Agreement is for Quitters

The Art of Asking Questions That Foster Understanding over Agreement

If you’ve ever met me—or worse, had to interact with me—you’ve likely noticed that my need to agree with you is low. Negative-number low. I’m no people-pleaser. Yet, this isn’t because I am purposefully dismissive, argumentative, or elitist (even if I’ve been called those things a time or two). Instead, I’m what I call myself “people-curious.” I am driven by an authentic desire to explore perspectives, understand experiences, and—believe it or not—connect meaningfully without needing to align or agree. In my mind, it’s often a bonus when I know I hold a different opinion from the person I am talking with because it most likely means I’ll learn something new (even if I still don’t agree with them in the end). To me, it’s not about proving who’s right or wrong—it’s about fostering understanding, even when agreement isn’t part of the equation.

An incredibly valuable feature of the human brain is that it can hold two (or more) opposing views at the same time. I can—and often do—accept (with appreciation) that people have different perspectives from my own. While I may not always agree with you, I sure respect you, enjoy talking to you, and find your perspectives and ideas interesting. For me, agreement is more inflexible than understanding. Understanding invites variety and promotes learning. Agreement, on the other hand, often feels like striving to win.

Photo by Sebastian Bill on Unsplash

The Problem with Agreement as the Goal

For many, achieving agreement is often about power—determining whose perspective will prevail. This dynamic plays out particularly strongly in financial discussions. Financial conflicts, whether in personal relationships or professional settings, frequently turn into repetitive and pervasive fights. In short, starting with the goal of agreement often leads to more conflict—and there’s research to back this up.

Frequency of Money Conflicts: Research consistently identifies money as one of the top sources of conflict in relationships, with over 70% of couples citing it as a recurring issue (Magnus-Sharpe 2024; Papp et al. 2009). Financial disagreements are not only common but often deeply emotional, making them harder to resolve.

A real example: We (as in me and my family) need to buy a house… I guess. For me, the place where I live is just a space. I don’t think I get (or maybe I don’t like) the “grounding” vibes many people talk about when they discuss their homes. I am happier as a vagabond; a permanent home feels suffocating and boring to me. But for my husband—and many others—it’s the opposite. They have a deep yearning for a sense of belonging and a space to truly call “theirs.”

Moreover, I understand I am the odd one out here—but acknowledging that my opinion is in the minority doesn’t make it any less important or visceral to me. My feelings are just as real and valid, no matter how unusual they may seem to others. Regardless, my husband insists that we “need” a home. I, on the other hand, think we “need” a place to live for the next short chapter of our lives—without all the emotional weight that comes with the idea of having a home. We have debated this topic for years and will continue to do so.

Escalation of Financial Disputes: Studies show unresolved money fights can escalate over time, with financial stress contributing to heightened tension, decreased relationship satisfaction, and even divorce (Stanley et al. 2004). Persistent disagreements often stem from misaligned values and a lack of understanding rather than financial issues.

The real example, continued: We’ve had this talk, debate, chat, disagreement, and yes, tension, on repeat lately (writing for catharsis, anyone?). And somehow, it just keeps getting harder and heavier. We are a military family, and we’ve moved a lot; up to this point, it has worked well for me personally and for him professionally. But now, with the potential end of his military career in our sights, the end of our moving is, too.

What’s more, as he faces the end of his career and significant identity transitions, one thing he’s excited and happy about is the idea of a permanent “home”—a place for our kids to grow up, with a yard, a garage to do garage-y things, a “man” space, and a chef’s kitchen. Meanwhile, I feel like I’m being sentenced to suburbia prison, my cell barred with white picket fencing.

These are not easy conversations. They unearth big, weighty, and significantly divergent life goals and values. And if one of us were to simply give in or give up and agree, how long do we think the agreement would remain civil?

My Interpretation of the Data and My Life Mantra: Agreement Is for Quitters

In my mind, agreement for the sake of agreement is nothing but a shortcut—a convenient escape hatch from the hard work of truly connecting with and understanding both someone else and ourselves. It’s easier to fight for consensus or call it a day with a compromise than to sit with the discomfort of truly seeking to understand someone else’s opposing perspective. Being genuinely open to their feelings and ideas—especially when they are different from our own—is hard work.

When we focus solely on reaching an agreement, we risk giving up too soon. We miss the opportunity to dive deeper into the heart of the matter, to genuinely relate, and to find solutions that honor all perspectives. Agreement as the end goal, I believe, is kindling for conflict, not the cozy warmth of resolution.

