💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 893.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 18:57:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Organizational dissent

2008-12-16 06:34:16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizational dissent is the expression of disagreement or contradictory

opinions about organizational practices and policies (Kassing, 1998). Since

dissent involves disagreement it can lead to conflict, which if not resolved,

can lead to violence and struggle. As a result, many organizations send the

message verbally or nonverbally that dissent is discouraged. However,

recent studies have shown that dissent serves as an important monitoring force

within organizations. Dissent can be a warning sign for employee

dissatisfaction or organizational decline. Redding (1985) found that

receptiveness to dissent allows for corrective feedback to monitor unethical

and immoral behavior, impractical and ineffectual organizational practices and

polices, poor and unfavorable decision making, and insensitivity to employees

workplace needs and desires. Furthermore, Eilerman (Jan. 2006) argues that the

hidden costs of silencing dissent include: wasted and lost time, reduced

decision quality, emotional and relationship costs, and decreased job

motivation. Perlow (2003) found that employee resentment can lead to a decrease

in productivity and creativity which can result in the organization losing

money, time, and resources.

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 supervisors, management, and

corporate officers

Latent: Employees resort to expressing dissent to either their coworkers or

other ineffectual audiences within the organization. Employees employ this

route when they desire to voice their opinions but lack sufficient avenues to

effectively express themselves.

Displaced: Involves expressing dissent to external audiences, such as family

and friends, rather than media or political sources sought out by

whistle-blowers.

Factors influencing dissent expression

Kassing (1997) states there are three factors that influence which dissent

strategy an employee will decide to use:

1. Individual

2. Relational

3. Organizational

[edit] Individual influences

Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the

organization, expectations they have acquired, and behaviors they enact within

organizations.

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 & Argumentativeness

Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individual s verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness influence the manner in which an

individual will approach expressing dissent. Verbal aggressiveness involves

attacking another person s self concept. This may include character attacks,

competence attacks, ridicule, and threats. Argumentativeness, on the other

hand, is when an individual argues about controversial issues.

Individuals will choose their strategy for expressing dissent based on the

strength of their arguments. Kassing & Avtgis (1999) found an individual who is

more argumentative and less verbally aggressive is prone to use articulated

dissent. On the other hand, an individual who lacks argumentative skills will

resort to using a less direct and more aggressive strategy, latent dissent.

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.

[edit] 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 opinions in

the presence of others because they feel the best way to preserve relationships

is to keep quiet. Homogenous groups also place pressure on individuals to

conform. Since many people fear being embarrassed in front of their peers, they

can easily be lulled into consensus. (Roberto, 2005).

Superior-Subordinate Relationship

The superior-subordinate relationship is an important relational factor.

Employees who perceive they had a higher-quality relationship with their

supervisors are more often to use articulated dissent. They feel their

supervisors respect their opinions and that they have mutual influence and

persuasion over the outcome of organizational decisions. Conversely, employees

that perceive their relationship with their supervisor as low-quality will

resort to latent dissent. They feel that there is no room to voice their

opinions (Kassing, 2000).

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).

[edit] Organizational influences

Organizational influences concern how organizations relate to their employees.

[edit] Organizational norms

Once an employee joins an organization, it is through assimilation that they

learn the norms of the organization. Perlow (2003) states that organizations

placing high value on being polite and avoiding confrontation can cause

employees to be uncomfortable expressing their differences. Employees make

assessments about motives and restraints when others dissent and use this

knowledge to inform their own decisions about when and how to use dissent

(Kassing, 2001). Furthermore, some corporate assumptions are accepted without

questioning. For example, employees will defer to the expert s opinion

(Roberto, 2005).

[edit] Organizational identification

Organizational identification and workplace freedom of speech has an effect on

an individual s choice of expressing dissent (Kassing, 2000). If an individual

highly identifies itself with the organization they are more likely to use the

dissent strategy that mirrors the organization s values. If the organization

demonstrates it values dissent and promotes workplace freedom of speech, the

highly identified employee will demonstrate articulate dissent.

[edit] Openness

An organization that limits the opportunities for employees to voice their

opinion, demonstrates contradictory expectations, and gives the perception that

openness is not favored, will lead to employees to select latent dissent

strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).

Perceptions of organizational dissenters

The perceptions of supervisors and coworkers can be used to further determine

an individual s choice of dissent strategy. Employees will take notice of other

dissenters and the consequences of their actions and will use this information

to refine their sense of organizational tolerance for dissent, to determine

what issues merit dissent, and to inform their future dissent strategy choices

(Kassing, 2001).

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 opinions about

organizational practices or politics. An individual will consider the issue of

dissent and whom it concerns before deciding what dissent strategy to use. The

types of issues that cause employees to dissent vary. The majority of employees

expressed dissent due to resistance of organizational change. Other factors

include employee treatment, decision making tactics, inefficiency, role/

responsibility, resources, ethics, performance evaluations, and preventing harm

(Kassing, 2002).

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. Organizations are more attractive to

upward articulate dissenting when it is in regards to functional aspects. This

type of dissent gives the perception that dissenters are being constructive and

are concerned with issues of principle rather than personal-advantage . It

allows the employee to signal their commitment to cooperative goals.

