what could be done in order to make it possible for professionals
to fulfill their professionalethical responsibilities?
("Professional ethical responsibilities" means the ethical
responsibilities established by the profession as such --
the group of all members of that same profession, regardless of
where they work.)
Requirements
Present a clear thesis which responds to the Question Prompt
above. That thesis should be stated in the first paragraph
Provide clear and cogent reasoning for your thesis, based on
ideas and reasoning
Discuss assigned article below , and the concepts and
reasoning in that article, thoroughly and relevantly.
- In The Context Of Large Organizations Where Professionals Work What Could Be Done In Order To Make It Possible For Prof 1 (159.67 KiB) Viewed 35 times
- In The Context Of Large Organizations Where Professionals Work What Could Be Done In Order To Make It Possible For Prof 2 (174.83 KiB) Viewed 35 times
38 Nasrin Shahinpoor and Bernard F. Matt created their own worlds of meaning, unexpectedly critical and non-conformist points of view need to be recognized, rewarded and vigorously promoted. We argue that dissent is a crucial factor in forming an open, efficient and productive organization. We will show how organizations benefit from creating a meaningful space for dissent. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we describe the characteristics of dissent and distinguish dissent from other forms by which indi- viduals object to or disagree with organizational action or policy. Second, we discuss why dissent is important by showing the dire consequences organizations face when dissent is not taken seriously. Third, we argue that proper recognition and appreciation of dissent promotes constructive transformation within organi- zations. Finally, we draw conclusions and make suggestions for further research. Dissecting dissent As Jackall's descriptions remind us, an excessive drive for order, unity, and loyalty-or the wrong kinds-create and maintain organizations that are driven by and even obsessed with self serving interests and, above all, with their own internal political order. Schwartz (1991) states that within these organizations, employees advance by seizing political opportunities and meticulously conforming to the correct organizational ideologies, not by their independence of thought or their professional competence. That is, political gamesmanship re- places achievement, merit, professionalism and competence as the criteria for advancement and success. Those who do succeed in these organiza- tions and become its managers and leaders surround themselves with like- minded people, yes-men/ women, who are "isolated from criticism, or even serious discussion, of (their thoughts and actions" (Schwartz, 1991, p. 256). Isolated from outside voices and perpetuating the organization's own values without criticism, managers and leaders enforce conformity by their authoritarian rule. However, individual conscience, as well as indi- vidual creativity and criticism, can serve as means by which organizations could be transformed and operate by an alternative and better set of values than those that underlie the feudal or totalitarian ones we have just described. Despite organizations having created such high walls around their feudal king- doms to defend and isolate themselves, we argue that transformation can come from within. In this paper, we examine an important ethical voice from within organizations that can encourage and lead to organizational transformation: the voice of the dissenter. By dissent, we mean "principled dissent" as defined by Graham (1986): "Principled organizational dissent is the effort by individuals in the workplace to protest and/or to change the organi- zational status quo because of their conscientious objection to current policy or practice" (emphasis in original; Graham, 1986, p. 2). We show that a broad range of basic ethical values are revealed and acti- vated in the action of "principled dissent;" or plain "dissent," the term we use throughout this paper. We argue that organizational recognition and appreciation of dissent promotes basic human values such as loyalty, dignity, authenticity, autonomy, integrity, courage, and individual conscience. In- deed, to transform organizations that seem to have It is commonplace for leaders and managers to describe their organizations using contemporary management discourse; that is, as possessing open- ended structures and focusing on mission, vision, team-building, critical thinking, creativity and innovation. But in actuality organizations operate in a manner antithetical to these descriptions; they in fact place a higher value on conformity, order and authority (Alford, 2001, Schwartz, 1990). For example, employees are often hired and promoted on the basis of organizational fit" (that is, confor- mity to organizational values) rather than on purely professional or technical merit (Walton, 2001). However, despite the way organizations actually operate, some employees may enter an organization believing that contemporary management discourse describes the actual operation and values (Alford, 2001). But when employees fail to adhere to the actual organizational values as more aptly described by Jackall (1988), when they speak out when they perceive wrong-doing, they are often in for a rude awakening. Those who challenge the status quo often face great personal challenges and they encounter stiff resistance from the organizational leadership. There are, of course, many people with a variety of motives within organizations who may refuse to follow the narrow norms of conformity promoted by many organizations. We will concern