Comment on the real example: My husband and I don’t yet have a solution—we are currently in the thick of discussing our future housing situation. So, we’re going to keep talking. What does he need to feel content? What would make me feel less trapped? What do we think our kids need?

By exploring and expressing our needs (and giving our financial planner a call), we’re working together as a team for the sake of understanding, aiming to find new solutions for now and the future. I want to understand my husband and kids. I want to be understood. At this stage of brainstorming, agreement on our next steps is secondary to building understanding and connection.

A higher-order point is being unearthed here: agreement doesn’t necessarily equate to acceptance—especially when it compromises deeply held values. Because when this happens, it can be dangerous and, in my opinion, often leads to the persistent arguments frequently examined in money research. And when the argument is about money, many of us are conditioned to believe that argument is bad, agreement is good, and that the fastest (and maybe even best) way to get to an agreement so that we can keep moving forward is through compromise.

But not this time—not for me. While compromise might work for smaller disagreements, it often fails to address the deeper emotional needs or values driving the conversation. Collaboration and understanding are far more valuable than an agreement to compromise that doesn’t fully explore both sides’ needs, where only one—or possibly even none—gets what they want, which only leads to further conflict down the road.

For example:

• My husband might reluctantly agree with me and say, “Fine, we won’t get a house; we’ll just deal with what we have.” But five years from now, he’s resentful and miserable, angry that we didn’t act “when we had the chance.”

• Or I might reluctantly agree to buy a house, but in five years, I’m miserable and feeling so trapped I just snap and move to Argentina for four months.

These scenarios illustrate why effective conflict resolution approaches, such as nonviolent communication, ask both parties to express their needs and requests instead of focusing solely on negotiating or compromising. Recognizing and understanding these non-negotiables is crucial if we actually want the final solution to stick.

I want my husband to have what he needs and desires; his contentment is precious to me. And I trust him with my heart in the same way. At this point, that means agreeing to disagree. We both recognize that respect and understanding matter more than one of us giving in for the sake of agreement. Thankfully, we both understand and agree that dealing with the resentment and corrosive effects of unresolved conflict in the future will probably be worse than what we’re doing right now: “fighting” and “disagreeing,” but also being vulnerable, listening to each other, and being curious and open.

Yes, it’s harder. It takes more work, time, and energy. But the benefits are plentiful and undeniable: a deeper connection, lasting solutions, and the mutual respect that sustains our partnership. You don’t have to take my word for it.

The Case for Understanding

Research strongly supports the idea that prioritizing understanding over agreement in the early stages of brainstorming leads to better outcomes. By focusing on understanding first, more opportunities for alignment can emerge—opportunities that might never surface when the goal is simply to agree quickly. And it’s not just about money—it applies across all settings, from solving problems to achieving goals and generating new ideas. Thought leaders like Simon Sinek, Victor Frankl, and Brené Brown have all made the same point. That’s what makes it so powerful, because valuing understanding over agreement offers a consistent and practical approach in countless situations—and life certainly provides plenty of opportunities to practice it.

Consider some of the key benefits:

1. Enhances Creative Problem-Solving Abilities: Active listening and empathy allow individuals and teams to explore creative solutions, leading to more effective strategies and outcomes (Feuerman 2024).

2. Boosts Productivity and Efficiency: Addressing conflicts through understanding reduces time wasted on unproductive disagreements and keeps teams focused on their goals (Rosenberg 2015).

3. Helps Resolve Underlying Issues: Striving for agreement based on understanding avoids arriving at superficial solutions and leaving core issues unresolved (Feuerman 2024).

4. Improves Workplace Satisfaction: A lack of open communication and unresolved conflicts contribute to disengagement and dissatisfaction. Prioritizing understanding fosters a healthier, more connected work environment (Robison 2021).

5. Reduces Recurring Conflict: Organizations that adopt understanding-focused conflict resolution strategies experience fewer recurring disputes, underscoring the importance of empathy in navigating disagreements (Gelfand et al. 2012).

These findings highlight an important point: It’s not just about reaching an end goal; the outcome itself is only part of the win. When understanding becomes the goal, the results aren’t just more meaningful—they’re also more effective. Creativity, teamwork, deeper resolutions, and genuine engagement flourish when understanding each other is the initial objective.

