Dissent

3/6/2016

The UK is going through an unprecedented period of democratic turmoil. It’s not just the EU-Brexit debate. It’s about how to handle difference: how to balance the right to freedom of speech with the right to freedom from harm. It’s a debate that has erupted in earnest on university campus’ recently where proponents of critical debate are clashing with proponents of ‘safe space’. How to conduct rigorous debate that doesn’t result in people feeling offended, hurt, vulnerable or at risk.

I’m noticing similar phenomena and tensions arising in organisations too. The advent and rapid of development of e.g. social media have created new forms of leadership and engagement that depend less on formal authority and more on networks of influence. Social media conversations are typically less formal, more open than traditional organisational conversations. This can leave some people worried about offending customers, hurting profits, brand vulnerability or reputation risk.

At the heart of these debates are questions around identity, values, protection and trust. When faced with difference or change, especially if it feels unsettling or dangerous, it can trigger fight or flight, a defensive response, a desire to withdraw from, stop, close down or minimise the source of anxiety or risk. It’s a posture that is often driven by – fear. An alternative can be to lean into the conversation, the relationship, to be curious, to invite challenge, to take a posture of – hope.

This takes courage. I worked with one organisation that had the strapline, ‘Connecting People’. It created a staff newsletter, ‘Connect’ and included, on the back page, a column called, ‘Disconnect’. It positively encouraged people to post their irritations and frustrations. I’ve seen other organisations do similar things too, inviting people through e.g. social media to engage in open and honest conversations about things that matter and to co-create solutions. So – what’s your stance?

38 Comments

Stella Goddard BA (Hons) Registered MBACP (Accred)

3/6/2016 03:49:45 pm

Nick, I think you are right when you talk about difference or change we can feel unsettled and not sure whether to run or stay and find out more. I think being genuinely curious can pave the way to better communication and greater understanding.

Nick Wright

3/6/2016 03:53:39 pm

Thanks Stella. Yes, I think a spirit of curiosity can make such a difference, along with a willingness to engage in critical reflection on our own and others' experience and practice. All the best. Nick

David Thompson

3/6/2016 07:26:48 pm

I am sure people of a nervous disposition and lacking in confidence are feeling the turmoil. Conversely I am enjoying the changes underway its long over due and it's time everyone found their "voice" democratic politics thrives on involvement whatever the outcome of Brexit bremain. Within organisations you can either seek involvement or run it top down with a focus on roles responsibility but leadership have to draw a line between seeking consensus and organisational objectives to deliver their goals.

3/6/2016 07:36:08 pm

Hi David and thanks for the note. Yes, it's interesting to see how some people view the Brexit question as deeply disturbing whereas others see it as an exciting adventure. In my view, democratic politics thrives where this is effective government and effective opposition in which, often, the opposition presents a voice of challenge or dissent. It's a bit like De Bono's black hat (if you are familiar with the 6 hats model) that enables more thoughtful and, potentially, more inclusive decisions. On the organisational leadership front that you mention, my sense is that it's isn't either/or but, rather, a judgement call between engagement and effectiveness. It sometimes feels like a polarity in action, needing both for strategy, change etc. to reach its goals. Interestingly, dis-engagement, like dissent, can play an important sense-checking role too. Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Trudy-Ann James Linton

3/6/2016 08:11:59 pm

Hi Nick, My experience is that if you are really not serious about doing something with the feedback, especially the negative kind, the organisation may be worse off at the end as trust erodes and scepticism and disengagement increase.

3/6/2016 08:17:24 pm

Hi Trudy-Ann. I think you raise a very important point here. If, for instance, an organisation conducts something like a staff survey or pulse check, in my experience it's really important to have an honest conversation first about: (a) who wants to know, (b) what do they want to know and (c) what will they do if they do know? It's equally important to feed back results honestly - without spin - along with authentic actions and commitments in response. This helps to build trust, especially where trust is low and people can see what now happens when they do give honest feedback. All the best. Nick

Ian Henderson

4/6/2016 10:40:37 am

Good article Nick. Yes, it does concern fear in organisations. Then there is the link to trust, or rather the lack of it in a lot of the teams and organisations I get to see. Where there is a lack of trust there is a fear of being vulnerable: to admitting mistakes, to admitting being uncertain, to giving honest feedback. As a result, the team and/or the organisation suffers.

