Organizational dissent
It has been suggested that this article should be split into articles titled Dissent and Insubordination. (discuss) (January 2020) |
Organizational dissent is the "expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organizational practices and
Types of dissent
There are three types of dissent: articulated, latent, and displaced (Kassing, 1998).
Articulated
Involves expressing dissent openly and clearly in a constructive fashion to members of an organization that can effectively influence organization adjustment. This may include
Latent
Employees resort to expressing dissent to either their coworkers or other ineffectual
Displaced
Involves expressing dissent to external audiences, such as
Factors influencing dissent expression
Kassing (1997) states there are three factors that influence which dissent
Individual influences
Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the organization, expectations they have acquired, and
Preference to avoid conflict
Roberto (2005) claims that employees may have a preference for avoiding conflict. Therefore, they find confrontation in a public setting uncomfortable. Individual's sense of powerlessness and senses of right and wrong are contributing factors (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).
Verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness
Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individual's verbal
Individuals will choose their strategy for expressing dissent based on the strength of their
Work locus of control
Work locus of control can also be a contributing influence. An individual with an internal locus of control orientation believes that they have control over their destiny. They feel the only way to bring about a desired outcome is to act. Individuals who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces demonstrate an external locus of control (Robbins, 2005). Kassing's (2001) study demonstrated that employees with an internal locus of control used articulated dissent whereas an employee with an external locus of control preferred to use latent dissent.
Relational influences
Relational influences include the types and qualities of relationships people maintain within their organization.
Employee relationships
Employees develop and maintain various relationships within organizations. These relationships can influence the choices employees make about expressing dissent. Employees may feel uncomfortable voicing their dissenting
Superior–subordinate relationship
The
Management which models the use of articulated dissent contributes to the use of articulated dissent among its employees (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Subordinates who witness their supervisors successfully articulating dissent may be more likely and more willing to adopt similar strategies. However, a supervisor must keep in mind that expressing dissent can be very difficult and uncomfortable for lower-level managers and employees. Therefore, supervisors should not only take actions to encourage dissent, they must be willing to seek out individuals willing to say no to them (Roberto, 2005).
Organizational influences
Organizational influences concern how organizations relate to their employees.
Organizational norms
Once an employee joins an organization, it is through
Organizational identification
Organizational identification and workplace
Openness
An organization that limits the opportunities for employees to voice their opinions, demonstrates contradictory expectations, and gives the perception that openness is not favored, will lead employees to select latent dissent strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).
Perceptions of organizational dissenters
The
Kassing (2001) found that articulated and latent dissenters were perceived differently. People perceived articulated dissenters to be more satisfied, more committed, possess higher quality relationships with their supervisors, and seen as employees who believed they have influence within their organizations than latent dissenters. Furthermore, articulated dissenters, compared to latent dissenters, were perceived to be less verbally aggressive.
Triggering events
Organizational dissent begins with a triggering event. This triggering event is what propels individuals to speak out and share their
In addition to the dissent-triggering event, the focus of the issues can be relevant to how one expresses dissent. Kassing (2002) believed individuals may focus on improving matters within the organization that affect themselves (self-focused), they may focus on the welfare of the organization of the whole (other-focused) or they may focus on issues concerning their co-workers (neutral).
Articulated dissent
An individual will use upward articulate dissent in response to functional and other-focused dissent-triggering events.
Latent dissent
Individuals may also express latent dissent in response to functional and other-focused dissent-triggering. They determine to use latent instead of articulate when they believe that management is not receptive to employee dissent. This indicates that individuals would use articulate dissent if they feel those channels are not available and accessible. Latent dissent is also used in protective dissent–triggering events.
Displaced dissent
Individuals will readily use displaced dissent regardless of the focus or triggering event. External audiences provide individuals with a low-risk alternative to express dissent. The downfall for organizations, however, is the loss of employee feedback. If an employee expresses their dissent to outsiders, the organization will not hear about it and will assume that less dissent exists within the organization. When an organization fails to address potential issues, employees may then view the organization as discouraging dissent and will resort to using either latent or displaced dissent in the future.
Benefits of upward dissent
In 2002, Kassing's research found upward dissent can be beneficial to both the organization and the individuals involved.
Organizational benefits
Upward dissent serves as an important monitoring force and allows the organization to identify problems and issues before they become damaging.
Individual benefits
Employees who express upward dissent seem more satisfied, to have better work relationships, and to identify with their organization.