The Power of One: Dissent and Organizational Life 39 ourselves with one such person, the individual who against the many. In this way, dissent goes to the voices dissent from an organizational action or very heart of what it means to be an individual: "It is decision. The dissenter cannot conform, cannot an assertion of individuality" (Alford, 2001, p. 20). keep silent because conscience will not allow it; As a public disclosure of individual conscience, however, the dissenter does not want to leave the dissent may be distinguished from other ways in organization. Indeed, as we will show, the dissenter which individuals voice their "objection to current feels a strong sense of loyalty to the organization and policy or practice" (Graham, 1986). For example, it is precisely the sense of loyalty that prompts the one can give voice to objections by playing Devil's dissenter to speak out. To further define dissent, we Advocate. In playing such a role, one assumes the begin with a close analysis of Graham's (1986) def- organizationally acceptable and socially approved inition of "principled dissent." role of challenger and critic. By definition, the One feature of dissent concerns an individual who Devil's Advocate is one whose task is to submit stands apart from or against an organization. We policy and practice to vigorous review; it is expected begin by tracing the implications of dissent for the that one generate views opposed to the organization; individual, on a person's sense of identity, and for one is supposed to critically expose problematic one's sense of personhood. As an act that positions values and assumptions. The person playing Devil's one apart from the group, the dissenting individual is Advocate is accepted by the organization; playing dramatically fore-grounded because outspokenness the Devil's Advocate is a socially acceptable (albeit has made one noticeable and distinct from so many perhaps awkward) role. The challenges to organi- others who agree or conform. Understood this way, zational thinking that the Devil's Advocate mounts dissent is not an internalized protest or objection are widely accepted by the organization as mani- stated sotto voce; dissent cannot be covered up or festing important analytical tasks; indeed, the leader disguised as public conformity with private reserva- of an organization or team often assigns someone to tions. It is a public act of conscientious or principled play Devil's Advocate. Furthermore, the person who disagreement, of voice (Hirschman, 1970). Identity performs the role is neither disclosing anything and personhood are exposed - the dissenter stands personal nor revealing anything that is a matter of out. conscience - they are playing a role and assuming a The word, conscientious, underscores a second mask. Although the extent of one's intellectual and important feature of Graham's definition. In dissent imaginative abilities may be on display, the Devil's an intimate and personal element of individuality is Advocate is in control of the disclosure and can in- made public: one's conscience. That is to say, not dulge in the game purely as an exercise. That is, one only are someone's name and face made public, need not and often does not subscribe to the very one's sense of moral identity and deepest convic- views one takes as the Devil's Advocate. When one tions, as well as one's authenticity, are publicly and says, "I'm playing the Devil's Advocate," one is openly asserted. One's thinking and values are re- implying these positions are not mine. Hence, the vealed by the dissenter when a position and sup- role of Devil's Advocate shares no essential features porting reasons are articulated; and in so doing the with the individual who conscientiously objects. dissenter seeks further dialogue and is open to public Another organizationally sanctioned and recog- challenge. As a matter of conscience, what is most nized role is the "loyal opposition" (Hurley, 1991). private - motives and intentions - are open to public Like the Devil's Advocate, the one who is the loyal scrutiny as well. Thus the dissenter's vulnerability is opposition assumes a socially acceptable role. The acutely experienced as one is subject to the unre- very name, loyal opposition, acts as a reminder that stricted scrutiny of others. This vulnerability is one is a member of the organization; voicing an doubly acute in an organizational culture that values opposing position is what some members of the conformity, and where one ought to keep hidden organization are assigned to do. In adversarial poli- and private what is unique and individual. In dissent, tics, like in an adversarial judicial system, the the whole of the individual stands out as different, as assumption is that debate and competition about unique, within the organization, and the dissenter ideas strengthens them. Unions may engage man- profoundly experiences the sense of being one agement in an adversarial manner, but both parties
40 Nasrin Shahinpoor and Bernard F. Matt recognize their opposition as critical for safeguarding and promoting the interests of the organization. A member of the loyal opposition need not take positions she actually believes; in fact taking a posi- tion one actually believes makes it "personal," something often discouraged. Thus one indulges in an organizationally sanctioned exercise, not in a personal disclosure. As with playing the Devil's Advocate, members of the loyal opposition perform a task that makes intellectual, rather than personal and individual, demands. Unlike playing the Devil's Advocate that is often an ad hoc event, being the loyal opposition is perfectly predictable and ex- pected. We conclude that like the Devil's Advocate, the one who is the loyal opposition shares nothing essential in common with the one who dissents. While it is important for leaders to promote and reward critical reflection on their and the organiza- tion's activities, neither the Devil's Advocate nor the loyal opposition truly account for dissent. Genuinely self-critical organizations may reduce the probability of dissent, but do not exclude it. Dissent occurs as an expression of an individual's conscientious objec- tion, an authentic and often unanticipated challenge to the organization. Dissent emanates from intensely personal engagement with the organization. In the Devil's Advocate and the loyal opposition, one can be satisfied in having successfully played a role; but the dissenter is not playing a role and thus the stakes are much higher and far more integral to one's self. The dissenter voices a personal, not a dispassionate academic or an intellectual critique. Dissent may also be further distinguished from the "hysterical malcontent" (Alford, 2001, p. 18), from individuals who chronically complain. Whether one interprets "hysterical malcontent" as a clinical, psy- chological description (as Alford does) or as an or- dinary, non-technical description of the unhappy, disgruntled employee, the malcontent is one who is habitually unhappy or