4/6/2016 10:46:31 am

Hi Ian and thanks for the note. Yes, if trust is low and fear is high, there is a risk that the environment and relationships within it trigger personal and cultural 'fight-flight-freeze' defensive routines. The question becomes how to build enough trust, enough to be willing to take the risk that vulnerability such as admitting mistakes or admitting being uncertain entails. It can feel like a chicken and egg scenario. If trust is developed through taking risks and finding ourselves supported (Senge, I think!), there needs to be some willingness to take a risk and, on at least some others' part, a willingness to offer support. This is where I think we can model something to an organisation to kick-start something like this, to be willing to take the first step forward. In my experience, you do that masterfully. :) All the best. Nick

William Bauser

6/6/2016 02:32:49 pm

Perhaps the reading of Max Scheler would help to curb the emotions.

6/6/2016 02:33:29 pm

Hi William. I'm curious...can you say a bit more about what you mean..? Thanks. All the best. Nick

6/6/2016 04:21:11 pm

The ability to form an action that is a characterization of particulars that love controls. The question is one of maturity or of the grasping of subjective experiences.

6/6/2016 04:21:46 pm

Thanks William. Now I'm curious...and confused! All the best. Nick

6/6/2016 05:14:41 pm

To invite and work with dissent is to perceive the human possibilities of the interchange.

6/6/2016 05:15:04 pm

Aaah...yes!! :) All the best. Nick

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

7/6/2016 10:08:55 am

I love this post Nick. It's so very rare to see this subject explored.

My take is that inviting dissenting voices into facilitated dialogue is crucial for good health...and an interesting life!

Within each of us and within every group are voices, experiences, perspectives and ways of communicating which are culturally ignored or disavowed. This creates dis-ease resulting in overt or covert hostility and conflict. Consciously inviting in voices which challenge the existing dynamic whilst being open to having meaningful dialogue with them, creates a fuller and more enriching process and experience both individually and collectively.

How do I invite in and make room for dissent? I start with myself. I view disturbance as a useful signal that something is needing to be heard, valued, made conscious and incorporated into my understanding and experience of myself. I work on developing a meta witness which can recognise and facilitate the dynamic which exists between the marginalised and more valued aspects within me.

I bring this process and my understanding of its value into my work with individuals and groups. I frame it so that people can understand and make conscious how their personal or group life is impacted by unacknowledged conflict and disturbance and how conscious facilitation of the dynamic and the diverse aspects can bring ease, insight and a sense of being attuned and connected within ourselves and our relationships.

I use my training in person centred therapy and many of the exercises developed by Arnold Mindell which support a more deeply democratic way of living with ourselves and others.

7/6/2016 10:39:01 am

Hi Cath and many thanks for sharing so many profound insights! I think your observations on how some things are 'culturally ignored or disavowed' helps to explain why some perspectives or behaviours are regarded as 'dissent' within a particular cultural context and why it can be so hard to surface and address them.

I notice that when somebody is regarded as displaying 'dissent', the focus is placed on the person - often as a 'problem to be solved' - rather than as a mirror to the group or organisation that could, in potential, reveal to the group or organisation something significant about itself that could be important and valuable to pay attention to.

I think this resonates with your comment about 'dis-ease' and 'disturbance as a useful signal'. If we and those we work with are willing to invite challenge, to approach dissent as a source of insight and energy rather than something that needs to be suppressed, it can help us to handle dissent constructively without triggering defensive routines.

With thanks again for sharing such rich insights. All the best. Nick

7/6/2016 09:44:19 pm

You mentioned 'dissent as a mirror' and it reminded me of something Arny Mindell said about how folks will take up a role which isn't being filled. So yes, the dissenter can be a mirror, taking up behaviour, attitudes or roles which are currently empty. I'm thinking of an employee acting above their rank when management aren't picking up their own rank. More than being a mirror, Mindell says that we are 'dreamed up' through a process of 'entanglement' - the manager unconsciously dreams up an employee who can manage because they themselves need to learn how to pick up that role... because it's unconscious they label the employee as an upstart!

