Dissent is not a dirty word
It’s stressful to be different — to go against the group. We want to be liked and accepted, and most of the time, it makes sense to do what everybody else does. We want to conform.
First published in the Mandarin
Shared spaces for dissent are few in our workplaces. The cultural norms that shape our behaviour are tightly defined and vigorously patrolled. Dissent is subversive and controversial. It opens the door to discord, disagreement, and conflict. It is dangerous.
But those with the courage, conviction, and confidence to disagree with ‘how we do things around here’ contribute disproportionately to improving team performance. The few who dissent force the majority to think outside the box, guard against complacency, keep group processes focused, improve decision-making quality, and open innovation. Dissent is the diversity of thinking in action.
Recently, all leaders have seen the cost of conformity in senior leadership groups. Ziggy Switkowski’s report on PwC nails the problem and its causes.
“Historically at PwC Australia, partners have built and relied upon a high degree of trust in each other, with a preference for maintaining harmony. In practice there is not a lot of constructive dissent, with relationships and loyalty being key to career progression. In recent years, the emphasis on growth coupled with high levels of trust and reluctance to challenge created blind spots. It may also have contributed to a willingness of partners to tolerate poor behaviours of ‘rainmakers’. Against this backdrop, the overplaying of collegiality creates risk.”
Loyalty, conformity, dependence, and silence reinforced by incentives built into career pathways were how things were done here. The consequences were catastrophic for the firm, those directly involved, and, most unfairly, the many who were innocent.
Senator Deborah O’Neill has warned anyone in the consulting industry who thinks 2023 is yesterday’s news that the industry’s leaders have “demonstrably failed to meet so many key markers of ethics and professionalism”.
Ethics, integrity, professionalism, and reform are best served by cultures where critical dissent and challenging the status quo are collectively encouraged—a culture where failing to engage in critical dissent is considered abnormal behaviour.
We value conformity
It’s stressful to be different — to go against the group. We want to be liked and accepted, and most of the time, it makes sense to do what everybody else does. We want to conform.
But the crowd is not always wise, and the desire for conformity leads teams and organisations into unfortunate and, occasionally, catastrophic places.
Conformity promotes silence. We become silent about what we know and about our concerns. We are silent for the sake of the group. We are silent because expressing dissent has consequences.
Dissenters are seen as selfish individualists, expressing opinions that serve their projects, teams, or careers. They are driven by arrogance and self-interest. Nobody wants to be that person.
Dissent can be discouraged in teams, particularly senior leadership teams, because it is taken as undermining the self-reinforcing optimism and buoyant positivity necessary to lead. Dissent is seen as disruptive, leading to conflicts that threaten team cohesion. Most dangerously, dissent introduces friction into decision-making. And, so, the comfort of conformity is cherished over the social awkwardness of dissent.
Without dissent, the danger of self-perpetuating errors increases. Blind spots in decision-making get bigger. Critical thinking is stunted. Silence and powerlessness become the norm. Protecting reputation becomes more important than doing what is right.
Until everything went bad at PwC, the senior leadership probably thought everything was good. There is a lesson there for all leaders.
The reasons why people express dissent
Leaders have two roles in creating the conditions for constructive dissent: they must facilitate dissent and resolve dissent. Success in both roles requires a more nuanced understanding of why people dissent.
Dissent is not always good or virtuous. Dissent can come from those who are disengaged, and disloyal. People in this category are small in number and often well-known. This is a performance management issue.
The larger group are those who are loyal but concerned for the group. These dissenters are motivated by care and are troubled enough to express their concerns. These are critical friends in the group, and those who adopt that role should shift within the group depending on the issues and decision-making context.
Some people dissent because their moral convictions and personal values are in danger of being breached. Personal convictions take precedence over group norms. If expressed, this type of dissent should be listened to carefully. It takes courage to express a personal view that runs against the group.
Given the varied sources of dissent, it should be normal behaviour in leadership teams. Unfortunately, conformity is conflated with loyalty and non-conformity with disloyalty.
Leaders permit dissent but are responsible for facilitating how it improves decision-making and resolves differences of opinion. There is great value and less risk in taking the time to integrate new information, adjust to accommodate different perspectives, and cohere around a robust way forward.
Leading constructive dissent
The view of dissent as resistance to be overcome rather than useful feedback is pervasive. For example, change implementation is often focused on overcoming resistance. Resisting change is interpreted as obstruction. Middle managers, reluctant to give up old habits, are often called the ‘permafrost layer’ when they speak up. Undoubtedly, there is, in some cases, an element of this. But while we default to the negative, it is also entirely possible that expressing dissent, particularly in implementation, makes sense.
Dissenters work in a complicated social environment where a strategic cost-benefit analysis is constantly in play: Who is watching? Will I be heard? Will it make a difference? What can be gained? What can I lose?
Understanding the internal conflicts that prevent team members from speaking up when they disagree is central to leading constructive dissent—for example, understanding that people may not be prepared to break group rules but are quietly relieved when others do.
The social dynamics of organisations and teams introduce competing pressures that can influence whether speaking up is personally the right or wrong thing to do. For example, incentive structures and performance management systems are designed to encourage compliance, not dissent. Dissenting has a measurable and personal cost. Building accountability for psychological safety into incentives and performance management sends a tangible signal that dissent is an ordinary, natural, and valued part of organisational life.
Seeing with a child’s eyes
Encouraging dissent requires an openness to diversity in thinking. It requires people to willingly challenge the ‘obvious’ and to ask (out loud) ‘the dumb question’. Sometimes, it requires a child’s eyes, the person who can say, ‘The Emperor is naked.’
We all need to acknowledge the realities of politics, self-interest, and dissent in leadership teams that navigate competitive pressures and tensions and constantly make trade-offs in uncertain conditions.
Dissent is essential to innovation and effective performance. But it requires confident leaders who can create conditions where dissent is not a dirty word.
