The question is not so much whether you do as you're told by your subordinate but how you handle the "disagree-but-commit" state.
Ideally, the way it should work would be for the boss to say: "Okay, I think the right course of action is X, you think it's Y. We're in disagreement, but because I'm the boss, we'll do X. As you go about doing X, I won't intrude on your sphere of autonomy but will instead trust that you're a professional and will execute on X faithfully. If you frequently disagree with me and you're up for a promotion, I won't hold the disagreements against you. It might even work in your advantage, because we need to increase diversity of thought in management, rather than filling management roles with yes-men."
The way it usually works, in my experience, is: "I want you to do X, but you think you should be doing Y. That makes you a risk, because there's a danger you will sabotage X and execute on Y instead. I'll subject you to extra-close supervision to counteract that risk. When you're up for a promotion and you frequently disagree with me, I will fight your promotion, because if we increase your level of influence, it'll create more work for me, because I'll have to double-check your judgment and countermand your actions as a manager whereever I disagree. Having people in management who aren't yes-men just makes management more work, and we don't need that."
If your boss is of the latter kind and you disagree with them, then it's a mistake for you to ever "show your hand" to them by telling them about it. It's then better to just keep your mouth shut, and do as you're told. -- And this "shut your mouth and do as you're told" is my career advice for young people. This makes me look bad, and reflects poorly on the companies I've worked for. But that's the difference between career advice and hagiography.
I think the way the disagreements are voiced and handled by the disagreer matter a lot in which of those two responses you would receive.
Also, I think it would matter a lot on how X vs Y turned out later. I.e. the difference between always disagreeing but also always getting it wrong. Or sometimes disagreeing but then getting it right and handling being right gracefully.
In my experience "shut your mouth and do as you're told" people are appreciated, more than employees who just disagree to disagree. However, the employees who voice their opinions, are able to articulate their stance and know when it is important to budge or when not to budge are always valued higher.
There's a cool idea that's related to that which also comes up in Ray Dalio's "Principles", which is to keep a log and do some kind of bean counting on who turns out to be right vs. wrong in situations of disagreements. The idea is that people who frequently turn out to be right should be given more influence. It's also a question that has been on my mind a lot in reflecting upon my career.
My observation has been that people have a very acute awareness of who the people are who they frequently find themselves disagreeing with versus who the people are who they seldom disagree with. And they have terrible memory when it comes to remembering what those disagreements were even about, let alone who ended up being right. If you are the "wronged party" in that dynamic, then bringing up your track record of disagreeing and being right is one of the worst things you can do.
People who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing are, in my mind, a myth, especially in the workplace where the stakes are high and disagreement tends to go hand-in-hand with conflict and power struggle and is therefore uncomfortable territory. Nobody would put themselves through that discomfort for nothing.
> People who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing are, in my mind, a myth, especially in the workplace where the stakes are high and disagreement tends to go hand-in-hand with conflict and power struggle and is therefore uncomfortable territory. Nobody would put themselves through that discomfort for nothing.
Maybe so, but the persistence of this myth among people who work suggests my original point about the delivery of the message as important has some truth to it, as some people are perceived this way.
Ideally, the way it should work would be for the boss to say: "Okay, I think the right course of action is X, you think it's Y. We're in disagreement, but because I'm the boss, we'll do X. As you go about doing X, I won't intrude on your sphere of autonomy but will instead trust that you're a professional and will execute on X faithfully. If you frequently disagree with me and you're up for a promotion, I won't hold the disagreements against you. It might even work in your advantage, because we need to increase diversity of thought in management, rather than filling management roles with yes-men."
The way it usually works, in my experience, is: "I want you to do X, but you think you should be doing Y. That makes you a risk, because there's a danger you will sabotage X and execute on Y instead. I'll subject you to extra-close supervision to counteract that risk. When you're up for a promotion and you frequently disagree with me, I will fight your promotion, because if we increase your level of influence, it'll create more work for me, because I'll have to double-check your judgment and countermand your actions as a manager whereever I disagree. Having people in management who aren't yes-men just makes management more work, and we don't need that."
If your boss is of the latter kind and you disagree with them, then it's a mistake for you to ever "show your hand" to them by telling them about it. It's then better to just keep your mouth shut, and do as you're told. -- And this "shut your mouth and do as you're told" is my career advice for young people. This makes me look bad, and reflects poorly on the companies I've worked for. But that's the difference between career advice and hagiography.