Jeff Bezos reveals the simple phrase that saved him countless arguments running Amazon "Disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing" "One of my direct reports would want to do something. I'd think it was a bad idea. We'd go back and forth... and I'd often say, you know what, I don't think you're right, but I'm going to gamble with you" "You're closer to the ground truth than I am. I've known you for 20 years, you have great judgment" "At least then you've made a decision and I'm agreeing to commit to that decision. I'm not going to be second guessing it, sniping at it, or saying I told you so" "I'm going to try actively to help make sure it works. That's a really important teammate behavior"show more

Disagree and commit only works when both parties act responsibly. What usually ends up happening is the wrong call is made and the person who made the call blames everyone else to save themselves.

bezos is right and the second half is what actually makes it work, "disagree and commit" only functions when the senior person actually commits, no sniping, no quiet hoping it fails, no i-told-you-so when it does, that's the corrosive failure mode in most teams it also requires both sides to have track records, "i'll gamble with you" is what you say to someone whose judgment you trust, the same principle applied to someone unproven becomes "give up on the argument and watch the failure," it isn't a universal lever for individual contributors the principle works inverted, knowing when to argue hard and when to commit visibly to a decision you lost is a senior skill, the people who keep relitigating decisions after they're made are the ones who don't get the next promotion

As a leader, I would tell my report at that point “it is now my job to prove my original opinion was wrong”. Anything else is rooting for a project failure. I took pride in being able to point to successful cases of one of my guys picking a path I originally doubted, and he/she succeeding well.

the part bezos isn't highlighting is the cost, "i'll gamble with you" means he's taking the L professionally when the call fails, that's expensive capital for a CEO to burn, most managers won't actually do this, they'll claim to "disagree and commit" then quietly insulate themselves from accountability when things go wrong the version that doesn't work is the common one, leader says "go ahead, i'm on board" with one foot out, leaks the original disagreement to peers, distances themselves at the post-mortem, takes credit if it succeeds and blames the report if it fails, that's covered-arse delegation dressed up as commit the prerequisite is psychological safety from the top down, in cultures where being wrong gets you punished, "disagree and commit" becomes a procedural fig leaf, the principle works at amazon because bezos eats the loss publicly, that's the part most companies trying to copy it skip

Want to think like the top 1%? I study the world’s sharpest minds so you don’t have to. Peak Thinkers breaks down mental models & systems from elite founders, strategists, and creators every week. Subscribe here (for FREE) →

Sophie wanted to try making homemade tortillas. I didn’t think it was worth the effort at first. She made them anyway. Now we make a batch every Sunday and haven’t bought store bought since. Disagree and commit works in relationships too. Sometimes you just trust the person and let them run with it.

Many that actually worked at Amazon will tell you that it’s mostly “disagree and pretend to commit” Never believe anything a company says about its culture. The moment a book is written about your culture is the moment your culture jumped the shark.

It takes real emotional maturity to not need to be right all the time. Another example of Señor Bezos being a chill billi

As an ex-Amazonian, it’s far more often used to tell someone “shut up, we’re doing this”.

Yes, but he's using the one example where apparently the commit went from top down. In reality it's for lower staff to do what they're told even if they disagree.

If you're committing, why record the disagreement? It appears the only reason to record it is to use it for "I told you so" later. Else, the disagreement is just part of the back and forth. Once the "commit" phase is reached, the disagreement should be null and void

It is not necessary to express that you disagree with someone. What’s necessary is to ask the other party why? Be market driven not product driven. Make decisions based on facts not on feelings or personal perspective.

If I’m hearing this correctly this is how your Lord of the Rings The rings of power, and so many others got turning into crap. Message received, now fix the problem

None of what he does is actually important

但需要合理设计对赌成本和收益: 比如 失败成本是x, 成功收益是y(需要y>10x), 对赌人 失败时需承担损失0.5x, 成功时获得0.2y的奖赏

How can you trust a leader when you actively know what they have chosen is wrong?

@Ether_Beaver High-velocity decisions beat perfect alignment every single time. Trust the person closest to the ground truth, disagree if you must, but commit completely. True teammates never say 'I told you so.

I have a similar norm: Obligation to dissent with no pocket vetos. meaning, as a leader, my directs are obliged to give me decent voices in opinions. But once a decision is made, regardless of who makes it, one cannot walk out of that room and backstab the decision to anybody.

wow! i love that!

Ce principe aurait sauvé des dizaines de réunions inutiles dans chaque entreprise où j’ai travaillé.

Disagreeing and committing FAR TOO SOON to making rocket engines that rely on hydrogen as fuel is an interesting example. RP1→LCH4→LH2 should have been the “ferocious step by step” strategy for Blue Origin. Easy to say now on hindsight. Easy also to say back in the year 2000.

To bad he can't disagree and commit to paying his employees fairly or giving them humane working conditions.

As long as you have feedback, meaning if you make a wrong choice you can quickly correct it - The speed of the decision is much more important than whether it is right or wrong.

That's a valuable perspective. Emphasizing agreement on commitment can foster a collaborative environment, even amidst differing opinions. Thanks for sharing this insight!

It's too vague to make it a golden rule but what's not uncertain is that more and more CEOs hire experts in their field and then veto their decisions thus putting everyone jobs at risk.

Amazon hasn’t been run like this for years. Disagree and commit is still a principle, however, it’s more or less used by management to tell employees that even though what you’re doing doesn’t make sense, that you should just do it, minus the questions.

I learned it a few years ago. Very effective. Still hard to do due to excessive care.

The principles and mechanisms at Amazon should be studied at business school

Sage. Because if you won’t take that gamble, it triggers even deeper discussions.

Mieć luz w pracy - super.

💯 without this quicksand forms and the ripple effects on a org are disastrous.

big boss energy but imagine the ego on that one guy

Don’t forget that without wealthy parents, Amazon would not exist.

Every time a billionaire speaks you guys get together and circle jerk to whatever the quote is.

It sounds like when you’d argue with your parents and eventually they would say, “do what you want.” That was code for your going to be in trouble if you do it.