As businesses celebrate creativity, agility and innovation, one skill remains strangely suspect: disagreement. In The art of disagreeingpublished by Editions Gereso, Alexis Dresco rehabilitates critical thinking and presents it not as a threat, but as a lever for collective intelligence.
Why are we so afraid of contradiction? How can you express a dissenting voice without putting yourself in danger, especially when you are a woman in environments still marked by persistent bias? Metacognition, cognitive biases, innovation, artificial intelligence… In this interview, the author invites us to make disagreement not a fracture, but a tool for connection and progress.
You define critical thinking as “ the art of disagreeing “. Why does disagreement remain so uncomfortable in business?
Alexis Dresco: Because sometimes we have the impression that disagreement is synonymous with disengagement. However, employee commitment is necessary for companies, so managers and bosses are sometimes afraid of dissension. As an employee, we can also be afraid of being criticized for our disagreements as lack of loyalty.
In my book, I wanted to show that disagreement can be healthy for both employees and employers, because it is a factor of collective intelligence and innovation in particular. But there are still many modern companies that have understood this very well!
Disagreement is more difficult to express in front of an authority figure. How to make a dissenting voice heard without putting yourself in danger?
Alexis Dresco: Not every disagreement is necessarily a sign of deep dissent. You have to know how to distinguish doubt, divergent opinions, and misalignment. These are what I call levels of disagreement. Before wanting to make your voice heard, it is necessary to reflect on yourself and question yourself: this is what we call metacognition. We can ask ourselves: do I have enough information to form an opinion? Am I sure of my disagreements? Are they rational or emotional?
If we are clear about the nature of our disagreement, we will be much more comfortable expressing it. There are effective communication tools there. For example, we can focus on the facts, try to understand the frame of reference of our interlocutor, express our needs and limits, and listen to those of the other to find a favorable outcome.
Women, according to numerous studies, are more socially penalized when they express disagreement. How to develop critical thinking without being perceived as “aggressive” Or “difficult”?
Alexis Dresco: It’s true that this is an alarming observation, and it’s difficult to respond as a man.
In my opinion, the first step is to understand that we can disagree without being in conflict. In conflict there is emotion, often animosity. Critical thinking is not criticizing others, it is questioning situations or ideas. It’s not a weapon, it’s a tool.
Concretely, I would advise being as factual as possible, and preparing your speeches well. It’s about being clear about what you want to say and how you want to say it, preparing your arguments, and daring to hold your positions. Also, sexist remarks must also be noted and criticized!
How can a collective identify its own blind spots without falling into permanent self-justification?
Alexis Dresco: Firstly, in a team, it is good to have diversity. Many studies show that it is a factor of collective intelligence: it allows you to have several ways of thinking within the group and to reduce blind spots.
Then, it is important not to lie to yourself: if you are experiencing a cognitive bias, or if you were wrong, you have to know how to say so.
In the book I talk about tools like the post-mortem or the pre-mortem to identify the flaws in a project. It is important that this is always oriented towards future action so as not to fall into self-justification.
You insist on metacognition: why is it so difficult to doubt one’s own reasoning?
Alexis Dresco: We tend to confuse our reasoning with our identity. As if admitting we were wrong was admitting we were stupid. But we all have prejudices on certain subjects, and sometimes shaky reasoning. This does not call into question our intelligence. It’s also about developing enough self-confidence to be able to question ourselves without shaking our identity.
We all experience confirmation bias: when we have affirmed something, we tend to want to defend it afterwards, even if we were obviously wrong.
The good news is that metacognition can be worked on: it is good to know some biases, and above all to practice. It’s like a muscle, it doesn’t happen in a day!
You address artificial intelligence in your book. Does AI risk weakening our critical thinking or can it on the contrary strengthen it?
Alexis Dresco: There is a lot of research being done on this topic. In my opinion, from the moment we reread, evaluate and correct the AI’s productions, we exercise critical thinking. So if we use it to automate tasks without controlling the result, it’s dangerous. On the other hand, if we are in an analysis process with the generated content, it can help.
Furthermore, we can use it as a contradictor, to challenge our ideas, or to give us feedback on our work. For me, this is a very virtuous use. That said, we can also think that the people who take this step are already those who have a critical mind and find it important to question themselves…
You explain that innovation is born from the confrontation of ideas. Why do so many organizations value creativity…but discourage disagreement?
Alexis Dresco: I think that organizations often want innovation, but not always what goes with it, namely taking the time to analyze, disagree, question. We want the result, but not the work that precedes it.
It is true that when we encourage disagreement, we can have the impression of opening Pandora’s box! Won’t people start criticizing the employer?
However, I think that even for the employer, it is beneficial to confront criticism, rather than brushing it under the rug by discouraging free expression.
We are observing a new generation more inclined to question established models (ecological impact, meaning of work, etc.). What do you think?
Alexis Dresco:
And then on vast social issues, reality is complex and it would be pretentious for a person to claim to understand it in its entirety… So critical thinking must above all be a tool for connection and bonding.
If you had to give just one piece of advice to a leader who doesn’t dare express disagreement, what would it be?
Alexis Dresco: From my experience, leaders, men or women, do not have too much difficulty expressing their disagreement. Their position protects them and even encourages them to challenge the ideas of others.
Generally speaking, for someone who has difficulty asserting themselves, I would advise them to first tackle subjects that are not too explosive. This allows you to get used to the confrontation of ideas, without there being too much pressure.
It is true that it can cause discomfort to say one’s disagreement, but if you do it without aggression, most of the time it goes well!