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 used 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 organizations are designed to recognize and respond to employee

dissent. Furthermore, employees consider expressing upward dissent as a risky

proposition . In several studies Kassing (1997, 1998,) found that employees

decided to express dissent by considering whether or not they will be perceived

as constructive or adversarial, as well as the risk of retaliation associated

with dissenting. In 2002, Kassing found that once an individual decides to

strategically express dissent, they use five different categories:

direct-factual appeal, repetition, solution presentation, circumvention, and

threatening resignation.

Direct-Factual Appeal

When an employee uses factual information derived from physical evidence,

knowledge of organizational policies and practices, and personal work

experience, they use the direct-factual appeal strategy. This strategy is

considered active and constructive due to the fact that the employees seek

evidence and base their assumptions on facts, evidence, and first-hand

experience. Employees avoid using verbal attacks and unsupported data.

Repetition

Repetition involves expressing dissent about a topic/issue repeatedly at

different points in time. This strategy is often used when an employee feels

nothing is being done to correct the original articulated problem/issue and

feel that the issue warrants being repeated. The problem with this strategy is

that repetition in a short period can be seen as destructive. Especially if the

abbreviated time frame does not allow the supervisor enough time to respond.

However, if repetition is used over an extended time period it may be

considered active-constructive since it may serve as a reminder to the

supervisor.

Solution Presentation Strategy

The solution presentation strategy is deemed as active-constructive since an

employee will provided solutions, with or without supporting evidence. This

allows the supervisor to be receptive to the expressed dissent and indicates

that you have put effort 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 hierarchy. If an

employee uses this strategy before giving their supervisor they opportunity to

handle the situation first, this strategy can be deemed active-destructive.

However, when used to express dissent regarding unethical practices it is

considered active-constructive since the dissent is issue driven.

Threatening Resignation

Threatening resignation can also be seen as both active-constructive and

active-deconstructive. 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 work conditionsit is deemed constructive. However, this

strategy will appear to be deconstructive when the managers view the threat as

antagonistic and unprincipled .

Encouraging dissent in the workplace

There are some tricks that leaders can utilize to develop their employees

attitudes, knowledge, and skills that are needed to foster constructive

dissent.

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 conflict remains constructive. That is, they must

stimulate task-oriented disagreement and debate while trying to minimize

interpersonal conflict. Eilerman (2006) claims that the way conflict is handled

will determine whether the outcome is constructive or destructive. According to

Roberto (2005) leaders can create constructive conflict by taking concrete

steps before, during, and after a critical decision process.

Establish Ground Rules

Before the process begins, leaders can establish ground rules for how people

should interact during the deliberations, clarify the role that each individual

will play in the discussions, and build mutual respect. Asking individuals to

role play or to become the devil s advocate ahead of time can help reduce

affective conflict while also stimulating constructive conflict (Roberto,

2005). Macy and Neal (1995) claim that since the role of the devil s advocate

is to present convincing counterarguments and to challenge the main position,

its benefit lies in the fact that it automatically builds conflict into the

decision-making process.

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 discussion or may revisit ideas in hopes of finding

common ground (Roberto, 2005). Deutsch and Coleman (2000) explain that

reframing allows conflicting parties to see themselves as being in a

collaborative, while producing a positive atmosphere that is conductive to

creativity and one that increases the potential solutions available.

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 insight, individuals must take time to critically

assess the experience. They also must address and repair any hurt feelings and

damaged relationships that may not have been apparent during the process

itself. If these relationships are not repaired, trust could be lost which

could negatively affect the effort of the next collaboration. Additionally,

leaders should celebrate constructive conflict management and help others to

remember the success of the process (Roberto, 2005).

Establish a Supportive Climate

Bennis (2004) emphasizes that corporate leaders must promise their followers

that they will never be devalued or punished because they express dissent. All

too often in the past, organizations would marginalize or terminate any

employee who voiced an opposing view. Additionally, leaders should reward

dissent and punish conflict avoiders. Anyone who clearly withholds a dissenting

view only to obstruct the implementation later should be held responsible.

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 employees subgroups to have too much time before

coming together as a group. Doing so can cause the employees to become attached

to an argument and as a result they may not be open to other ideas.

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-blowing is a subset of dissent. It involves the expression of dissent

to external organizations such as media and political avenues that have the

power to take corrective action. Kassing (2000) believes that the

whistle-blowing process begins at the superior-subordinate relationship. If a

superior response to an employee s effort to dissent is negative this may cause

the employee to seek other avenues of dissent. In fact, evidence indicates that

only as a last resort do the dissendents finally go public with their tales

(Bennis, 2004, Kassing, 2000).

Whistleblowers 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 unethical. Despite this, whistleblowers

are perceived negatively and suffer grave consequences. They are often

ostracized, harassed, and attacked by their superiors and coworkers. They face

termination, financial losses, stress, relationship breakdown, and health

problems. Even worse, few whistleblowers seem to bring about any change. The

organization seems to put all their efforts into destroying the whistleblower

while ignoring the original problem. The organization will take great measures

to cover-up the problem, devalue the target, reinterpret the events, and

intimidated and/or bribe the whistleblowers (Martin, 2005).

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).