Debate, Decide, Unite

HubSpot's friendlier version of Amazon's 'disagree and commit'

Dharmesh Shah
Zigging vs. zagging: How HubSpot built a $30B company

Debate, Decide, Unite

"The disagree and commit sounds a little bit harsher than we like. The debate is, okay, let's have open debate. Let's get all the options on the table. Let's actually make the decision, and then it's unite around that decision—not just commit, but come together around that." - Dharmesh Shah

What It Is

Debate, Decide, Unite is HubSpot's decision-making framework, inspired by but intentionally softer than Amazon's "disagree and commit." It emphasizes three distinct phases: open debate, clear decision, and genuine unification—regardless of whether you agreed with the outcome.

The framework addresses one of the most common organizational dysfunctions: people either suppress disagreement before decisions (leading to poor decisions) or undermine decisions after they're made (leading to poor execution).

How It Works

Phase 1: Debate

  • Get all options on the table
  • Have open, honest disagreement
  • Surface concerns and alternatives
  • No judgment for dissenting views

Phase 2: Decide

  • Designate a DRI (Directly Responsible Individual) to make the decision
  • The DRI is not necessarily the executive—pick someone you trust to make good decisions
  • Data informs but doesn't make decisions—people do
  • Commit at the moment of decision

Phase 3: Unite

  • Come together around the decision
  • Even if you argued for the other option, you now support this one
  • No undermining, second-guessing, or "I told you so"
  • The unity should be genuine, not grudging compliance

Why It's Different from "Disagree and Commit"

Dharmesh intentionally chose different language:

Disagree and Commit Debate, Decide, Unite
"Disagree" - confrontational "Debate" - collaborative exploration
"Commit" - compliance-focused "Unite" - relationship-focused
Sounds harsh Sounds more "HubSpotty"

The substance is similar, but the framing matters for culture. "Unite" implies coming together as a team, not just grudging compliance with a mandate.

How to Apply It

  1. Create space for debate - Explicitly invite dissenting views. Make it safe to argue for unpopular positions.

  2. Designate the decision-maker clearly - "Who will make this decision?" should be answered before the debate starts.

  3. Time-box the debate - Decide when the decision will be made. Open-ended debate becomes paralysis.

  4. Make the decision moment explicit - "We're now deciding. The decision is X." No ambiguity.

  5. Model unification - Leaders who lost the debate should visibly support the decision. This gives permission for others to do the same.

  6. No "I told you so" - If the decision turns out poorly, learn from it without blame. If it turns out well, don't claim you always agreed.

When to Use It

  • Any significant decision with multiple stakeholders
  • When you need buy-in for execution
  • Cross-functional decisions where different groups have different preferences
  • Strategy decisions where reasonable people disagree
  • Any situation where decision quality AND execution quality both matter

Source

  • Guest: Dharmesh Shah
  • Episode: "Zigging vs. zagging: How HubSpot built a $30B company"
  • Key Discussion: (01:02:49) - Contrasts with Amazon's approach and explains HubSpot's philosophy
  • YouTube: Watch on YouTube

Related Frameworks

Back to Decision Making