Upward dissent strategies
Not all
Direct-factual appeal
When an employee uses factual information derived from
Repetition
Solution presentation strategy
The solution presentation strategy is deemed as active–constructive since an employee will provide solutions, with or without supporting evidence. This allows the supervisor to be receptive to the expressed dissent and indicates that effort has been put into solving the problem/issue.
Circumvention
If an employee feels their immediate supervisors are not responsive to dissent, they may employ the circumvention strategy. This entails the employee choosing to dissent to an audience higher in the organizational
Threatening resignation
Threatening resignation can also be seen as both active–constructive and active–destructive. This strategy involves the employee threatening to resign as a "form of leverage for obtaining responsiveness and action from supervisors and management." When used to express your concerns about unsafe and intolerable
Encouraging dissent in the workplace
There are some "
Change decision-making focus
Leaders should focus on "How I should make the decision" instead of "What decision should I make". In the end, if they perform the following steps the decision the leader should make will be obvious.
Encourage constructive conflict
Leaders need to ensure that
Establish ground rules
Before the process begins, leaders can establish ground rules for how people should interact during the
Intervene when necessary
During deliberations, leaders can intervene when debates get heated. They might redirect people's attention and frame the debate in a different light, redescribe the ideas and data in novel ways so as to enhance understanding and spark new branches of
Reflect on the process
After a decision process ends, leaders should reflect on the process and try to derive lessons learned regarding how to manage conflict constructively. Since reflections can lead to new
Establish a supportive climate
Bennis (2004) emphasizes that corporate leaders must promise their followers that they will never be
When leaders establish a climate of openness, they make constructive conflict a habit in the organization and develop behaviors which can be sustained over time. Kassing's (2000) research found that when leaders emphasize workplace freedom of speech, employees openly and clearly express dissent to audiences that are responsible for "organizational adjustment". However, for leaders to ensure this type of sustainability, they need to not only change the way they make decisions, but they must develop a pipeline of leaders who approach decision-making differently (Roberto, 2005).
Situations that may undermine a leader's efforts
Even if a leader takes all the steps indicated above they must be aware of four situations that can undermine their efforts (Roberto, 2005).
Crowding out response time
Leaders should avoid crowding out opportunities to respond or discuss policies. Overloading an agenda can decrease the amount of time that is available for an individual to express their view.
Appointing the same devil's advocate every time
Employing the same person as devil's advocate can cause the view that it is an "empty ritual". It is seen as being done for procedural reasons instead of seeking dissenting views.
Allowing too much time for subgroups
Leaders should not allow employee
Focusing on qualitative data
Leaders should avoid focusing on qualitative data. The employees may become more focused on the data than the real issue(s).
Whistle-blowing
Whistle-blowers are often high-performing employees who believe they are doing their job (Martin, 2005). They just want to bring people's attention to a problem that is potentially harmful or
Organizations need to realize that internal dissent is not itself a crisis, but rather priceless insurance against disaster. Until the ugly headlines appear and the consequences are unavoidable, companies too often forget that they will suffer far more for ignoring their principled dissendents than by giving them a hearing (Bennis, 2004).
See also
Notes
- ^ Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and Validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale
- ^ Eilerman, D. (January 2006). Conflict: Cost and opportunity. Retrieved September 17, 2007
References
- Bennis, W. (Jan 23, 2004). Truth or consequences. Center for Public Leadership. Retrieved September 22, 2007 from John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Web site
- Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P.T. (Eds.) (2000). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- Eilerman, D. (February 2006). Conflict: Personal dynamics and choice. Retrieved September 17, 2007
- Kassing, J.W. (2001). "From the look of things: Assessing perceptions of organizational dissenters." Communication Research, 21, 553–574.
- Macy, G. & Neal, J.C. (1995). "The impact of conflict-generating techniques on student reactions and decision quality." Business Communication Quarterly, 58:4, 39–45.
- Martin, B. (2005). "Bucking the system: Andrew Wilkie and the difficult task of the whistleblower." Overland, 180, 45–48.
- Perlow, L.A. (May 26, 2003). When silence spells trouble at work. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from the Harvard Business School Web site
- Redding, W.C. (1985). "Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication." Communication Education, 34, 245–258.
- Roberto, M.A. (2005). Why great leaders don't take yes for an answer. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
- Robbins, S.P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
External links
- Conflict Management Articles – A Collection of Conflict Management Articles
- The Organization Development Network
- Society of Human Resources Management