dissatisfied. The character of the dissatisfaction as habitual indicates a lack of thoughtfulness or a pre-reflective response. Unlike the dissenter, the objections of the malcontent are not principled in nature. The chronic complainer is one who always or often complains, and thus objections to policies and practices take on a more general nature: one complains about anything or everything. To be discontent, or unhappy or dis- satisfied is more emotive and vague in character, and the complainer may have neither a plan nor even intention of changing the organization. Thus it is important that one may, in the act of complaining, reveal private dimensions of one's personhood. However, chronic complaints are not matters of conscience, they do not derive from principle but from affect, emotions or feelings. The one who dissents voices conscientious objections that are reflective and specific with the goal of protesting against or changing the organization. Of course, a chronic complainer, like the one who plays Devil's Advocate or the loyal opposition, may become a dissenter when the complaint or critique is in fact a matter of conscience. We therefore acknowledge that no member of the organization is going to permanently be the Devil's Advocate, or the loyal opposition, or the chronic complainer. There will always be the possibility of changing or fusing roles. While dissenting is an act that does not conform to organizational views, it is not non-conformist in the pejorative sense; that is, it is not an invitation to chaos. Principled dissenters do not assume that every organizational decision or policy ought to be ob- jected to at every occasion for random or no reasons. Organizational life is filled with many moments of genuine agreement and legitimate compromise (Goodstein, 2000). As we argue more fully momentarily, dissent takes place within the context of an organization with the intention of protesting or changing it (Graham, 1986). Those who dissent do so on the basis of principle and conscience. Nevertheless, non-conformity is an important and vital feature of dissent. To better explain in what ways the dissenter is a non-conformist, we draw an analogy between dissenter and whistleblower, either external or internal. Indeed, there are several features dissents and whistleblowers (either internal or external) share in common. First, both dissenter and whistleblower are individuals who conscientiously stand apart from the organization and refuse to conform to an organizational action or policy. Sec- ond, both dissenter and whistleblower take a stand within the organization in opposition to a "current policy or practice" (Graham, 1986). Third, the dis- senter's and the whistleblower's non-conformity is peculiarly paradoxical: although both refuse to conform, they nevertheless desire to remain in the organization (Alford, 2001). Hirschman (1970)
The Power of One: Dissent and Organizational Life 41 describes dissenters as persons "who choose...to respond to perceived organizational decline by remaining and trying to improve things from within, i.e. to engage in principled organizational dissent" (in Graham, 1986). Finally, both dissenter and whistleblower are driven by specific capacities of their conscience: loyalty and truth-telling (honesty). Loyalty is an important feature of the dissenter's conscience and is one of the virtues of the dissenter. Like whistle- blowers, dissenters "generally believe that they are valued employees whose commitment to the orga- nization would be appreciated" and they see them- selves as "loyal employees" (Uys, 2000, p. 263, 265). Their loyalty stems from their own sense of moral integrity (that is often greater than other employees) or their dedication to the mission of the organization (albeit often naïve) (Uys, 2000, pp. 264–265). Their loyalty is shown because instead of leaving the organization, they voice their dissent and attempt to improve the organization while remaining. Like the whistleblower, the dissenter's protest (Graham, 1986, p. 2) can also stem an uncompro- mising demand for honesty. Truth-telling is a par- ticularly interesting motive of the dissenter, although this is less frequently developed in the literature. Like the whistleblower, the dissenter's experience of truth is that it must be told, one is unable not to tell, one is compelled to tell. One reason for these powerful impulses is that the truth is intimate to and essential to one's self. While the following description by Alford (2001) describes whistleblowers, the same can be said of dissenters: If loyalty is related to fidelity, as it is, then the whis- tleblower is loyalty's most faithful servant-faithful, that is, to the whistleblower's ego ideal. In the ego ideal, principle and person are one, and it is to this principled person that whistleblowers (dissenters) are loyal, the best part of themselves, or at least the most demanding (p. 87). The compulsion to tell the truth is a "choiceless choice" that one cannot resist; it is inconceivable that the truth not be told. In the experience one is "overwhelmed by [one's own beliefs." Only by acquiescing can freedom be found (Alford, 2001); that is to say, only by actually dissenting. The act of dissent is directly tied to the dissenter's sense of self, and thus it is purely a matter of conscience. There are key differences, however, between dissenters and whistleblowers. The first key differ- ence is that the whistleblower has learned that the organization's culture resists critique, and this resis- tance necessitates going outside the normal reporting channels. The dissenter is still naïve, in a sense, to this realization. The dissenter anticipates that orga- nizational leaders will recognize the value of the critique and the importance of the dissenter's per- sonhood. The dissenter seeks dialogue and expects respectful reciprocity. Sometimes, whistleblowers might start out as dissenters, but come to see that dissent is futile; hence they take more drastic action. A second key difference between the two con- cerns the process employed and its possible conse- quences. The dissenter, we maintain, operates within the organizational structure without going above an immediate supervisor's head or outside the organization. Indeed, responding constructively to the dissenter at the departmental level could bring no damaging consequences to