Business schools emphasise the importance of teamwork for organisations to succeed. This is often misinterpreted to mean that organisational leaders should always aim for consensus in their decision-making process. On the other hand, regulators fret about the culture of consensus and groupthink that prevails in many business organisations.
Most political leaders know that openly expressing dissent within the party ranks is perceived as an act of betrayal that risks alienating voters. They aim for unanimous decisions, at least as reported in public, on policies that are controversial by their very nature.
The English language has various expressions that are linked to the issue of speaking up or expressing dissent. We are often told that ‘silence is golden’. At other times we are expected to ‘sing from the same hymn book’. Many organisational leaders appeal to their colleagues ‘not to rock the boat’. It is no wonder that many businesses, political and religious organisations seem to be gripped by a don’t-rock-the-boat syndrome.
However, those who do not believe that silence is always golden argue that there are times when we have to ‘stand up to be counted’. It is not so difficult to identify when silence begins to be toxically endangering the stability of an organisation. The challenge in these circumstances is identifying who is best suited ‘to bell the cat’.
Some boardrooms are crowded with directors who feel inhibited to speak their minds because of a dominating chair or CEO. The prevalence of a misguided sense of human respect, fear of the consequences of confrontation, or simply an attitude of ‘live and let live’ can lead to a lack of effectively expressing differences. Some are passionate about their views on particular issues but fear being labelled as ‘troublemakers’ or ‘opinionated’. This is a sure way to deprive an organisation of a voice of conscience when it needs most to listen to this voice.
When we have a difference with someone, we have three possible responses. One option is to remain silent to avoid confrontation. Another is to speak up, talking tough, trying to make a point and risking to be ostracised by your colleagues. A third is to speak up but seek mutual understanding. The most challenging option is, of course, the third.
Suppressing dissenting voices could lead to toxic consequences for organisations. Dissent can never be bottled up for too long
Some are passionate about what they believe is right for their organisation and may alienate their colleagues by coming across as aggressive in expressing their views.
Empathy is not everyone’s strength. Some people are less tolerant than others when they suspect ulterior motives in some ideas that their colleagues across a boardroom table may propose.
Good organisational leaders will always encourage their colleagues to express their views openly but respectfully. Regulators in the financial services sector now ask to see board minutes to determine how directors and executives exercise their independence of thought during meetings.
Investigative journalists have their means of discovering whether political decisions are just an exercise of groupthink or the result of a genuine democratic process where all views are weighed before a decision is taken.
The key to speaking up effectively is that everyone has a voice and everyone listens to everyone else’s voice. It does not mean that people always get their way on what happened in the end. It just means that each person’s voice is heard and understood before an informed decision is taken.
Suppressing dissenting voices could lead to toxic consequences for organisations. Dissent can never be bottled up for too long. The world of politics and business often suffers from damaging information leakages caused by disgruntled and frustrated officials who feel that their leaders did not give them a chance to voice their dissenting opinions.
Some organisations face even more dire consequences when they suffer from a don’t-rock-the-boat syndrome. A dominating CEO or chairperson can hoodwink his board of directors and convince them to embark on an unrealistic project to expand the business by branching out in another country without fully understanding and discussing the risks. The result can be financial disaster or loss of reputation simply because the directors were inhibited from airing their doubts about the viability of what the CEO was proposing.
Being the voice of conscience of an organisation means that you often have to speak up and express dissenting views. Don’t expect to become famous for doing this or receive a thank you note from your organisation’s leader.
But at least you would know that you have done your duty and hopefully sleep well at night.