"yes and" is really important to learn.
The other possibility in this situation is that the person doing the managing has just cast an unnecessary zero-confidence vote because of their own perceived superiority or excessive ego. Trying to manage people opens you up to some seriously negative social repercussions, unless those people are your kids.
I think the better approach is to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right."
From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get."
From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
Maybe it might be even better to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right."
From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get."
From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
Generally I'm for getting along. But when someone acts in ways that are abusive or manipulative, I think it's important to be clear how corrosive that is.