John Inazu- Learning to Disagree – Book Review with Checklist

Learning to Disagree  

The surprising path to navigating differences with empathy and respect 

by John Inazu 

 

“Unconventional Leaders don’t avoid conflict. They enter difference with clarity and humility.”  –JoyGenea Schumer 

 

Being in leadership can cause a person to be silent about their opinions and I don’t think that is always healthy. Leadership is lonely enough as it is. I am recommending this book to many of my leaders to help them find their authentic voice on issues that matter for them. 

 

Sometimes it can feel to me like a lot of the conversations I have with people land on some controversial topic. Within the neurodiverse community there are a lot of emotions and opinions about perspectives on autism and being a different thinker. I don’t think these topics should be avoided, I also don’t want to be locked into an argument. For that reason, as we head into the ‘family gathering’ and ‘holiday party’ time of year this book’s insight felt like the right read. It was also the book for my book club last month. 

 

 

One thing that was clear about this authors style, is that he is an attorney and one that likes to keep all of his options open. At this point in his life, he is teaching law at Washington State University in St. Louis. He asks questions and sites cases that cause you to ponder the gray areas of our legal system. Here is an example for the first chapter, “What is fair?” and “How do we decide what is fair?” “Is what is fair for me, also fair for you?” 

 

I’ll let you ponder that for a moment. There is no right answer. He points out that even the courts are not clear on this topic and make it very clear that they change their mind often. 

 

Here is an example from my life 

I think the way that a lot of different thinkers get treated in jobs isn’t fair.  

I don’t think it is fair that I have lost jobs for being five minutes late for work. I also don’t think it is fair for others, who are on time, have to pick up the slack for a person being late. I think each situation has to be looked at as to how it plays out with the duties of the job. 

 

When to disagree and when to decide not to 

The author talks about reading the room and deciding when to have a disagreeable conversation and when it won’t serve you or others. Family functions are an example of when it will not serve you. He recommends you stick to the agreeable conversations, weather, sports, and health. 

 

Quick Book Review by Coach JoyGenea
I would recommend this book for anyone in a leadership role. Especially people new to business and leadership. This is a nice easy read. He weaves facts with stories of court cases as examples and encourages the reader to see past opinions and listen with more empathy and respect. The book points out what holds us back from healthy disagreement. He also points out things you can start doing today to communicate with more clarity and authenticity. 

 

(this sections brought to you by ChatGPT and edited by JoyGenea) 

 A. Key Take-aways from Inazu’s book

1. Empathy as the foundation of disagreement
   Inazu argues that to disagree well you must first imagine what it is like to hold the opposing view. He uses legal-education training (requiring students to make the strongest case for “the other side”) as a model. SoBrief+3Interfaith America+3John Inazu+3
   • Implication: Disagreement is not just persuasion or debate, but relational understanding.
   • Coaching note: For leaders who pride themselves on clarity, this invites a different mindset, before pushing out your idea, pause to inhabit the “other side”.
    
2. Clarity and conviction balanced by humility and openness to complexity
   Inazu emphasizes the tension: “holding in tension clarity and ambiguity, tolerance and judgment, confidence and uncertainty.” John Inazu+1
   • Implication: You don’t have to abandon your beliefs, but you must recognize that they operate in a complex, plural world.
   • Coaching note: Many visionary leaders want bold clarity; I invite them to combine that with humility.
    
3. We disagree with people, not just ideas
   One of his repeated points: we must humanise the “other” even those with whom we sharply disagree. The Gospel Coalition | Australia+1
   • Implication: Disagreement that disregards the person behind the position leads to alienation, de-humanization, and relational breakdown.
   • Coaching note: In my “Unconventional Leader’s Playbook” language, this aligns with “relationship-first” leadership rather than purely outcome-driven.
    
4. Not every disagreement allows for compromise, zero-sum cases exist
   Inazu explores the idea that sometimes compromise is impossible, and what matters instead is how you manage the relationship around the disagreement. SoBrief+1
   • Implication: Leaders must discern when they can negotiate and when they must stand their ground, while still maintaining openness.
   • Coaching note: I have a frameworks for leaders to identify “zero-sum” vs “negotiable” situations in their business or team-contexts.
    
5. Timing, context, and relational setting matter in difficult conversations
   The book notes that how you engage matters: when you talk, where you talk, your tone and relationship all shape the outcome. SoBrief
   • Implication: Even if you know what you want to say, you also must shape the environment for your message to land well. This is called “framing”
   • Coaching note: This is very useful for neuro-divergent leaders who may prefer prepared, structured interaction rather than spontaneous conflict.
    
6. Faith, worldview and neutrality assumptions play a role
   Since Inazu writes from the intersection of law, religion and pluralism, he points out that believing you are “neutral” is itself a position. Canopy Forum+1
   • Implication: Leaders who believe they are “just objective” may miss how their values are shaping their stance. When you recognize your lens, you bring authenticity.
   • Coaching note: I have an exercise for clients to identify underlying worldview assumptions in their leadership decisions and communications.
    
7. Forgiveness and relationship repair as part of constructive disagreement
   Inazu’s chapters include stories about forgiveness (for example in the context of his grandmother’s internment) as part of learning to live with difference. Interfaith America+1
   • Implication: Disagreement often damages relationships; the repair work is as strategic as the initial conversation.
   • Coaching note: For legacy-leaders, your impact is not only in the “big pitch” but in how they relate, and potentially repair, after disagreement.
    
8. Friendships across difference are possible and valuable
   The book ends by emphasizing that building meaningful connection amidst difference is not only possible but necessary for a thriving plural society. sekarwrites.com+1
   • Implication: For leaders in teams, organizations, or networks, this means diversity of viewpoint is not just a risk but a strategic asset, if handled well.
   • Coaching note: I like to remind my leaders and their teams, “We don’t just tolerate difference, we intentionally build relational bridges across it.” 

 

B. Leader’s Communication Checklist

Before a potentially difficult communication (email, meeting, speech, team talk), use this quick checklist:

• Have I clarified my own viewpoint (what I believe, why I believe it)? 

• Have I taken a moment to think through the “other side” enough to summarize it fairly? 

• Have I chosen the right context/setting (time, place, relationship) for this topic? 

• Have I opened with something affirming (shared value, relationship, past success)? 

• Have I signaled: “Here’s what I believe… and here’s what I’d like us to explore together”? 

• Have I acknowledged that I don’t have full certainty (where that is applicable) and invited their input? 

• Have I planned a relational follow-up (the conversation doesn’t end when I speak)? 

• Have I asked: “What might I be missing about you, your experience, or your view?” 

• Have I ensured my tone/body language/medium supports relational safety (versus purely transactional)? 

After I send/finish: I will schedule a brief check-in to hear how the other person felt and what they understood. 

 

What if:
“Your next disagreement is not a problem to avoid, it’s a relational invitation.”
Don’t miss the invitation, now you know what to do. 

Are you ready to have some different conversations ahead? I know I am and I look forward to the relationship invitations. 

Let me know your thoughts and how you are leading through disagreements.

 

Transcription:

Alright, it is book club time, and last month’s book was this: Learning to Disagree.

It’s a very good book for leaders. Not all leaders, um, I have quite a few clients that are actually very good at handling disagreements and confrontation and those types of things. I have some clients that actually really enjoy confrontation, and they create the disagreement and animosity at times. That is not true of all of my clients. I would say there’s a wide variety of all of that within my group.

One thing in particular is that unconventional leaders don’t avoid conflict. They really can’t. They’ve been in and handled conflict most of their lives. That doesn’t mean they like it, but unconventional leaders don’t avoid conflict. They enter difference with clarity and humanity. That really is something I find with a majority of my clients, as they bring that to the table.

So this month’s, this week’s blog and other information that I have in the article, really does a nice job of summarizing some of what the author talks about. I’m avoiding saying his last name because I can’t say it well. It’s John Inazu—Inazu. I apologize if I’ve just slaughtered your name. It would not be the first time; that doesn’t make it any more acceptable, um.

He really talks so much about—because he’s an attorney—he talks so much about how there is so much more ambiguity in circumstances than we actually realize. And understanding the perspectives, the lens that we come into circumstances with, and having the ability—this is something he highly recommends—having the ability to see the other side of that perspective and how that plays out.

He’s a strong advocate for empathy as the foundation of disagreement. He also talks about how we disagree with people, not just ideas, and being careful to not make things immensely personal and harmful in that manner.

Not every disagreement allows for compromise. Zero-sum cases exist, but there are not that many. So often, compromise is a possibility, and he does highly recommend it. Recognizing forgiveness and relationship repair as part of constructive disagreement—there are going to be aspects of this disagreement that may, and probably will, cause harm. And being able to forgive, being able to encourage forgiveness from the other side, being able to accept forgiveness—all part of actually having conversations where a disagreement is involved.

I have a great checklist that I’ve placed at the bottom. This is why you’re going to want to go and check out my article, because there is this great checklist at the bottom of it.

Here are some of the questions for when you find yourself in conflict:

• Have I clarified my own viewpoint?

• What do I believe? Why do I believe it?

You need to know this from a leadership perspective. You really need to know this before you start opening your mouth or typing on the keyboard.

• Have I taken a moment to think it through—the other side—enough so that I could summarize it fairly? Like, could you actually summarize, “Well, this is what the other person is thinking. I can see where they’re coming from.”

• Have I chosen the right context, setting, time, place, relationship for this topic?

Oh, I want to give some examples, and I’m not going to.

• Have I opened with something affirming—shared values, relationship, past successes?

• Have I signaled, “Here’s what I believe, and here’s what I’d like us to explore together”?

That’s a very nice framing right there. I’d write that down: “Here’s what I believe… and here’s what I’d like us to explore together.”

• Have I acknowledged that I don’t have full certainty, where that is applicable, and invited their input? Isn’t that a nice idea—to invite their input and engagement with what you’re working on?

• Have I planned a relational follow-up? The conversation doesn’t end when I speak. Keeping that in mind—immensely valuable.

• Have I asked, “What might I be missing about you, your experience, or your view?”

In these moments, can I recognize what I might be missing? That’s a great, great question: What might I be missing about you, your experience, or your view?

• Have I ensured my tone, body language, and medium support relational safety?

Venues can be purely transactional—so think about where and how you have these conversations, especially really loaded and heavy disagreement types of conversations. Just being aware of all of that.

So that’s my really big tip from reading this book: being clear and being able to ask those types of questions before you get engaged in anything that might create a conflict or might be a disagreement.

I’m JoyGenea, International Neurodiversity Coach, Unconventional Leadership Expert, and champion for us having some uncomfortable conversations with great outcomes.

Thank you. Bye now.