Contribution by Anja Förster – founder of Rebels at Work, management consultant, bestselling author and keynote speaker.

“An open feedback culture? We’ve got one.”

And yet, when it really matters, nobody says a word. Not because there’s nothing to say, but because everyone has learnt that it’s wiser to keep quiet.

We’ve all been there.

In a meeting, an objection hangs in the air. A decision seems off the mark. Taking a clear stance would be the sensible thing to do. And yet ideas, objections and constructive criticism are held back.

“Right, so we’re all in agreement then.”

What sounds like agreement is often organised avoidance of thinking.

When agreement becomes a danger

The cost is rarely acknowledged: keeping quiet comes at a price. It leads to poorer decisions – because the crucial counterarguments are missing.

An adaptive organisation therefore needs a cultural foundation that enables critical dissent and constructive doubt. Well-founded counterarguments are like a smoke alarm. They interrupt; they force us to pause. They demand that we investigate the cause – before a fire actually breaks out.

Anyone who turns off the alarm because it’s annoying is making decisions blindly.

And that is exactly what happens when dissent is absent.

Research by Charlan Nemeth, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrates precisely this: in groups where there is disagreement, more arguments are exchanged, more perspectives are taken into account, and decisions are considered far more thoroughly. The crux of the matter is this: dissent improves the quality of decisions whilst simultaneously hindering rapid consensus. And that is precisely where the value lies.

No insight without disruption

To avoid any misunderstanding: this is not a plea for endless discussions about ‘small stuff’ in which collective time is pointlessly wasted. Nor is it an invitation to constant opposition. An organisation cannot function in day-to-day operations without a certain degree of consensus. The problem arises when consensus is elevated to the norm. Then the willingness to ‘speak up’ disappears out of cold, hard calculation: it simply isn’t worth opening your mouth.

This is not a question of individual attitude, but a question of leadership and leadership culture.

Three questions leaders should ask themselves:

• How much openness is there when someone raises their hand in a meeting and says: “Hold on a moment, I see it differently”?
  
• Are people who, with good and loyal intentions, ‘disrupt’ business-as-usual regarded as an asset – or are they seen as part of the problem?

• And how much critical thinking is the organisation actually prepared to tolerate – not just in theory, but in practice? And above all: what happens if nothing happens? If objections have no consequences and everything simply carries on as before. If the answer is “nothing!” or “not much!”, the importance of the issue has long since been made clear.

So the crucial question is: Is intelligent dissent even desired – or is its place confined to the company’s own creative space? There, you’re allowed to really let your hair down, ‘challenge’ established assumptions in a protected environment, and – as a calculated act of rebellion – splash your colleagues with a water pistol from your beanbag – but only on the premise that ‘everything stays within the room’ and nothing changes.

When agreement is deceptive

Two misconceptions I frequently encounter in organisations.

The first fallacy: “But everyone nodded in agreement.” The fallacy: a nod of the head is consent.

In reality, it is often nothing more than a “yeah, yeah” – a reflexive conformity. Not out of conviction, but as a safeguard for one’s job and career. Hierarchy produces agreement. As long as dissent isn’t worth the trouble, it stays away. This is no coincidence, but a leadership decision.

The second misconception: the absence of dissent is interpreted as harmony, but is in fact self-preservation.

People are social beings. Belonging matters. Anyone who rubs people up the wrong way risks being left out. So people say what is expected – not what they really think. This leads to decisions being made without any counterarguments. When there is dissent, however, errors in reasoning become apparent before they prove costly.

Opposition is disruptive – and that is precisely why it works

How seriously an organisation takes dissent becomes clear when a differing viewpoint causes friction. Dealing with this requires maturity and a willingness to engage more deeply with the dissent:

“Why do you think that?”

“Are you wrong?”

“Am I wrong?”

“Or are we perhaps both mistaken and need to think about it more carefully?”

This is exhausting and it takes time. And that is precisely the price we pay for better decisions.

The challenge is this: to allow dissent and take it seriously, rather than smoothing it over. Without this challenge, an organisation becomes narrow-minded, because its view is restricted to a single perspective: that of the majority opinion. This is precisely what blinds us to the obvious.

In this context, demanding and encouraging dissent is not an idealistic utopia, but simply logical.

How does your company deal with a feedback culture, dissent or misunderstandings?

>Anja Förster is a bestselling author, entrepreneur, management consultant and speaker. She founded the Rebels at Work initiative, a community for people who want to transform organisations from within. She champions bold, unconventional thinking: challenging old certainties, driving innovation and encouraging leaders and teams alike to remain proactive in an age of digitalisation, disruption and complexity.

Would you like to find out more about the content of Anja Förster’s talks or workshops, or book her directly as a speaker? Please contact us: +49 (0)30 640 777 42 or [email protected]