the organization or to the individual and could result in great benefit. The internal whistleblower reports wrongdoing by going to the next organizational level in the chain of command or goes outside the department or unit. By jumping the chain of command, the internal whistleblower risks retaliation either from the immediate boss or from the next level of manage- ment. The external whistleblower goes outside the organization to report wrongdoing that might have the most damaging consequences for both the organization and the individual. A third feature of the definition of principled dissent concerns various means and forms that the protest can assume. As Graham's (1986) definition states, the dissenter attempts to protest and/or to change" (p. 2) an organizational policy or action. As previously noted, dissent is distinguished from playing institutionally accepted or mandated roles like playing the Devil's Advocate or being a member of the loyal opposition. Dissent is an appeal to conscience, to authenticity, and not to role-playing. One way of dissenting is refusing to go along with, sanction or support an organizational policy or ac- tion - and to do so openly. Dissent does not take place in a vacuum; rather, it takes place in a social, organizational setting where it precipitates a kind of crisis. Thus, while the Devil's Advocate and the loyal opposition are acceptable organizational roles; the a
42 life. Nasrin Shahinpoor and Bernard F. Matt dissenter is not. Generally dissenters, like whistle- ping individuals of what is distinctive and most blowers, are retaliated against, often by being dis- important to them: their conscience. missed. We note that such an action must greatly Organizational indifference to individuals destroys harm an individual who is in fact loyal and who acts them; it punishes creativity and risk taking; it sanc- from deeply held ethical convictions. Alford (2001) tions retaliating against those who fail to conform. and others report that dissenters and whistleblowers Walton (2001) writes that the harms to individuals are often surprised when they are retaliated against brought about by this kind of organizational attitude and discredited, or when their objections are per- and actions are significant and devastating: ceived as hostile to the organization. We attribute dissenters' surprise to their assumptions that man- the organizational ethos requires me to act contrary to agers and leaders are acting for the moral good and my character, to violate my integrity, to lie or look the that they expect to be warned when they fail to do other way when someone else lies, to falsify docu- so. And we attribute the organization's retaliation to ments or retain information, to go along to get along,' the needs for conformity, and an inability to prop- skew my best judgment into what some middle or senior administrator wants me to say or do, approve of erly assess and value diverse points of view. We what I know is wrong, misleading or harmful, and describe this problem as the tragedy of organizational disapprove of those who try to tell the truth and do responsible work. In this case every adjustment I make to "fit in' to such an organizational ethos goes against who I am and what I am morally able to do, and to The tragedy of organizational life corrode my integrity (p. 119). Those with authority within organizations apply Individuals are not merely required to conform to considerable pressure on managers and employees to organizational values or to comply with the culture operate cohesively, efficiently and in the service of of an organization; they are required to sell them- formal organizational goals, such as profit. In stress- selves (to sell out), and to abandon their conscience. ing conformity at the expense of dissent, leaders risk Organizations, in other words, truly are the enemy not hearing the very employee who can perceive of individual morality" (Alford, 2001, p. 35). wrongs and is willing to speak out about them. As the "Introduction" previously stated, Jackall Multiple recent examples of corporate heads who (1988), Schwartz (1990, 1991) and Alford (2001) are have failed to listen to dissenters and whistleblowers among the severest critics of bureaucratic organiza- underscore the costly and disastrous consequences. tions. Walton (2001) describes the pervasive infor- Creating a bureaucratic ethics that ignores dissent mal culture of what he calls "corrupting potentially harms the organization itself, and silenc- organizations" in which one has to be ing the dissenter risks ignoring the very individual who may save leaders from their own mistakes. In very careful what [one says), and to whom. Candor is addition, when the leadership of an organization not smart, being canny is smart, covering up or faking emphasizes the instrumental value of their employ- may be smart, but admitting real mistakes and diffi- ees, they tend to neglect the personal needs and culties, even when caused by circumstances no one human demands of their workers and managers. could have foreseen, or anyone could have missed, is not smart. A general policy of dishonesty and faking That is, the more the values of efficiency and tends to govern everything including its own pres- organizational goals (for example, profit) are ele- ence, so that it presents itself as terrific morale, great vated, the greater the risk of harming the personal management skills, top public image, best personnel, identities of employees. Nowhere is this seen more successful programs, and so on (p. 120). clearly than in the case of the dissenter whose voice is perceived as merely disruptive and time-consum- These leaders who would corrupt their employees ing. By ignoring, suppressing or punishing dissent- restrict speech and authentic expressions of person- ers, organizational leaders abuse the fundamental hood, and thereby thwart the free flow of con- human dignity of the individuals who labor under structive critique and controversial ideas. Honesty them. These insidious actions dehumanize by strip- about one's self, and one's thoughts and feelings are