I am not for “arguments” that never end. Instead, I favor endings that incorporate mutual understanding and respect. Every side of an argument brings important points and perspectives, and the more both parties can recognize that in each other, the greater the respect—and the greater the potential for unexpected, positive outcomes that neither side might have envisioned at the outset.

• For example, my husband and I might decide together on a home with a more modest price of $XX, agreeing to prioritize taking month-long vacations around the world every year. Whatever we choose, we both want to make decisions that feel completely affordable and sustainable for our family—or, at least, here’s hoping.

The focus on respect and connection can and does equate to more depth. It allows us to (hopefully) move beyond the binary debate of house versus no house and toward a solution that reflects our broader lifestyle and life goals. But we can’t get there without understanding. So, we’ll keep asking questions.

Understanding in Financial Planning

The value of prioritizing understanding over agreement is particularly critical in financial planning. Clients always have questions—maintaining a well-diversified portfolio means advisors will continually have to explain (and re-explain) why performance isn’t always positive. Not to mention all the hard life transitions clients bring to the table, even when they represent positive changes like sending kids off to college or preparing for retirement. Understandably, these issues come with uncertainty and emotional strain that often leave financial planning clients searching for clarity. Add to that today’s constant influx of information from AI and social media, and it’s no surprise that clients find themselves bombarded with more information and ideas than they know what to do with. And they often want to talk about many of these ideas with their advisors.

A Financial Planning Example: Sarah is a client with a well-diversified portfolio, which was carefully set up by her financial advisor to align with her long-term financial goals. She is informed, hard-working, and always up on the latest news. However, after seeing several social media posts hyping the potential of a niche investment strategy, she reads a few articles, consults with ChatGPT, and decides she wants to talk about making a drastic change to her portfolio.

If you were Sarah’s advisor, how would you react to that scenario? Perhaps you would immediately start thinking of all the ways you could convince her to agree with you—that she’s already on the right path, and that she shouldn’t be considering these unnecessary drastic changes. But perhaps you could instead consider Sarah an ambitious client seeking out new perspectives, looking to collaborate with you on what might be a new, better way forward for her investments?

Research highlights just how critical understanding is in resolving money-related disputes—precisely the type of tension that might come up in Sarah’s situation. These rarely end up as all-out brawls, but tension will often be rooted in how we approach change and another’s differing ideas. Prioritizing understanding over agreement can lead to positive outcomes, including:

1. Better Client Relationships: Financial planners who use conflict resolution skills—such as those borrowed from mediation—build stronger, more trusting relationships with their clients (Asebedo and Purdon 2018).

2. Trust Through Transparency: Recognizing and addressing conflicts of interest through understanding—not coercion—preserves trust and improves client outcomes (McCoy et al. 2022).

Whether or not you and Sarah agree in the end, the real question is this: Did you both start with the goal of understanding? How comfortable would you be engaging in a back-and-forth dialogue, knowing you might not reach an agreement but still walking away with a stronger mutual understanding? Could you acknowledge Sarah’s wishes—understanding her goals and admiring them as interesting, brave, and admirable—while also recognizing that agreeing to her proposed trades feels irresponsible and leaves you questioning your ability to uphold your fiduciary duty?

Through the practice of understanding, you can respect Sarah’s right to pursue her goals, while remaining firm in your own professional judgment. But would this clarity lead you to terminate the relationship—knowing you’ve taken the time to understand her perspective but recognizing that fulfilling her wishes might compromise your fiduciary duty?

The Ethical Imperative of Understanding

In financial planning, prioritizing a hasty agreement over genuine understanding can sometimes lead to unethical practices. When agreement becomes the only mode of forward movement, planners may rely on tactics like persuasion—pushing clients toward decisions they’re not fully on board with—or resort to fearmongering or coercion. None of these approaches foster trust or respect. It’s the client’s money, and they deserve to feel heard and understood, even if they ultimately disagree with the proposed financial plan.

Understanding—it’s easier said than done, I know. Yet the pursuit of deeper understanding will never lead us astray. Genuine understanding is far more likely to reveal new opportunities or ideas that are better than anything we might currently have on the table. By embracing curiosity and asking questions, advisors can uncover solutions that honor both the client’s goals and their own ethical responsibilities. This approach fosters not just resolution but also trust, respect, and long-term collaboration.

Shifting the Conversation: Questions for Understanding over Agreement

One of the simplest ways to prioritize understanding is by changing the questions we ask. Instead of framing questions to drive agreement, we can reframe them to deepen understanding. Here’s how:

1. When Discussing Goals

• For Agreement: “Do you agree that this is the right direction for us to take?”

