Why Bhishma’s Dilemma Still Lives in Boardrooms—and What We Can Do About It
In today’s corporate world, “Disagree and Commit” is often seen as the gold standard of professionalism. It sounds mature, pragmatic—even noble. After all, we can’t all agree on everything. So we listen, we challenge (if the culture allows), and then we commit… even if our heart’s not in it.
But I’ve started questioning this pattern.
Everyone deserves to have an opinion. I do, too. When people disagree but commit without conviction, it quietly hollows out organizations from within. Strategies lose their soul. Teams become directionless. Culture becomes polite but passive.
And this isn’t just theory—it’s a story we’ve seen before, most vividly in the Mahabharata.
The Mahabharata Analogy: Bhishma’s Tragic Compliance
Bhishma, stood on the side of the Kauravas—not because he believed in their cause, but because of a vow. So he fought—but not with his full self.
- He complied—but wasn’t aligned.
- He served—but lacked belief.
The result? His presence prolonged the war, confused dharma, and caused unnecessary suffering. His legendary strength and wisdom were used without purpose. We may admire Bhishma’s loyalty, but we must also question the cost of commitment without conviction.
The Corporate Bhishmas: Silent Misalignment in Boardrooms and Product Reviews
This ancient tragedy plays out daily in modern organizations. I’ve witnessed it in product reviews, strategy rooms, and town halls. The faces change, but the pattern remains heartbreakingly familiar:
1. The Successor Who Rewrites Everything
A CEO exits—maybe pushed out. Their close associate takes the helm. But within months, this “loyalist” rewrites the vision, reorgs the structure, pivots the strategy. It becomes clear: they never truly believed in the old direction. They were “disagreeing and committing” all along.
The damage? Years of wasted alignment. A culture conditioned to hide disagreement. And a team left wondering what was ever real.
2. The Offsite of Empty Agreement
We’ve all been to strategy offsites where the senior team nods along, bold priorities are declared, new slogans coined and then nothing happens. Why? Because people nodded, but didn’t believe. No one raised a red flag.
As Kim Scott might say, it wasn’t Radical Candor. It was Ruinous Empathy—or worse, Manipulative Insincerity.
3. The Vision That Dies With Its Creator
Some strategies don’t survive the exit of their creators—not because they were flawed, but because no one else truly owned them.
Jim Collins warns about this. If your vision doesn’t outlive you, it was never institutional—it was just a founder’s hobby. A pet project, not a shared mission.
4. The Roadmap Review Where Everyone Nods—but No One Thinks
Product roadmap reviews should be moments of strategic clarity. Instead, they often turn into performance theater. Features are listed. Deadlines are discussed. Progress is shown. But the essential question—“Is this even the right thing to build?”—goes unasked.
No one wants to be “that person.” So doubts about customer value, market impact, or real-world relevance stay buried. As Paul Graham once wrote:
“The most dangerous thing is not to evolve.”
Yet that’s exactly what happens when roadmap reviews become rituals of polite silence. Teams follow plans they no longer believe in—because it’s easier to comply than to confront. In doing so, we don’t just waste sprints. We waste conviction.
The Problem with “Disagree and Commit”
These patterns reveal a fundamental flaw in how we’ve interpreted “Disagree and Commit.” Used rightly, it builds velocity. Used wrongly, it breeds quiet resignation.
- On the surface: professional and efficient
- Underneath: misaligned and unsustainable
People act, but don’t believe. They show up, but don’t challenge. They deliver, but don’t care. Eventually, this becomes a silent culture of compliance, not contribution.
Avoiding the Extremes: Not Yes-Men, Not No-Men
The solution isn’t to abandon collaborative decision-making. Rather, we must navigate between two equally dangerous extremes:
- Yes-Men: Polite, loyal, and agreeable—but they don’t push thinking forward. They protect egos, not truth.
- No-Men: Contrarians. They object to everything, creating noise instead of clarity.
The real strength lies in principled dissent. People should speak up, challenge early, back their thinking with logic—and once a decision is made, own it fully. That’s what real alignment looks like. That’s a culture worth building.
Books That Shape This Thinking
Several books have shaped my perspective on this theme:
- Radical Candor – Kim Scott
- The Five Dysfunctions of a Team – Patrick Lencioni
- Good to Great – Jim Collins
- Principles – Ray Dalio
- What You Do Is Who You Are – Ben Horowitz
- No Rules Rules – Reed Hastings
Each of them explores—directly or indirectly—the dangers of false harmony, shallow buy-in, and the absence of ownership.
What the Mahabharata Teaches Modern Leaders
Building on these insights, the Mahabharata offers us more than just a cautionary tale. It’s a blueprint for authentic leadership. It warns us of the cost of fighting the wrong war—bound by vows, but detached from values. It shows us the tragedy of withholding truth—of silence that pose as loyalty.
It reminds us that dharma without alignment is just drama. We must seek the opposite:
- Challenge with integrity
- Align with honesty
- Commit with belief
That’s how strategies endure. That’s how cultures grow. That’s how leaders truly lead—not by fear or obedience, but through clarity and conviction.
The Deeper Challenge: Leading Through Belief, Not Just Compliance
This brings me to the heart of what I’ve been wrestling with lately. If commitment without conviction is the problem, then the solution must be leadership that inspires genuine belief. But here’s the paradox: in our age of skepticism and information overload, how do we create that kind of followership? How do we move people from mere compliance to true conviction?
The traditional tools—charismatic speeches, flashy presentations, motivational slogans—feel increasingly hollow. People see through the performance. They have been and I have been burned by empty promises before.
Is it possible to truly motivate people? (I wrote a short blog on this growing challenge). So the question becomes: How do we truly motivate people and rally them behind a vision without bells and whistles, without gimmicks, and without shallow slogans?
This isn’t just about avoiding another Bhishma situation. It’s about something more fundamental:
- How do we lead in a way that stirs belief—not just compliance?
- How do we build cultures where people don’t just agree, but align?
- How do we create followership not through charisma, but through shared conviction?
- How do we ensure our strategies survive not just because people are bound by professional obligations, but because they genuinely believe in the mission?
The Mahabharata teaches us that dharma—righteous duty—cannot be separated from personal conviction. In the corporate world, this translates to a simple truth: Sustainable leadership requires leaders who don’t just execute strategies, but who genuinely believe in them and can articulate why others should too.
Actually the real work lies in answering these questions and I’m confident that there is a path forward. A path beyond the growing challenge of commitment without conviction and a path toward building organizations rooted in genuine alignment and shared purpose.
I’m still learning this leadership journey.