Importance of Dissenting Opinions
Following Justin’s post today about the JSC Vision Forum, I wanted to bring up a point based off a question that was asked at the forum:
The JSC Vision Forum concluded with a debrief on the activities that had transpired that evening. During that time, a young lady asked a very important question regarding dissenting opinions and how they tend not to travel as far as the popular opinion. I answered her question in a quick and simple fashion but for the sake of time, I did not voice all facets of this topic.
As humans we have an innate desire to be accepted. We are influenced by masses moving in a common direction and we tend to congregate with individuals who share similar opinions and feelings. One of the greatest downfalls stemming from this phenomena is the tendancy to exaggerate situations in which we agree and overlook situations in which we disagree. Though personal relationships may not be as negatively influenced by this phenomena, as compromise is imperative to healthy relationships, the foundation in which a team is established is greatly hindered.
Teams, unlike personal relationships, are focused on a mission or task. Typically, teams are commissioned because the task is greater or more complex than any one individual can accomplish. An important aspect of teams is that they have one purpose and that purpose is to complete the task/mission in the best, most efficient, and most effective manner possible. By utilizing the diverse experiences and backgrounds of team members, solutions or methods of accomplishing this task/mission are developed beyond the capacity of one individual’s background or knowledge. Ultimately providing the best possible solution to a given task or mission.
Unfortunately, if we approach a team with the mentality of personal relationships and we avoid controversy and diversity of thought because we want to be accepted, the team will underperform. If we establish our team by selecting only those individuals whom we know we agree, we will tend to come up with the same solutions or methods of accomplishment as we’ve always done and alienate the rest of the world in the process.
The stark reality is that diversity, controversy, and dissenting opinions are imperative to innovation. One very important point, however, is that we must maintain a purpose within the team. Each individual member must be committed to the goal and mission at hand, engaged in the process of collaboration, and integrated into team discussions. If team members take dissenting opinions as ammunition to seclude other members, the team will cease to be a team at all and will find that group-think will eventually set in once again. If team members engage in tactics aimed at proving their superiority or demonstrating their importance, they will undermine the effectiveness of a team. Fostering an environment where dissenting opinions are valued and necessary will catapult a team into success. Doing anything less will result in mediocrity.
So as we engage in further discussions and embark on development and implementation of new methods for accomplishing our mission and objective, we must maintain focused on the task. We must build our teams in a manner that gathers as much diversity as possible and we must foster an environment where dissenting opinions are valued and encouraged. We must come together as a team and avoid building our own little caucus. This is a very important topic that is greatly missed in much of what we do today, from top management to working groups in the trenches.
2 Responses to “Importance of Dissenting Opinions”
Leave a Reply
Joe Williams on May 24th, 2008
To add to Nelson’s post, I’d like to draw a comparison between a group and a team.
A “group” is a collection of people who come together to communicate, tackle a problem or coordinate an event. Even though they may meet often, they’re a group and not a team because they have specific traits. In most groups, individual members operate under their own separate parameters and work to achieve independent goals. Additionally, individuals in groups operate at various levels of empowerment depending on their position in the organization; little or no time is devoted to building relationships, and issues of cohesion and trust are rarely systematically addressed.
Since group members typically pursue their own individual goals, groups tend to exhibit “I”-centered behavior in conversations. This generally makes a group very competitive and argumentative.
How is a team different than this?
In contrast to a group, a team is a collection of people who come together to achieve a clear and compelling common goal that they have participated in defining. To the members of a true team, that goal is more important than their own individual pursuits. It’s this factor that gives a team its cohesion.
A team also creates a set of norms or rules of conduct that define the team’s culture. While a group may be run by a single person, according to pre-published rules of order, a team runs itself by norms created by the members.
Team members also cooperate to plan and coordinate roles. Their work lives are linked together, and they depend on each other.
When team members have differences of opinion, they tend to debate the ideas rather than argue points of view. They aren’t out to gain personal victory, but to arrive at the best solution for the good of the whole.
While the members of a group generally have only the level of authority inherent in their position within the organization, teams seek and attain higher levels of empowerment. Drawing on each other to make better decisions, a team typically evolves toward greater autonomy in managing its work.
There is a definite sequence of stages a team goes through in order to reach high performance levels. A group does not tend to follow this pattern. One reason is that team membership is more permanent. While a group can operate with members coming and going, the members of a team need to be more consistent. In fact, if a member leaves a team, it may need ti return briefly to the forming stage in order to integrate its new member.
Whether teams are created to stay together for just a few meetings or for years, they tend to develop more trust and openness than do most groups. Members have bought into the idea of working together and have made a commitment to common action. This helps create the comfort that many people need before they can freely express their ideas and concerns.
Chris Nelson on May 24th, 2008
Excellent comment Joe, those points are spot on and a very important difference that must be understood.