's Y...
• Somehow, there seems to be a gap between X and Y...
• ...let's figure out why there's a gap, together.

The fact that two reasonable lines of thinking about the business (presumably both well-intentioned) fail to reconcile should be interesting to you, rather than irking.

You should be curious to figure out why.

Because it's about the viewpoints not jiving with each other – rather than the people.

You're asking questions in order to find a way to close the gap together – instead of trying to find weakness in the other person's argument.

You're advocating for your viewpoints in order to solve the puzzle together – instead of using it as a way to simply win the debate.

You're decoupling the arguments from the individuals. Which makes it more likely for your discussion to be productive.

Benefit #2: They might actually listen.

Here's the thing: when people engage in live arguments, no one is really listening to the other side.

Sure, they might nod along when the other person is speaking – but most of their mindspace isn't really there.

Instead, they're thinking about how to build up ammunition for their next rebuttal. They're not really listening.

But when you lead with curiosity? You tend to ask questions.

You invite the other person to share. You're putting the spotlight on the other person, rather than trying to talk over them.

This tends to build up enough goodwill and make people feel "heard" – so that they feel ready to now open up their ears to you.

Only then does a discussion actually start.

👋 Join 5000+ readers and subscribe to Herng's Newsletter for free:

Benefit #3: You're more likely to find solutions.

When you lead with curiosity, you get to park aside the notion of "right vs. wrong" for a moment. Because that's not what you're interested in.

Instead, you're exploring why there's a gap in perceptions – and what you can do to address that gap.

(Think of it this way: that "gap" between viewpoints is the enemy to attack. Not the people.)

This then allows you to ask constructive questions like:

• Could it be because sales teams have been "burned" before (hence the distrust)?
• Could it be because the new tool does not address certain needs?
• Could it be because the process is perceived to take up hours every week (whereas in reality it should only take minutes)?

And when you ask these questions, you're more likely to identify actionable solutions.

For example, you can:

• Clarify misconceptions on the spot ("Ah, so these bugs have actually been fully resolved since last quarter...")
• Identify intermediate steps ("Sounds like it could be helpful if we hosted a training session with the sales team?")
• Refine your proposal ("Sounds like this feature is a dealbreaker for sellers, and we'll get more buy-in if we can commit to a launch timeline?")

You may not solve everything right away – but you are way more likely to achieve progress.

The caveat

Of course, leading with curiosity isn't a silver bullet in all situations.

Because if there is one caveat to all of this? It's that before you get too deep, you have to figure out whether the group actually agrees on the same set of principles.

Otherwise everything else is moot.

Remember, we started the conversation by establishing:

...we want to protect everyone's time while also ensuring a degree of business rigour...

But of course, not everyone might agree with these principles. And their views might still be valid.

For instance, you could have sales leaders who believe that operational rigour only makes sense at a later stage – and that right now they are ruthlessly optimizing for growth. No distractions allowed.

(OK, that definitely makes things harder.)

But at least you will have identified this disconnect upfront. It's no longer simply about tools and processes.

You'll need a different conversation – but you'll at least save time by not going down a wrong rabbit hole.

Key Takeaways

• Feel awkward challenging others? Try leading with curiosity.
• When you do this, a few good things can happen:
  • You're decoupling the argument from the individual.
  • You're listening (which helps the other person listen too).
  • You're actively problem-solving – instead of simply debating.
• Assume good intention. But don't forget to align on guiding principles.

Want more like this?

• Was this email forwarded to you? Subscribe (it's free)
• Grab my slide science playbook for free
• Learn about the masterclass that I'm building