Contributory dissent drives creativity, critical thinking, and breakthroughs without undermining healthy dynamics.
When we want to build alignment, we shouldn’t prioritize agreement. We must equally value disagreement, as it’s the catalyst for critical thinking, creativity, breakthroughs, and improved decision-making.
Disagreement, handled effectively, transforms from an obstacle into an asset.
When we want to build alignment, we have to empower team members to voice dissenting opinions and challenge the status quo. We have to model, support, and teach how to disagree in ways that contribute to healthy dynamics. We need to embrace the idea of “contributory dissent.”
Contributory dissent is the expression of disagreement or doubt for better decisions and healthy team dynamics.
There are both informal ways and formal processes that nurture contributory dissent.
How team leaders can nurture contributory dissent
To make contributory dissent part of a team’s ethos, outside of formal processes, leaders can legitimize and encourage the expression of disagreement with behaviors like these:
- Model the behavior you want to see. Contributory dissent is just another fad unless it permeates all levels.
- Wait to express your own opinion. Let other voices lead.
- Explicitly request dissent. Signal your commitment to the
- Hold the space. Make sure there’s time and airspace for dissent to surface. It can take time to form the best way to express disagreement, and decide whether or not it’s safe to speak up.
- Help naysayers express disagreement effectively. Some have the gift, some have to develop the skill. Suss out what they’re trying to say.
- Prevent piling on. When multiple people disagree with one or two others, it can feel overwhelming to the one or two. Protect them from overzealous naysaying.
How team members can facilitate contributory dissent
Team members also play a role in the embrace of contributory dissent by adopting behaviors like these:
- Rest with your discomfort. Dissent and disagreement feel uncomfortable but can become less so over time.
- Find fault with the idea, not the person. Ad hominem attacks are contrary to the idea of contributory dissent and undermine your credibility.
- Check your agenda. Good questions to ask yourself are, Does what I’m about to say contribute to the conversation? and Has it already been said?
- Make your point, move on. Don’t be argumentative to be argumentative, and don’t monopolize the airspace.
- Help weigh the level of consensus. If an idea isn’t loved, can’t be improved upon, and everyone can live with it as is, you’re probably done.
Don’t be afraid of opposition. Remember, a kite rises against, not with, the wind.
HAMILTON MABIE
Processes that legitimize the expression of doubt
There are formal processes that encourage contributory dissent. Here are four of the most common:
Premortem
While a postmortem examines the aftermath of an event to identify its causes, a premortem employs “prospective hindsight” to envision a future event as if it has already occurred. We mentally travel forward in time and then scrutinize the decision under consideration, asking, “What went wrong?” Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman championed the premortem for overcoming groupthink and preventing the suppression of doubt. Find more on using a premortem here.
Devil’s advocate
The idea of the devil’s advocate comes from the formal 16th-century role established by the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a proposed saint. The practice aimed to ensure thorough consideration of opposing viewpoints. Teams may appoint a devil’s advocate to intentionally encourage dissenting opinions as part of the regular decision-making process, some even rotating the role to normalize the experience and help all team members develop effective feedback skills. Find more on being an effective devil’s advocate here.
Ritual dissent
Ritual dissent separates idea exchange from idea critique. It prevents group “piling on” and backchannel disagreements (disagreements people “discard at their desks”). A subgroup collects and shares feedback with the entire group, leading to more thorough consideration. Ritualization normalizes criticism, reducing its sting. Find more about ritual dissent here.
Red teaming
In the military, red teams are specialized groups tasked with identifying vulnerabilities or weaknesses in systems or processes. Similarly, in organizations, red teams are “welcomed skeptics” who scrutinize proposed plans or systems (i.e., cybersecurity systems) to uncover flaws and devise solutions to address them. Red teaming encompasses a comprehensive critique of the entire system, while ritual dissent tends to focus on specific, narrow ideas. Find more about red teaming here.