• For Understanding: “What about this direction feels right to you? Are there aspects that don’t sit well?”

2. When Exploring Values

• For Agreement: “Would you agree that saving for retirement is the most important priority?”

• For Understanding: “What feels most important to you about saving for retirement? How does it fit into the bigger picture of your life?”

3. When Clarifying Expectations

• For Agreement: “So we’re on the same page, right?”

• For Understanding: “Can you walk me through how you see this working? Is there anything you feel is missing?”

4. When Discussing Emotions

• For Agreement: “You agree this makes sense, don’t you?”

• For Understanding: “How does this idea make you feel? Are there any emotions tied to this decision that we should explore?”

5. When Navigating Disagreements

• For Agreement: “Can we just agree to move forward with this plan?”

• For Understanding: “What concerns or reservations do you have about this plan? How do you see this impacting your broader goals?”

Again, understanding is hard work. It’s long work. But it can also be deeply satisfying work. Thinking of understanding-focused conversations as a series of thoughtful questions can make this process feel more approachable and, ultimately, more rewarding.

The Power of Restating

Another powerful tool for fostering understanding is restating someone’s perspective in your own words and then asking for confirmation. This approach demonstrates active listening and encourages collaboration.

• Example for Agreement: “So, you agree that the timeline we discussed works for you?”

• Example for Understanding: “If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re concerned that the timeline we discussed might feel rushed. Did I get that right?”

These kinds of questions are simple yet transformative. They shift the focus from pushing for a “yes” to uncovering the “why,” creating space for deeper connection and trust.

Part of working toward understanding is not just about the goal of the couple, partnership, or professional relationship—it’s also about the individual. Sometimes, we don’t immediately know why we feel a certain way; we just feel it. Intuition often plays a role, but without the right prompts—or prompting the other person—these valuable nuggets of information can go unaddressed or overlooked.

When we focus on understanding, we learn not only about the other person but also about ourselves.

The Heart, Not the End

Agreement is just the outcome—the end of a conversation. But understanding? That’s the heart. It’s the rich, juicy middle of the dialogue that gives any outcome its meaning. Agreement without understanding is hollow, lacking the depth and connection that truly make it worthwhile.

When we aim for understanding, we create relationships and solutions that genuinely matter.

So, the next time you find yourself in a conflict, don’t ask, “How can I make them agree?” Instead, try asking, “How can I better understand?”

References for the Nerds:

Asebedo, Sarah D., and Emily Purdon. 2018. “Planning for Conflict in Client Relationships.” Journal of Financial Planning 31 (10): 48–56.

Feuerman, Marni. 2024. “Managing Vs. Resolving Conflict in Relationships.” The Gottman Institute, November 19. https://www.gottman.com/blog/managing-vs-resolving-conflict-relationships/.

Gelfand, Michele J., Lisa M. Leslie, Kirsten Keller, and Carsten de Dreu. 2012. "Conflict Cultures in Organizations: How Leaders Shape Conflict Cultures and Their Organizational-Level Consequences." Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (6): 1131-1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029993

Magnus-Sharpe, Sarah. 2024. “The Cost of Silence: Financial Stress Mutes Couples’ Communication.” Cornell Chronicle, June 18. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2024/06/cost-silence-financial-stress-mutes-couples-communication/.

McCoy, Megan., Ives Machiz, Josh Harris, Christina Lynn, Derek Lawson, and Ashlyn Rollins-Koons. 2022. “The Science of Trust and Commitment in Financial Planning: Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine Antecedents to Trust and Commitment.” Journal of Financial Planning 35 (12): 68–89.

Papp, Lauren M., E. Mark Cummings, and Marcie C. Goeke-Morey. 2009. “For Richer, for Poorer: Money as a Topic of Marital Conflict in the Home.” Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies 58 (1): 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x.

Robison, Jennifer. 2021. “How to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace.” Gallup Clifton Strengths, March 5. https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/332789/resolve-conflict-workplace.aspx.

Rosenberg, Marshall B. 2015. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. PuddleDancer Press.

Stanley, Scott M., Howard J. Markman, and Sarah W. Whitton. 2004. “Communication, Conflict, and Commitment: Insights on the Foundations of Relationship Success from a National Survey.” Family Process, 41 (4): 689–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x.