discouraged and restricted. One is required to as- sume the organizational persona and leave one's real self outside or at home. Since there can be no consistency between personal values and those of the organization, speaking with integrity or possessing integrity are not possible. A culture that is opposed to the practice of conscience (to introspection and self-examination) is discouraged. Instead, by encouraging faking members are rewarded for going along with the organizational culture and punished for being dissenters. Corrupting organiza- tions undermine and corrupt the character of the people who inhabit them. One is either subtly or overtly forced to leave one's conscience behind and become the organization man/woman. The very honesty that is so valued by the dissenter is perceived as a liability by the organization. Along with the organizational persona come other pieces of organizational equipment - the smile and the cheery pleasantries associated with organi- zational life. Ciulla (1998) calls this "niceness." Niceness includes the belief that social harmony and a lack of conflict are positive ways of "accommo- dating and adjusting to people" (pp. 66–67). But far from being positive, niceness leads to "bogus empowerment." Ciulla (1998) notes that organiza- tions use bogus empowerment as "a therapeutic fiction to make people feel better about themselves, eliminate conflict, and satisfy their desire to belong (niceness); so that they will freely choose to work towards the goals of the organization (control of individualism), and be productive (instrumentalism). Leaders who offer bogus empowerment are unau- thentic, insincere and disrespectful of others" (p. 68). Modern management techniques have promised to empower employees, to restore individual dignity, through programs promoting participation and teams, and by focusing on quality management. But according to Ciulla (1998), these have not delivered real power. What was promised as real power is in fact little more than sugar-coated manipulation de- signed to arouse no suspicions, few questions, and little serious reflection. Bogus empowerment, it turns out, has only served to further deprive organizations and the people who work within them of sincerity, authenticity, reality and truth. The individuals within organizations have been hollowed out, so to speak; they have become smiling faces devoid of individual substance and integrity. They are treated as objects and are named as objects. The common language of management reflects this dehumanization: employees are referred to as human capital, labor inputs, and even as inventory. Alford (2001) adds that these kinds of organizations pro- mote and reward a particularly disturbing form of thoughtlessness. Organizations send a clear message that since all employees are easily replaceable, nothing that anyone does really matters. Thinking about what one is doing is dangerous; therefore, don't think, just do what you're told. These orga- nizations operate under the rule of the living dead, those who no longer exist as actors because they can no longer bear to think about what they are doing" (p. 119). The description of organizations as run by mindless habit, and where obedience to authority is unquestioned, is disturbingly pervasive and it char- acterizes the epitome of dehumanization. Despite the possible benefits that dissenter could bring, organizational leaders persist in protecting themselves and in keeping lights dim and doors closed. Such leaders seem to go to great lengths to neglect or silence outside voices and internal scru- tiny. An organizational culture is created that con- tains "a moral world of its own, which serve[s] to justify anything done on its behalf, and which [does) not require justification on any grounds outside it- self" (Schwartz, 1991, p. 250). Managers and leaders who participate in these organizations are themselves creators and victims of the very cultures and systems they oversee. Organizational corruption of person- hood can be directly caused by individuals as King (1999) points out: "Within a bureaucratic or cen- tralized structure, top management may feel threa- tened or challenged by individuals who dislike an established policy or action within the organization" and prevent opposition (p. 317). And the destruction of personhood can also be indirectly caused by organizational structures: "Organizations whose communication methods are top-down are more likely to suppress views expressed by employees that differ from those of upper management (Miceli & Near, 1992)" (Cited in King, 1999, p. 317). Indi- vidually motivated acts as well as the very con- struction and maintenance of hierarchical structures can create repression. Organizational leaders who are not motivated by promoting and protecting ethical values of their employees, but who are mainly motivated by instrumental value, risk sliding into
44 Nasrin Shahinpoor and Bernard F. Matt behaviors that are so impersonal and so distanced from human values that they can be called evil. Professional values overly embedded in the values of efficiency and profit, permit organizations to distance ourselves from the evil wrought by (their) own (perhaps very small hand in) policy-making and implementation, adopting what Adams and Balfour call a technical-rational model of organizational function which has been bled dry of all morality in the name of efficiency and rational analysis. By these de- vices (they are able to create organizational skills and practices which mask evil, its victims, causes and consequences behind a surface of modern organiza- tional science and allegedly-good results. These re- sults then become valued goods irrespective of the means (they create to reach them. Implicitly, under this model, the ends justify the means (Walton, 2001, p. 116). Seen in this way, organizational values and cultures truly crush individuals and extinguish dignity. The human component has been utterly lost. Surely this marks organizational life at its worst. All these characteristics of organizations lead to the dehumanization and alienation of members of organizations. Dissent is vitally important as a way to save the individual, and thereby transform the organization. Dissent can restore human dignity because, in the midst of dehumanized organizations, dissenters persist in thinking about what they are doing; indeed, theirs are the voices of thoughtful, conscientious reflection and protest that serve to bring authentic humanity back into organizations. Thus dissent is like a flash of lighting in the night, like a light suddenly going on, that illuminates a hidden