Monica Torres, writing for Ladders, on “Why ‘agreeing to disagree’ is a bad management tactic“:
When you are a good leader, you know that “agreeing to disagree” is not enough to move goals forward. You have to make hard choices and stick to them. To move past the wishy-washy answer of “agreeing to disagree,” you need to balance healthy debate with the knowledge that you are the final decision-maker. That way, your team can have ownership of an idea, while still understanding that they will have to be aligned with a common goal.
“Agree to disagree” in a business or work setting is often a permission slip granted to their resident problem child by weak managers. It allows frequent “devil’s advocate” types to undermine or sabotage stated goals and missions at the expense of everyone else’s workload. They come off looking principled while everyone else has to pick up their slack.
That shit is crazy transparent.
Once all of the discussion, brainstorming and forecasting is concluded and a course of action has been decided upon and the rationale shared, your agreement is no longer needed (with clear exceptions being illegal or unethical practices). Get it done or move along. You don’t have to like every decision, but you don’t get to openly sabotage your coworker’s efforts, destroy team cohesion, or create a hostile work environment when you don’t get your way.
You SHOULD get a box to pack your stuff in on the way out, however.