I recently came across a learning from a management coaching session about the importance of encouraging dissent in the corporate sphere. For a while, I had inherently understood the negative effects of ‘groupthink’ and other fallacies that arise from having too much agreement in organizations. But I hadn’t explored this beyond the superficiality of the topic.
Until now.
I had long developed a persona of being a known dissenter, a devil’s advocate. I had carefully curated this based on what I wanted to be known for. Coming from a country of a 1.5 billion people, you are never a special snowflake. As someone told me recently, “If you think you are in the middle of a particular journey, I know someone else who did exactly what you did. Almost like there’s a template of sorts”. That didn’t affect me; I’m in no delusion that I am special by any means, but I also have the wisdom to know that no two people are alike, no two experiences are alike. But there are a lot of commonalities to us, as a species. We are 8 billion of us, and just based on probabilities, there is probably more than one person going through what emotions you are going through maybe at this very moment.
I read and researched and debated until I drafted a framework for how I want to practice this in my life going forward. Not just in my professional life, but in my personal life as well. Both as the provider and the recipient of dissent.
My framework for dissent:
- Constructive
- Purposeful
- Objective
Let me explain a little about each with some hypotheses.
Constructive
For dissent to be useful, it has to be delivered with a constructive mindset. This is easier in a professional setting than a personal one, at least due to the superficiality of our corporate personas. The provider tends to mask one’s real opinion either by sandwiching feedback or by layering it with decorum and guile. In personal relationships, it’s harder for people to mask a difference of opinion because one believes an opinion is often a part of a person’s identity. So when we express dissent, we express it often as an attack against a person rather than their point of view. To ensure maximum efficacy or acceptance of the dissenting point of view, I’ve found it’s often best to be constructive while delivering it. Not condescending. Not patronizing. Not negative, unless the recipient responds to negative reinforcement, which is rarely the case in today’s society which thrives on uplifting people’s self esteem. One has to create an atmosphere of psychological safety to ensure the other person has the confidence to let their guard down. Who doesn’t know a person they didn’t like better with their guards down? Yet, it’s hard to get there and stay there. Every time a disapproval is expressed with selfishness, anger or ignorance, the person who hears it takes one tiny step back into their cocoon, further away from their real self, to save themselves from the bruises that come with accepting the feedback.
Purposeful
Not expressing dissent for dissent’s sake. I’ve been in many situations where I’m miserable about a particular topic and make it a point to then challenge almost every other thing that comes from the object of my misery. If I don’t like someone at work, I would challenge their ideas, vote against their proposals. If I had an argument with someone, I would let my misery percolate to the the next unrelated discussion and play devil’s advocate to let my misery out. I have condemned that person, based on my persuasion and articulation because I was enjoying winning an argument in lieu of another I hadn’t. Easy as it may sound, the way to deliver it is by being purposeful and in the moment. Not rueing the fact that something else about this person annoyed you in the past that you couldn’t change, but what of the current point of view being expressed is one you disagree with. And to what end? Are you expressing it to vent your frustration or is there a purpose to it?
Objective
This is described in many philosophies as equanimity. That the travails of life can be overcome by being equanimous about most things in life. It’s a fine line. It’s not nonchalance. But objectivity. This is a tough one to practice especially if you are a passionate person. If you have strong ideas about anything, you have probably been complimented for it. Over time, that has cemented into a strong part of your identity. Even the thought of letting it go is often fraught with a fear of a loss of identity. Most of our points of view are expressed with an intent to gain supporters, which is our way of seeking validation. We tend to post posts on social media (anonymized or otherwise) where each like, heart or clap is releasing that dopamine into our brains. So that we feel a little better as we go about our day. We tend to surround ourselves with people who are mostly agreeable with our political, social, philosophical and moral stances. Who wants to spend time in disagreeable conversations when you can continue to gather validation from complimentary ones.
Retaining objectivity in dissent is about expressing a point of view without an intent to sway the other person. Of letting them know that it is okay to continue having different points of view on topics without a threat of shunning their entire being from your life. We tend to live life in binaries. If someone feels differently about my political views, then I cannot bear to spend any time with them. If someone feels differently about a hypothetical question I posed to them, then this might lead to some argument that could end this association. This is a fairly immature way of thinking, that unfortunately transcends age, culture and upbringing. How then does one remain objective about something they truly believe in? By not being attached to a point of view, of knowing that this is impermanent. Of not associating a person’s point of view to their entire person.
The Value of Dissent
You don’t truly learn or grow unless you expand your existing world view. Our current world view is colored with prejudices shaped by our past experiences. And we have developed some very strong opinions and emotions towards those ideas because we have borne the repercussions of those first hand. How then can we remove layers and layers of preconceived notions to be more rational in our actions?
I would argue it comes from the practice of self improvement. Of having the ability to recognize that if we are not progressing, we are regressing. Of not having the pressure to learn, but of inculcating that in one’s character, so that it happens organically. As I reflect on situations when I haven’t been a good provider or recipient of dissent with people I love, I’ve recognized that somewhere the cases in point were challenging an idea I had of myself, or of others.
I was in a situation recently with someone where mutually dissenting points of view were expressed without conforming very well to the framework I just elaborated on. But the choice to accept it and be miserable by reacting to it was still mine. It was the result of pent-up frustration and triggers. It wasn’t attacking me or my sense of self. And even if it did, there was truth to the opinion, which affected me for that night, but not the next day. Many of us hold on to these for days, weeks, months, years. And when we don’t, we hide from it, by suppressing it, by distracting ourselves. But that doesn’t often cure us; it just gives us a false sense of security until that very insecurity is triggered another time. We are often still holding on to that negativity inside. So in essence, the framework I described above is almost useless unless there is a fourth wheel to it. That of Wisdom and all the 10/20/x traits that come with it, depending on your philosophical leaning.
