Winning Arguments is a Waste of Time
Lessons from Law 9 of Power
Have you ever won an argument—only to lose the relationship or the opportunity in the room? I have.
Growing up in competitive sports, I was raised on the mantra that “winning is everything.” So that’s how I approached every disagreement: with a scorched-earth mentality. Winning wasn’t enough, I wanted to crush my opponent and leave no doubt about who came out on top.
It’s no surprise, then, that it took me 35 years to find a healthy relationship. Learning to let go of that need to win changed everything. It opened the door to a strong, grounded marriage with Jenelle and, just as importantly, transformed the way I lead. That growth has paid dividends, both during my time as an executive at Accenture and now in my role at Scaled Agile.
Results Over Rhetoric
In business, actually, in life, results speak louder than words. It’s not about what you say. It’s not about being right. It’s about outcomes. Still, there’s something in our lizard brain that craves the fight. Arguing feels good. The confrontation, the clever comeback, the chance to show just how smart you are. The hit of dopamine mid-debate is addictive.
But here’s the truth: nobody ever changed their mind because they lost an argument. As Robert Greene puts it, arguments trigger resistance; actions foster belief. When you argue, people dig in. When you show, people lean in.
This is the difference between ego-driven persuasion and power-oriented execution. One is about proving you’re right. The other is about making something happen. One serves your ego. The other serves your mission. Real influence doesn’t come from winning a debate, it comes from delivering results that make the debate irrelevant.
The Psychology of Arguing
Arguing rarely works, and it’s baked into our DNA. When we feel attacked, we don’t open up, we armor up. We don’t resist logic, but seek self-preservation. We default to status defense, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias.
Cognitive dissonance says: “If I believe I’m right and you’re telling me I’m wrong, one of us is a threat to reality.”
Confirmation bias says: “I’ll seek out information that proves me right and ignore the rest.”
Status defense says: “Even if I know you’re right, admitting it might cost me power or credibility—so I’ll fight to hold my ground.”
So what happens when we argue? People double down. They dig trenches. The louder you press, the deeper they go.
Have you seen this? I know I have. I saw it with my parents when I was a teenager, I’ve seen it in relationships, and I see it all the time in meeting rooms. When you’re right, it comes at the cost of someone else being wrong, and being wrong costs them credibility. That’s why they resist. That’s why logic alone isn’t enough.
Here’s how to make the shift: show someone a better way without blame. No ego gets bruised. No territory feels lost. Instead, people start to choose the better path because they see the value in it, not because they were forced into submission.
Real change happens through modeling, not mandating, and only when there’s a compelling reason why.
Leading with Action
Business is about timing and tact far more than it is about being right. That’s a lesson I’ve learned the hard way.
As a trained engineer I tend to see things in black-and-white terms: there’s what’s right and what’s wrong, what we’re doing and what we’re not. But no matter how much I’d like it to be otherwise, business isn’t binary and very human. And more often than not, feelings, egos, and perception matter just as much as facts.
I’ve learned, slowly, that the most effective way to influence others is by helping them arrive at the idea you hope they’ll see, on their own. Not by beating them over the head with facts or forcing your perspective. Not by declaring what must be done, but by creating space, laying the groundwork, and letting the conclusion become theirs.
Now, I’m far from perfect. Just two weeks ago, in an executive meeting, I went on a mini-rant about the importance of owning the narrative and storytelling as a leadership skill. I was frustrated, and I let it show. Nobody contradicted me… but nobody carried the idea forward either. That was my miss. I could’ve demonstrated powerful storytelling in the meeting itself, shown what it looks like, made people feel it, and the message would’ve landed without a word of argument. It also would’ve had a much better chance of being acted upon.
Conversely, I’ve seen what happens when you let execution speak. In a prior role, a leader questioned whether we really needed to change our go-to-market model. Rather than debate it, I quietly spun up a pilot with one of our smaller teams. Within six weeks, the results were undeniable. Pipeline grew. CSAT surged. And just like that, the same leader who resisted the idea was now championing it to others. Why? Because he saw the results and believed they came from his own initiative.
And that’s exactly the point: when the stakes are high, people need to come to the conclusion themselves.
Especially in a world moving as fast as it is today. AI is shifting the ground beneath our feet, and many people are operating from a place of quiet fear: fear of being displaced, of becoming irrelevant. In that space, there’s no room for being right. Only room for invitation. For curiosity. For “go see for yourself.”
When you lead with action, people believe what they experience, not what you argue.
Tactical Advice
The notion of leveraging results over argument has proven most useful, for me, in moments where the stakes are high and the power dynamics are complex. Change is hard for everyone, and the consequence of being wrong becomes more pronounced the higher you go in the organizational pyramid. This rule proves especially true when:
In workplace power struggles, where ego is louder than logic.
In negotiations, where silence often says more than a counterpoint ever could.
In leadership, where trust isn’t built by being right, but by consistently delivering.
This doesn’t mean you should become passive. Quite the opposite. It means developing a different kind of influence, one that is often felt more than heard, built on calm presence, visible impact, and silent effectiveness.
To start building this type of influence, focus on replacing rebuttal with results. Instead of explaining why you’re right, demonstrate what works. Let performance do the persuading. Deliver value so clearly that arguments become irrelevant. Speak last, if at all. This one is the most difficult for me. With some very spicy DNA in my system, it’s hard to hold my tongue while others debate. But that pause, the silence, gives me space to quietly align the pieces and move things forward.
No matter how hard it is, trust me when I say there’s real power in being the one who doesn’t need to raise their voice to be heard. The one who doesn’t need to prove a point to make a point. The one whose results speak for themselves.
Say less. Do more. Let the results speak.
Power isn’t won with the tongue—it’s earned through impact. The people who master this law weren’t taught the way most of us were. They were educated differently—by experience, by failure, by watching what actually moves people. But that doesn’t mean it’s out of reach. This is a skill you can learn.
Find a time to practice. Then reflect on it. Write about what happened. Let it teach you something.
Has there been a time when you saw action speak louder than argument?
Tell me about it in the comments—I’d love to learn from your experience.
