Diplomatic Disagreement in Code Reviews
3 exercises — push back professionally, frame critique on the code not the person, and resolve review deadlocks constructively.
0 / 3 completed
The AEI pattern for professional disagreement
- Acknowledge the reviewer's concern first — show you understand their point.
- Explain your reasoning with specifics — data, trade-offs, constraints they may not know.
- Invite a path forward — "Could we explore…", "Happy to go either way if…", "Should we escalate to the team?"
1 / 3
You strongly disagree with a reviewer's architectural suggestion. They want to split a module you believe should stay together. Which response best demonstrates professional disagreement?
Option B is the model for professional technical disagreement. It follows the AEI pattern:
• Acknowledge the reviewer's concern ("I understand the concern about coupling")
• Explain your specific reasoning with data ("seven downstream consumers", "transactional guarantee")
• Invite a path forward that isn't "do it my way" ("revisit as a separate ticket")
Notice what's missing: no personal language ("you're wrong"), no dismissal, no passive compliance. The disagreement is framed as a trade-off discussion, not a conflict.
• Acknowledge the reviewer's concern ("I understand the concern about coupling")
• Explain your specific reasoning with data ("seven downstream consumers", "transactional guarantee")
• Invite a path forward that isn't "do it my way" ("revisit as a separate ticket")
Notice what's missing: no personal language ("you're wrong"), no dismissal, no passive compliance. The disagreement is framed as a trade-off discussion, not a conflict.