landscape. Dissenters both expose the shortcomings of the organizations, and, if they are taken seriously, provide the means by which impersonal organizations can be transformed into more humane ones, and the means by which shortcomings can be rectified. Dissenters can restore human dignity and the dignity of the organization. of dissenting individuals should therefore be recog- nized as positive and not a threat. Rather than suppressing the dissent, organizations should respond with ethical reciprocity. There are three important ethical benefits to individuals when dissent is taken seriously. First and foremost, dissent provides organizational leaders an opportunity to use the dissenter's confrontation to restore dignity to the employee. Phillips and Margolis (1999) suggest that organizations adopt dignity or self-respect as a substantive aim for their activities "by avoiding impairments to individuals physical, intellectual, and emotional qualities...and by granting autonomy, actively respecting each person's contributions, and providing opportunities for learning and growth” (Phillips and Margolis, 1999, pp. 632–633). Dignity reclaims the humanity of all the members in organizations. Despite what we have shown about how organizational leaders often attempt to change people into automatons, the conscientious individual reasserts the right to have a voice, to act freely and autonomously, and to be taken seriously as an individual of conscience. Dis- senters not only assert their own dignity by speaking out, they also reaffirm the dignity of those in posi- tions of power. Precisely because they resisted the dehumanization of bureaucratic organizations (Alford, 2001), dissenters demonstrate that they have recognized the dignity of others by insisting they will be heard and appreciated. When the dissenter's recognition of dignity is reciprocated by the lead- ership, then a kind of "virtuous cycle” is possible: the dissenter calls attention to organizational defi- ciencies and by treating the dissenter seriously and with respect, organizational leaders can humanize the individuals within the organization. We will have more to say shortly about the process of organizational transformation as it affects organiza- tional culture. Secondly, by refusing to tum a blind eye and go along with organizational wrongdoing, the dissenter seeks to improve the organization and exhibits a profound sense of integrity (Rothschild and Miethe, 1994). Integrity is promoted because the dissenter is required to "hold fast to one's principles in the face of temptation and social pressure. Implicit in this argument is that there are principles and commit- ments of the self that are truly of the self" (Goodstein, 2000, p. 809). Exhibiting integrity and a The power of dissent There are several ethical and practical benefits that flow to individuals and to organizations if dissent and dissenters are taken seriously. The ethical capacities
The Power of One: Dissent and Organizational Life conscience requires the courage to speak out, to risk being misunderstood, and to set oneself apart from the tremendous organizational pressures to conform and "go along to get along." Considering the dehumanizing, authoritarian world most employees face on a daily basis, one cannot overestimate the importance of the struggle for integrity. Finally, dissenters are dedicated to high moral principles and are very loyal employees (Uys, 2000) who deserve recognition. As we argued earlier, dissenters are loyal to their organizations and they dissent from wrongdoing because the betterment of the organization is their goal. Dissenters operate within the organization, they do not choose an exit strategy (Hirschman, 1970), and seek to have their dissent valued within the organization. Mele (2001) points out that the loyal person's "concern and labor are directed toward the good of the object of his loyalty, as if it were his own good. He does not limit himself to taking orders. Loyalty also leads one to act with frankness and rectitude to improve as much as possible the institutions and communities he serves, and the actions of (one's] leaders" (p. 19). Surely such an individual is precisely the person one would want in an organization since being loyal and working toward the common good are elements of most organizations' mission statements. Therefore, instead of dismissing the dissenter, an organizational leader could find ways to hear and try to resolve the issues being raised. In addition to ethical benefits, there are practical benefits. Dissenters, like whistleblowers, challenge and confront organizations, and thus exhibit important critical thinking and questioning skills. Questioning and challenging business as usual exhibits analytical and creative capacities. Learning organizations (Senge, 1999), for example, claim these are highly valued and sought after character- istics of employees. In addition to possessing prized intellectual skills, research has shown that dissenters are often hard working, highly motivated, compe- tent, respected, and committed professionals (Rothschild and Miethe, 1994). These skills and characteristics are crucial for healthy and successful organizations. Thus, dissenters are precisely the individuals whom organizations should want. In fact, the business value of efficiency is precisely what motivates organizational leaders to actively seek employees with well honed intellectual skills and highly motivated work ethics. At a minimum, dis- senters should be recognized and appreciated; but beyond this, they should be protected and nurtured. Contrary to current practice, employees should be encouraged to dissent by challenging and revealing hidden assumptions at all levels of operation, to engage in open inquiry, and to recognize and defuse "defensive routines" (Senge, 1999). Dissenters bring to an organization a keen capacity for conscientious self-examination, and they possess the abilities to repeatedly question and critically analyze decisions. All organizations ought to be in this process of continual self-examination and self-improvement (Senge, 1999). It seems inefficient, irrational and unethical to punish them or to retaliate against dis- senters. Organizational leaders who fail to welcome dis- sent and instead respond to dissent by oppressing and silencing it risk many direct and indirect, practical and