If we open to the possibility that we are dreaming people up and are in some way entangled, or simply recognise that they are filling an unoccupied role, then the source of disturbance can become a valuable resource for filling out missing aspects of our character. We can ask ourselves 'what is at the essence of this persons behaviour that disturbs me, how could I benefit from picking up more of that in my life, how might it serve me?'.

7/6/2016 09:50:07 pm

Thanks Cath. I think filling an unoccupied role is an interesting possibility, especially in terms of group dynamics. I think it can also be true that the 'dissenter' can find themselves representing something of the subconscious shadow side of the 'other', not necessarily with awareness. It's as if the organisation, team or group can evoke something in the 'dissenter' which the person then finds themselves acting out. In this way, a useful question to ask can be something like, 'What is the person representing that we are perhaps not noticing, not paying attention to, possibly denying or suppressing?' Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

8/6/2016 09:08:05 am

Hi Nick, yes! that makes absolute sense, I think it's a really well framed question and one which most folks would find palatable.

The unconscious nature of this is interesting. You're description of something being evoked in the dissenter feels spot on and of course there's a two way process here with the dissenter evoking a scenario in which they need to play out that particular dissenting role...and around and around it goes until a meta witness evokes consciousness.

8/6/2016 09:12:15 am

Hi Cath - I think that's a great point that the 'dissenter' evokes something in the wider system as well as vice versa. This is where interpersonal, group and organisational dynamics are so complex and interesting! It reminded me of a fascinating documentary on TV a while ago: 'The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler' which explored, among other things, the influence of the collective psyche in Germany at the time on Hitler, whereas we normally tend to focus on Hitler's influence on the populace instead. It was as if a dynamic resonance was set up between Hitler and at least a significant proportion of the people, with each amplifying the other. Thanks again for sharing such insightful reflections. All the best. Nick

Bob Larcher

8/6/2016 02:21:07 pm

I am always worried when everyone agrees with me!

8/6/2016 02:22:55 pm

Hi Bob. You reminded me of Jesus' words: 'Woe to you when all speak well of you'. And you made me smile! :) So - what do you do next if you do find everyone agreeing with you..? All the best. Nick

8/6/2016 02:50:26 pm

Good question, I think I ask people to make an effort to find fault with my ideas; ask some "what if" questions and play the devils advocate.

8/6/2016 02:53:24 pm

Thanks Bob. I think I do to...sometimes...depending on how interested and resilient I'm feeling in the moment. ;) All the best. Nick

Ravi Krishnamurthy

8/6/2016 02:23:47 pm

This is a question that needs to answered and answered now rather than later. Also i feel it a question that both the "groups" of people we are talking about the formal ones and the not so formal ones have to answer. When there is this evident gap, there will also be a considerable divide in a terms like dissent is understood by each of these "groups" . I guess finding that plane between these groups where there is a gentleman's agreement that what is discussed is only for the betterment of all. But i fear the term betterment could also offend some people who think they are already "better" points to ponder.

8/6/2016 02:27:27 pm

Thanks Ravi. I think you make an important point that it is important for different parties to approach dialogue in an open spirit, in effect, to agree ground rules for that conversation that enable disagreements to be raised and addressed constructively. If people engage from fixed points, it is far harder to move anything forward. All the best. Nick

Richard Boston

9/6/2016 02:21:17 pm

Good call, Nick. While I am a fan of positivity, like most things it has its dark side and benefits from moderation. Any organisation or team that alienates those who are not fully committed to the consensus or views of those in power is creating a ticking time bomb for itself. As you already know from our conversations and my book ARC Leadership, I am an advocate of authenticity and courage - not just for their own sake, but in service of our higher responsibilities as coaches, leaders, followers, citizens, human beings...

