In professional environments, the voice of dissent is often misunderstood. I firmly believe that sometime the most valuable person in the room is the one willing to say, "I disagree." Not because they enjoy conflict. Not because they want to undermine someone. But because they genuinely believe that an alternative point of view needs to be heard.
Over the years, I have found myself playing that role quite often. I want to share couple of examples and also discuss how people reacted.
A couple of years back, I was speaking to an entrepreneur friend and his founding team. They had been working on a venture for the last few years. They had managed to get some angel investors on board, which put some fuel in the tank. The initial funding helped them get started.
But over time, the venture gulped up truck loads of money. The angel investment was gone and the founders themselves had spent more than double that amount from their own pockets.
I had been observing their journey closely. To their credit, they had indeed come a long way. But in my opinion, they still had miles to go. More importantly, I was not convinced that continuing further made sense anymore.
My concern was partly financial. The venture was becoming financially draining for the founders. But there was another concern as well.
The service they were building was heavily dependent on technology. While the founding team understood the industry and the problem they were trying to solve, they had very limited understanding of the technical complexities involved. It was a tech-heavy business being driven largely by non-technical founders.
In my consulting career, I have seen several entrepreneurs make one common mistake - they fall in love with their idea.
There is nothing wrong with passion. In fact, passion is often necessary to survive the brutal journey of building something from scratch. But there is a fine line between believing in an idea and becoming emotionally inseparable from it.
Sometimes good ideas fail. Not because the founders lack intent or work ethic, but because timing, execution, capability, market realities, or a dozen other factors do not align. And at some stage, one must be able to assess objectively whether continuing to invest time, money, and energy still makes sense.
As Kevin O'Leary often says on Shark Tank, sometimes you need to "take it behind the barn and shoot it."
During the discussion, I did not hold back. I felt the founders needed to hear an uncomfortable perspective, so I expressed my thoughts without mincing words.
One person in the team, especially, was deeply attached to the venture. It was his idea. He had spent countless hours building it. Compared to others, he had probably spent 100x more time, emotion, and effort on it.
Imagine someone questioning something that has consumed years of your life. Imagine someone asking you to let go of a dream you built from scratch.
Yet, what stood out to me was the maturity with which the disagreement was handled. The discussion remained calm. He explained his point of view. I explained mine. There was disagreement, but there was also mutual respect. No bitterness. No hostility. No personal attacks.
Now lets look at the second incident, which happened some years after the first incident. I found myself in a very different disagreement.
At a company where I was working, there was an issue regarding the designation of a team member. When the individual had originally joined the organization, there were no formal bands attached to designations. She had joined as Senior Consultant, but due to an error in official records, her designation was incorrectly reflected as Consultant.
Later, when the company introduced structured designation bands, the incorrect designation evolved into Consultant Tier 1 in the system. After spending couple of years in the system, she finally noticed her designation. Her designation was updated to Senior Consultant Tier 1. Up to this point, there was no disagreement. Correcting an error in records was a no-brainer.
However, one of the fellow leaders - let us call him Person ABC - wanted the designation to be elevated further to Senior Consultant Tier 2. And, he wanted this change to happen without it being treated as a promotion!
That was where I disagreed.
My disagreement was not about the individual employee. In fact, I had no issue (hmmm...lets say - almost no issue) with her performance or capability. My concern was about organizational consistency and the precedent it would create. Promotions had already been announced and a sudden change in someone's designation could have raised eyebrows and led to uncomfortable questions. The argument from Person ABC were not invalid but I did feel that selective points were being considered. Like a defense lawyer.
I also felt there was a practical issue being ignored. This individual wanted to be elevated and if the change in designation was not officially classified and communicated as a promotion, the employee herself could have questioned it. And she would still expect or demand a formal promotion in the next cycle.
I expressed these concerns openly during the leadership discussion. It was a difference in opinion and nothing more. I was not obstructing the decision, nor was I unwilling to go with the majority view eventually. I simply believed that the implications needed to be discussed properly before a call was taken.
During the course of the discussion, it eventually emerged that Person ABC had already promised the higher designation to the employee. Personally, I felt that should never have happened. Since the promise had already been made, the rest of us agreed to proceed with the change.
In my honest opinion, this was a much smaller issue than the first incident.
In the first case, I was asking someone to reconsider years of effort, passion, sacrifice, and truck loads of money invested into a venture. In the second case, it was merely a disagreement over a designation band in an HR context. No one's dream was collapsing. No existential crisis was involved. The practical impact on the employee was limited.
Yet when I look back at both incidents side-by-side today, what fascinates me is not the disagreements themselves, but the reactions to them.
In the first incident, despite the emotional weight attached to the discussion, the dissent was received with maturity. The entrepreneur heard me out, calmly shared his perspective, and there were no ill-feelings afterwards. In the second incident, despite the issue being relatively minor, Person ABC reacted emotionally, said things rudely, and eventually stopped speaking to me!
And perhaps that is the real lesson about dissent.
Dissent itself is not rude. It is not disloyalty. It is not negativity. It is simply the willingness to express a different point of view honestly and present strong arguments (and not disagree just for the heck of it).
What truly defines individuals and leaders is not whether they face dissent. Everyone does. What defines them is how they respond to it. Some people can hear uncomfortable truths without taking them personally. Others perceive even minor disagreement as an attack on their judgment, authority, or ego.
The irony is that the people willing to dissent are often the ones most invested in preventing mistakes.
Healthy organizations, strong leadership teams, and mature individuals do not eliminate dissent. They create space for it.
Because progress rarely comes from rooms where everyone agrees.
No comments:
Post a Comment