ethical, long and short term negative conse- quences. For example, silencing dissent may actually cause more dissent from people of conscience, or it may force people of conscience to leave the orga- nization. Those who remain could exhibit attitudes and actions that are hostile to the organization, thereby harming its reputation. In extreme cases those who voiced their dissent internally could now go outside the organization as whistleblowers. The potential harms to the organizations are thereby acutely multiplied. Other members of the organi- zation may have lower morale, be less productive, and be less inclined to be loyal to an organization intolerant of constructive criticism. These multiple negative consequences of oppressing dissent are costly in terms of losing productive personnel and increasing replacement and training costs. From a purely pragmatic and efficiency point of view, knowing that an error could be avoided, finding out about mistakes, taking into account alternatives - these all benefit an organization in a variety of important ways. Just as the attempt to actively stamp out dissent, avoiding dissent has negative consequences as well. Avoiding dissent preserves the status quo, no matter how seemingly good; it attempts to protect the organization from challenge and the possibility of growth. Thus, unwittingly, avoidance can become an instrument of oppression because avoidance relies on silence rather than voice.
46 Nasrin Shahinpoor and Bernard F. Matt Even among leaders of organizations who believe His description points out the reciprocal nature and their organizations are open and learning-centered, potential for transformation that dialogue makes who anticipate criticism, dissent is the acid test that possible. When organizational leaders do recognize determines if these leaders really mean what they say the dissenter as perceptive and thoughtful, as loyal about supporting an individual's responsibility to and truthful, as someone with the courage to speak speak out, or if they are merely paying lip service. one's conscience, they can respond in kind. The Since dissent is an unanticipated, spontaneous and leaders or managers can give back to the dissenter radical moment that cannot be planned for, even exactly what the dissenter has brought to the orga- organizations that are most open are genuinely nization: loyalty, honesty, and the courage for self- challenged in unique and unexpected ways. examination. As Bowman et al. (1984) point out, Thus, it is imperative that organizations radically "ethics cannot survive unless people speak their change the way that they perceive the dissenter, and conscience when it really matters" (p. 2). Dissenters change the way they respond to dissent. Embracing, and their bosses have the opportunity to honestly nurturing, and protecting dissenters advance and openly think together to resolve matters in a organizational interests, and create a culture where manner that recognizes the dignity of the dissenter individuals are free to exercise all their skills and and that improves the organization as a whole. capacities. The important question is how the One example to show how dissent can be organization will respond to dissent. We believe responded to in a reciprocal manner is illustrated by organizations could become better at self-transfor- a process employed by the Religious Society of mation as a result of dissent. The aim is to create Friends (Quakers). A member of a Quaker meeting more ethical environments, decisions and policies; to (gathering) may speak out against a community recognize and cultivate more critical questioning to decision by opposing the sense of the meeting and nurture and keep more employees of conscience. declaring, "I am unable to unite with the proposal Gottlieb and Sanzgiri (1996) advocate organizational (Sheeran, 1983, p. 69). This is an extreme step an cultures that support individual responsibility to individual may take in dissenting because opposing speak out if there is a belief that the organization the sense of the meeting halts the action being op- is acting in a manner that is unethical or immoral" posed and forces the community to further delib- (p. 1282). Mele (2003) argues for organizational erate on the proposed course of action. There are humanizing cultures" in which people can become other less radical means to voice dissent in a Quaker more human, in the sense they can achieve a certain meeting, but opposing the sense of the meeting human flourishing or fulfillment as human beings" serves as an extreme illustration of the merits of our (p. 4). argument. The power granted to the dissenter by the Thus far we have traced out some ethical benefits community is extraordinary because a single mem- to individuals and practical benefits to organizations ber is given the authority to stop the action of the and individuals if dissent is taken seriously. As we whole community. The community extends this already suggested, there are also ethical benefits to authority to the dissenter because the dissenter is organizations when organizational cultures are assumed to be voicing profound matters of con- transformed because dissent is taken seriously. science. "Quaker business technique was deliber- Responding constructively to dissent offers organi- ately designed to maintain unity while allowing the zations the opportunity to engage in genuine utmost possible toleration of individual views" dialogue, to respond to the person who is consci- (Pollard et al., 1949, p. 55). Since it is assumed that entiously dissenting. "Dialogue, viewed in this way, all members of the community are themselves involves what Walter Ong labels 'the calling of an expressing matters of conscience, the dissenter is not, interior to an interior' - and the recognition that in therefore, someone who is shunned and ostracized. that meeting each does something to the other. No To the contrary, the dissenter is one empowered to one goes away from the dialogue unchanged" force the community to further deliberation. For (Keller, 1981, p. 289). Ong's description underscores Quakers, the underlying value that the community the genuinely interpersonal nature of dissent and the and the dissenter are protecting is the search for the dissenter's call for organizational change and reform. truth (often Truth in the religious sense of the term).
The Power of One: Dissent and Organizational Life 47 Dissent does not stop that process. Although shows it is not. The loss of individuality causes great opposing the sense of the meeting stops the com- damage to members of organizations as well as to the munity from moving on a specific action, it opens organization itself. new opportunities for consensus building and In this paper, we defined and extensively analyzed reconsidering the action in a principled manner. dissent as a constructive critique of perceived orga- That is, it invites more deliberation and dialogue in nizational wrongdoing that is based on an appeal to Ong's (in Keller, 1981) sense of the term. an individual's conscience. We distinguished dissent Even though Quakers are a religious community from other forms of objecting to organizational that share religious values, their sense of human behavior: the Devil's Advocate, the Loyal Opposi- dignity, the value of the individual, and their respect tion, the hysterical malcontent, and the non-con- for organizational life are illustrative of the kind of formist. We also distinguished dissenters from organization we are advocating. whistleblowers both substantively and procedurally. One of the few ways employees can reclaim their In stressing the value of united decisions, Friends are not identity is to voice their dissent. By dissenting, indi- ... anxious to ignore or gloss over the differences be- viduals voice their conscience and recover their dig- tween individuals or groups, but rather to encourage nity and lay claim to their principles and self-worth. them to clarify and communicate their different ideas and policies, with a view not merely to mutual tolera- Dissent was shown to be important because the eth- tion but to the mutual comprehension (so far as it is ical standards and identity of the conscientious dis- possible) of their several viewpoints in a united decision senter could potentially have the power to transform that does justice to them all (Pollard et al., 1949, p. 89). the organization and actualize higher ethical stan- dards. By the challenge that the dissenter poses to the If dissent is taken seriously, the resulting transfor- organization, the leadership has the opportunity to mation will humanize the whole of the organization. recognize the dissenter as a valued and prized em- For what is acknowledged and nurtured when dis- ployee who ought to be protected and nurtured. sent is protected is individual conscience and the When the organizational leadership comes to see the fullness of its capacities. dissenter as a truly productive and ethical employee, the organization can become a more humane, com- passionate, and efficient place of work, and therefore Conclusion more successful. Together, organizational leaders and dissenters can build a better organization and future. Many modem organizations tend to stress the For future research we suggest an empirical study importance of harmony and unity, of placing the based on survey results of employees and manage- good of the organization above the good of indi- ment to determine if there is a correlation between viduals. Individuals are encouraged to leave their dissent and the perception of a successful organiza- own identities outside the organization and to be- tion. We might define a successful organization as an come a part of a larger whole. One should be the open and ethical place to work. The survey may also organization man/woman, the team player willing help us to determine whether or not there is a to give up everything for the group. These correlation between dissent and diversity issues (for requirements of cooperation and self-sacrifice are example, gender or race/ethnicity). made even more dramatic when organizations de- scribe their activities using the metaphors of war, battle, and struggle. While the goals of harmony and unity are important and even noble, in actuality References organizations are rarely the noble communities they Alford, C. F.: 2001, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and advertise themselves as being. Indeed, one writer advised that when an organization describes itself as a Organizational Power (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY), family, prospective employees ought immediately to Bowman, J. S., F. A. Elliston and P. Lockhart: 1984, Pro- look for another job. While this writer's attitude fessional Dissent: An Annotated Bibliography and Resource about organizations may sound cynical, experience Guide (Garland Publishing, New York), pp. 1-7.