Correction or Call Out? The Lost Art of Respectful Disagreement

In My Life in Full, Indra Nooyi draws a sharp but often overlooked distinction between a correction and a call out.

A correction is private. It’s quiet strength. It’s a respectful nudge, often offered behind closed doors. It assumes good intent, softens defensiveness, and seeks shared understanding.

A call out, on the other hand, is public. It’s a performance of power. It’s an act designed to expose and stop unacceptable behavior. It asserts dominance to inspire reflection.

There’s a place for both. Nooyi reminds us to favor correction, because when correction is replaced by callout, dialogue dies. People hold back honesty out of fear of humiliation. The result? Cultures that look compliant on the surface, but rot with resentment underneath

When Someone Disappoints You

Ask yourself. What’s your instinct: Is it to correct or to call out?

Most of us genuinely want to disagree respectfully. But the problem isn’t will - it’s skill.

We’ve been told to use “I statements.” These go something like “I feel ___ when you do ___”. It’s calmer than shouting, but it can easily spiral into emotional sparring. Two people justifying why they feel a certain way rarely leads to repair. It leads to competitive suffering. A subtle duel over who hurts more.

The Power of “We Statements”

There’s another way.

We statements appeal to a higher principle. The shared convention that governs the relationship between two people.

Imagine your colleague interrupts you in a meeting. A callout sounds like “you’re cutting me off - it’s disrespectful.” Whereas a correction sounds like “We both want our ideas heard. Can we pause before jumping in?”

Here’s a lengthier example, breaking down We statements step by step:

“We’re colleagues, and we both want a strong working relationship with space to show leadership.”

That’s alignment. Then comes distinction:

“You see that as following the org chart rigidly. I see it as taking initiative and showing leadership when opportunity arises.”

Finally, reconciliation:

“How can we make these views work together?”

Appeal to convention. In this case, mentorship.

“Good mentoring means trusting the mentee to take risks. I’ll take initiative responsibly, and you’ll allow space for it. We both win.”

This is how relationships advance. It’s not through emotional competition, but through cooperative reasoning.

From Conflict to Coordination

Issuing a correction means looking for how the two sides relate. It’s not about blindly merging differences or about dissolving boundaries; it’s about cooperation and coordination.

Think of a battery. Positive and negative charges never overlap, yet each is essential to power the connection. The same applies to disagreement.

When we abstract the relationship between two opposing ideas we practice a higher form of reasoning: dialectical reasoning, what Hegel called the dance between thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Every social convention we rely on, including fairness, loyalty, mentorship, and respect, emerged from the pressure of competing truths. They are societal diamonds. Don’t discard them or be fooled into accepting cubic zirconias.

When to Reconcile and When Not To

Not every difference can or should be reconciled.

Some tensions are unnecessary to resolve. Like sea and sky, poetry and prose. They coexist as distinct, harmonious, and whole because they relate beautifully without blending.

Some tensions cannot be resolved because they are simply too wide. Research by Drs. John and Julie Gottman finds that roughly 69% of relationship conflicts are unresolvable, stemming from fundamental differences in values, personality, or vision of life. Some couples part ways not for lack of goodwill, but because their core realities cannot be bridged. These examples reveal that, just as some opposing charges must remain apart to sustain a system, some disputes and relationships require recognition of their limits, not perpetual attempts at impossible resolution.

The trouble is, when core realities and values can be bridged we’re not taught how to disagree productively. What’s modeled today is either sadistic clapbacks or hollow compliance neither of which builds cooperation or emotional maturity.

The goal of a correction isn’t victory. It’s coordination. It’s using disagreement to evolve how we relate. And to clarify when two sides belong to the same coin, and when they’re not even the same currency.

In leadership, this discernment is everything. Knowing which differences can be bridged, and which should be respected as boundaries, separates wise leaders from reactive ones.

Respectful disagreement isn’t only about being right. It’s about staying in relationship.

-E.S.