I was a dissenter

During my MBA program, I had a great experience during my Fostering Creativity class. In my previous post I described how creativity can be learned and used in a business setting. Here I’d like to present how dissenting can impact the group dynamic and how it influences the final outcome.

I had an insightful assignment during my MBA Creative thinking class.

Imagine you have a meeting with three other classmates. You need to discuss and unanimously agree on a form of punishment in a court case. The penalty is between 1 (the weakest) - 7 (the strongest). The last one is so extreme that noone would probably choose it.

However, here is the twist. Your boss/professor instructs you individually to select option 7 and stick to it no matter what!

What happened next was a pretty exciting and insightful one-hour long debate. It was painful to stick to the option. But what I’ve learned was worth it. Let me share with you my observations.

No doubt. It isn’t easy to be a dissenter

It’s challenging to disagree with a majority even if someone is entirely sure of their opinion. Why is this the case?

Firstly, disagreement requires more preparation, as the majority of the group will bombard the dissenter with various counter-arguments.

Secondly, there is something intrinsic to our nature which makes us reach a consensus. More importantly, being contrary is not something that was rewarded in our youth. Quite the opposite, I believe the majority of people were rewarded for obedience and punished for individualism.

Thirdly, supporting a viewpoint in which we have no belief requires extra effort, probably involving winning a fight with ourselves first, somehow justifying not only the situation we have been put in but also the position we have to take.

There is a peak point in the group’s performance

It doesn’t matter how well prepared someone comes to a meeting. There is always new information out there - some new details or a completely new perspective.

In my assignment, when I was protecting my most extreme choice, I explained why by using convincing arguments. Some of them landed well as people started to shift their original selection towards mine: for example from 1->2 and 4->5.

If you come to a meeting where everyone nods and agrees with each other, the meeting is counterproductive as it doesn’t generate new insights or perspective. It’s unlikely that everybody in the meeting thinks and knows exactly the same things.

If we agree that disagreement often improves our decision-making process, the next questions would be: How does our environment foster dissent? Are people feeling secure before the meeting, so they don’t have to win or prove themselves worthy? If I lose an argument during a discussion, will I be a loser in my line manager’s eyes?

In the assignment, my role was to always stick to this extreme position. My group generated many sound arguments, and it was very tempting to change my mind. My role as dissenter sparked a different conversation and allowed the case to be analysed in a more detailed way. The effect of this was not only a conversational change but an actual evolution in everyone’s original position. Additionally, those taking part became more informed and remembered almost every detail.

The dissenter therefore became an invaluable asset. But soon, an unhealthy period of this meeting kicked in.

Unhealthy behaviour

Although it was difficult, I did not change my original choice. Then, we reached a point where no valuable insights were created. Yet everybody tried to convince me using different logical techniques, from appealing to emotions to using various types of analogies. As I tried to find holes in their arguments, they tried to ask me a question and then used my response to prove the faulty logic in my beliefs as well as the choice I had made.

If it is clear that a dissenter will not give up, and all the dimensions of the case have been discussed, it’s now the time to make a call. The decision should be made in a way that noone feels like a loser. Ideally, someone should point out how was learned because of the dissenter, especially if the majority option will be chosen while ignoring the dissenter’s veto.

What to do with emotions during disagreement

Acknowledge emotions. There is no way anyone will be able to remove emotion from the meeting. If we could, that would be great, but it’s as Mike Tyson said: “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.

I think it’s more pragmatic to identify and acknowledge emotions. We can try to judge only the content of what someone says, not if they are nervous. Additionally, it’s better to ignore some sloppy mistakes or a lack of advanced argumentative techniques.

On the other hand, people who speak well, present their reasoning clearly and win a lot of support during the meeting can suprisingly be a root of blockages in the creative process. It’s because other people, more creative but less fluent or shy, can stay silent.

Also, as being a dissenter requires going against the majority as well as much more prepration and effort, many may decline to choose this route, especially if the group is particularly fierce when debating.

Playing devil’s advocate is not enough

In organizations, it is quite popular that someone will play devil’s advocate and choose an opposite side just as a exercise to spark more thoughtful processes. Nice try, but it’s not enough.

Many may notice that some disagree with others only for disagreement’s sake while not believing in their position. Therefore, this won’t enable a “second gear” towards generating more convincing argumentation. Rethinking our own view would only be possible if we believed that the controversial position genuinely belonged to the dissenter.

Summary

1. Constructive argument is a craft. It doesn’t happen when you close people in a meeting room.
2. Disagreement is a valuable tool to stimulate curiosity and start a real debate. As a society, throughout life, we have been rewarded for agreement and punished for unconventional answers. In a business setting, we need to do the opposite: reward more for sparking a conversation which leads to a better solution, rather than for the solution itself.
3. Disagreement not only needs to be encouraged, but the dissenter needs to be rewarded. It’s not because they are right, but because they started a conversation which could not have happened without them.