9/6/2016 02:32:41 pm

Hi Richard and thanks for the note. I agree with your comment about positivity and dark side, although 'dark' side is also a matter of perspective. I once presented the results of a staff survey to an organisation and commented that even those areas with lower scores represented a positive aspiration for something better. I thought I was being insightful, positive and authentic. After the meeting, however, I was approached by a number of people in the organisation who accused me of 'spin'. In essence, by reframing their hurts and concerns as positive, it was as if I had ignored how they were really feeling, the voices of dissent that they wanted to express and be heard. It was a bruising experience at the time - but also a valuable learning experience for me! All the best. Nick

9/6/2016 02:58:37 pm

Sounds like some really good learning, and a trap we're all guilty of falling into.

9/6/2016 02:59:17 pm

Thanks Richard! All the best. Nick

Nancy Halpern

10/6/2016 09:21:07 pm

I cringe whenever problems are rebranded as challenges. Naming things candidly allows us to use well honed brains to work. So glad you spoke up and out.

10/6/2016 09:22:23 pm

Thanks Nancy. I appreciate the candid feedback! All the best. Nick

Annette Segal

13/6/2016 09:47:20 am

I teach a Difficult Conversations course ( about to do so at UCLA's Anderson Sch of Managment) that is based on the belief that conflict is generative! It is an opportunity, when the attitude of discovery and curiosity can be attained, to learn about oneself, the other and find creative solutions.

13/6/2016 09:49:29 am

Hi Annette and thanks for the note. What would your 'top tip' to readers be here - e.g. the most important belief, approach, technique that can transform destructive conflict into generative conflict? All the best. Nick

14/6/2016 11:02:32 am

One big shift ( I hesitate to call it a tip as it requires considered, ongoing practice) is to separate impact from intention. That requires treating the other person as a human being doing the best he can with the resources at his disposal - and no mal intent.

14/6/2016 11:04:43 am

Thanks Annette. Yes, in my experience, many of these things are easy in principle yet hard in practice! Your point about impact/intention reminds me of insights and challenges in 'Leadership & Self Deception' (Argbinger Institute). Are you familiar with it? All the best. Nick

Jigs Gaton

18/6/2016 11:52:41 am

Interesting topic! As a trainer mostly working S. Asia, it's hard to draw on dissent - since everyone is so damn polite in class. But since we do "participatory," whenever there are two or more different or dissenting ideas, I like to have the teams try it both or more ways, or work up some Pros and Cons to show both sides. As the facilitator, I rarely take a firm stand on contentious issues, and let peeps puzzle things out if there is a controversy, which is not often enough.

However, it appears that the outside culture of civility is changing, at least in the political world. It also appears that social media seems to encourage (or facilitate) uncivil interactions as the norm. I suppose in the new world where civility is thrown to the wind (along with age-old protocols for critical debate), safe rooms and comfort puppies are needed. But these new inane appeasements sure seem superficial to me. Or perhaps I'm just a "grumpy old man?"

18/6/2016 12:08:59 pm

Thanks, Jig, for posting such a personal entertaining account of your experiences in S. Asia. I had similar experiences in SE Asia and in E Africa. There was, at times, a tendency for groups to agree with whatever position or stance I took - believing that was the polite thing to do - so the challenge was sometimes how to develop critical reflective thinking and practice whilst navigating cultural norms being played out in the room. This was particularly complex when people in the room held different levels of perceived authority because of job, age, etc. I'd love to hear more about how you do it!

I agree with your observations about some of the impacts and implications of an evolving social media culture. As well as comments often being more direct and confrontational than in 'real world' conversations, I notice how often comments are framed more as 'broadcasts' (this is MY view) than as 'invitations'. In that sense, social media conversations often resemble unilateral statements/monologues or debate more than than dialogue. They can also escalate in intensity very quickly, amplified by other voices in a shared space.

It will be interesting to see, over time, if this creates a greater willingness to challenge in conversations in the real world. We may find ourselves needing, even more than now, to encourage and support listening, hearing, understanding, dialogue etc. to avoid passive conversations simply tipping into fractious conversations! We also may need to find ways to develop greater resilience to cope with the tensions it could create and, where possible, deal with them constructively rather than avoid or suppress them.

All the best. Nick

Dissent

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Dissent

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives