Or maybe it’s not obstructionist people and you just have a difference in opinion. Or you might be wrong. Or you’re the obstructionist person.
That’s the whole point of disagree and commit. Most decisions are not clear cut obvious decisions, otherwise it’s unlikely there would be disagreements about them.
Disagree and commit allows everyone to contribute to their max capacity and move forward once deadlock has been reached.
I've worked two places that had this rule, and both of them only needed it because they had profound issues elsewhere in their management practice that were leading to trust issues. One of them was almost certainly cargo culting Amazon.
There's only one place I can think of that might have benefited from that rule, and there were other solutions that would have worked as well if not better. Like a boss with a backbone.
The real trouble with disagree and commit comes where it's the manager/leadership pushing ideas that are gonna cause problems.
Ultimately, if you need to exercise your management authority about stuff that your reports are doing that's a time-limited move, as too much of this will lead to reports just doing exactly what they're told, which is the kiss of death if you want to build good stuff quickly.
At some point, your objections are noted and we're just going to move on and it's not useful to anyone if you continue to complain about the decision at every opportunity. I've been on both sides of that fence. At some point, you buy in or move on--whatever that means.
That’s the whole point of disagree and commit. Most decisions are not clear cut obvious decisions, otherwise it’s unlikely there would be disagreements about them.
Disagree and commit allows everyone to contribute to their max capacity and move forward once deadlock has been reached.