I was reading an article from Harvard Business Review on Constructive Dissent and it’s ability to unlock innovation, and reflected how architects, engineers and other design professionals thrive on this to achieve great outcomes – we love the challenge and response! But do we structure of workplaces and workflows to allow this to happen in a supportive way.

Architects and engineers are problem-solvers, visionaries, and facilitators of complex conversations. At the heart of every project lies a fundamental challenge—balancing diverse perspectives to create a cohesive and functional design. Just as diverse teams in any organization must harness constructive dissent to drive innovation, architects and engineers must navigate the friction of competing ideas to deliver exceptional outcomes.

Design Thinking as a Framework for Constructive Dissent

Design thinking, much like the framework for constructive dissent, thrives on the intersection of ideas. It is a process that values ideation, iteration, and collaboration, often requiring teams to mediate between conflicting stakeholder visions. Clients come with expectations, consultants bring expertise, and regulations impose constraints—yet, through structured dialogue and creative abrasion, designers orchestrate these inputs into innovative solutions.

Consider a large-scale urban project. Community members, authorities, planners, and developers all have vested interests, some of which may seem irreconcilable at first. However, by engaging in structured discussions—generation of ideas, clarification of assumptions, friction through critique, and ultimately, selection of the best path forward—architects and engineers ensure that diverse perspectives contribute to a more robust and innovative design.

Establishing Norms for Creative Collaboration

In design professions, as in business, a culture of innovation is built on trust, dialogue, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Some firms explicitly establish ground rules for engagement, much like successful teams fostering constructive dissent. These may include:

• Encouraging all voices to be heard, from junior designers to senior partners
• Establishing a critique process that focuses on ideas rather than individuals
• Using iterative prototyping to test and refine concepts collaboratively
• Emphasising shared ownership of design decisions rather than pride of authorship

When teams commit to these principles, they create an environment where design can evolve naturally without fear of judgment, ultimately leading to more innovative and resilient solutions.

Harnessing Friction to Refine Ideas

Much like the four-step process of constructive dissent, architects and engineers can use structured frameworks to refine their designs:

1. Generation – Sketching, brainstorming, and generating multiple concepts without immediate critique.
2. Clarification – Identifying functional, aesthetic, and regulatory considerations to filter viable options.
3. Friction – Engaging in rigorous critique sessions, where conflicting ideas are stress-tested.
4. Selection – Narrowing down to the most promising design approach for further development.

By clearly signposting these stages, design teams avoid unproductive conflict and instead channel their energy into meaningful progress. The best firms recognise that friction is not the enemy of progress—it is its catalyst.

Designing for the Intersections

Innovation often happens at the intersections—between disciplines, perspectives, and experiences. Architects regularly operate in these liminal spaces, bridging the gap between aesthetics and function, tradition and modernity, sustainability and feasibility. Recognising that no single discipline owns the full picture, successful architectural teams embrace collaboration with engineers, planners, interior and landscape architects, and end-users.

Many sustainable building initiatives have emerged from architects engaging in constructive dissent with engineers and environmental consultants. By challenging one another’s assumptions, these teams refine solutions that are not just environmentally friendly but also aesthetically compelling and structurally efficient.

Fostering Deep Trust and Shared Ownership

For constructive dissent to flourish in design practices, teams must cultivate deep trust. Much like in corporate settings, strong professional relationships empower designers to challenge ideas without fear of alienation. Practices that encourage regular design charrettes—where teams rapidly iterate ideas and receive real-time feedback—often see higher levels of innovation. Real-time feedback is the key as it it’s of no use to add more time to design by having to circle back, and sometimes in a separate forum where the rules of engagement might have changed.

Moreover, assigning rotating roles within a design team can help foster empathy and shared ownership. Just as business teams benefit from assigning members to advocate for different perspectives, architectural teams can assign roles such as ‘client advocate,’ ‘sustainability champion,’ or ‘functional reviewer’ to ensure all dimensions of a project are critically examined.

Leading with Inquiry, Not Authority

The best design leaders, like the best corporate leaders, understand that authority alone does not drive innovation—curiosity does. Leading with inquiry fosters an environment where team members feel encouraged to voice new ideas without fear of retribution. Questions like:

• “How else might we approach this problem?”
• “What if we challenge this assumption?”
• “Can we explore an alternative perspective?”

…open the door to creative solutions that might otherwise remain undiscovered. By shifting from directive leadership to inquiry-driven collaboration, designers empower their teams to push boundaries and embrace novel solutions.

Conclusion: Designing with Constructive Dissent

Innovation in architecture and engineering, as in business, does not happen in a vacuum. It is the product of structured dialogue, constructive disagreement, and an openness to diverse perspectives. The best designs emerge not from rigid consensus but from a dynamic process of challenge and refinement. Just as businesses must cultivate constructive dissent to remain competitive, architectural teams must embrace creative friction to shape the built environment in ways that are functional, inspiring, and enduring.

By embedding constructive dissent into the design process, these firms ensure that every project is not just a reflection of individual expertise but a synthesis of collective wisdom—creating spaces that truly serve their users and communities for generations to come.