Think back to a time when you’ve felt strongly about a product decision or initiative, but a peer in your team, maybe someone else in product, maybe a founder or another exec sees things differently and isn’t supportive. You go back and forth, and eventually, someone says it.
Too often the "commit" part is used to short-circuit or skip the "disagree" part. Both parts are super-important. "Disagree and commit" should be interpreted to mean that thorough/full airing of disagreements is *required* before a commitment can be made. The perception is that disagreement is "bad" and therefore should be avoided. Therefore, people don't speak their minds because they don't want to ruffle feathers. But not airing disagreements, especially before decisions are made, leads to secret disagreement, grudges, undermining, passive aggressive inaction, and other dysfunctional behaviors that are poison for company culture.
Do you think that part of this is that you stop the debate too early and therefore leave some feeling unheard. I think in theory disagree and commit can work but if you make it a caricature of the process you’re going to get a suboptimal result