A team that is overly "harmonious" may be sending out a dangerous signal.
Constructive dissent is the most important indicator for predicting a team's innovation ability. Simply put, constructive dissent refers to a team's ability to exchange conflicting views in a mutually respectful manner. Although it is a learnable behavior, it is also a norm that is difficult to establish. It tests the calmness and emotional management ability of team members and can easily trigger strong emotional reactions and resistance.
It is an undeniable fact that diverse teams have a variety of different views. But the question is, are they willing to share these views? We often observe that highly diverse teams often exhibit a pattern of blind compliance and suppressed group thinking.
So, how can we change this culture? How can we persuade a team to release its novel, non - linear, and even conflicting views to create an innovation incubator - and do so without causing resentment, anger, or disrespect?
We can analyze the composition of culture in this way: If a common behavior pattern is a norm, then a series of norms constitutes culture. Norms are the cornerstone of culture. In the past 30 years, in our work with global teams, we have found that constructive dissent is the most important indicator for predicting a team's innovation ability. Simply put, constructive dissent refers to a team's ability to exchange conflicting views in a mutually respectful manner. Although constructive dissent is a learnable behavior, it is a norm that is difficult to establish. It tests the calmness and emotional management ability of team members and can easily trigger strong emotional reactions and resistance.
Teams do not naturally form a pattern of constructive dissent, but through conscious practice, they can establish and maintain this key norm. Here are eight practical methods for cultivating constructive dissent and unleashing the full innovation potential of the team:
Make constructive dissent a clear goal
We once worked with an executive team that had a culture of destructive dissent: when the executives had conflicts in their views, they would inevitably have personal conflicts. Due to the destructiveness of their dissent, the team had long shown a pattern of getting along harmoniously on the surface but experiencing intense interpersonal conflicts from time to time.
When the CEO noticed this pattern and said that he wanted to make constructive dissent a goal, some people in the team snickered and sneered. But over time, this goal gave rise to a new sense of responsibility based on mutual supervision among colleagues. Through asking questions, the team gradually formed a pattern of equal participation among members, ensuring that everyone had a chance to speak and listening with the purpose of understanding rather than rushing to respond. They were able to express their views more candidly, avoiding personal attacks and emotional escalation.
Establish basic rules and obtain commitments
When a team fails to clarify its basic rules and ways of participation, this continuous ambiguity provides an opportunity for individuals to engage in destructive dissent. You don't necessarily need to write down the participation rules; many teams can make constructive dissent a norm without any written documents. But the teams that do best always reinforce the expectations for members' behavior.
For example, a team we worked with reinforced some basic rules, including prohibiting personal attacks, requiring respect in both verbal and non - verbal communication, and insisting on integrity. Another team emphasized avoiding excessive pride in one's own ideas, pausing the discussion if the team starts to have more arguments than consensus, and not easily judging why an idea won't work before having the opportunity to prototype and test it. Once the basic rules are established, ask each member of the team to commit to following these rules.
Follow the four - step process of constructive dissent
Effective constructive dissent follows the following four - step process:
• Generate ideas: Generate ideas and solutions without judgment, analysis, or criticism.
• Clarify: Clarify assumptions, logic, evidence, conditions, and limitations. Show curiosity through listening and asking questions.
• Create friction: Challenge ideas and solutions to improve or eliminate them. This step often involves a collision of views. (As management consulting pioneer Mary Parker Follett said in the early 20th century: "All polishing is done through friction.")
• Make a choice: Select the most promising ideas or solutions for further analysis.
When we list the above sequence, most team members will immediately understand the paradox of constructive dissent - it is crucial for stimulating innovation, but it is difficult to establish as a dominant norm.
In the process of helping teams shape constructive dissent into a team norm, we encourage them to clearly mark each step. For example, when the team starts a formal discussion on constructive dissent, a team member might say, "Let's start with the first step, 'Generate ideas.' What ideas do we have?" When this step is completed, this team member might announce, "Okay, if we've completed the 'Generate ideas' step, let's move on to the second step, Clarify. What evidence do we have to support these ideas?" After the team members have clarified all relevant questions, a team member might say, "I think we can move on to the third stage - the friction stage. Let's start challenging these ideas." Finally, after all challenges and different views have been fully considered, a team member can announce, "Great, now it's time for the last step - Make a choice. Among the ideas we've discussed, which ones have real potential and are worth further analysis and testing?"
We were surprised to find that clearly distinguishing these steps and marking them during the process helps the team self - regulate more effectively and improves the team interaction atmosphere.
Explain how innovation occurs
at the intersection of different views
Innovation is usually cross - functional, but often no one is specifically responsible for the cross - functional areas, and it is difficult for anyone to become an expert at every intersection. This gap makes these areas a breeding ground for dissent and disagreement. When you point this out to employees, this awareness itself has a dual effect: it makes people humble and empowers them, motivating them to adopt a more collaborative approach. As a result, team members often naturally abandon the mindset that ideas belong only to individuals and instead form a mindset of shared responsibility.
For example, a leader we worked with asked team members to point out the boundaries of their respective expertise. This is an honest act that acknowledges the need for collaboration and invites the team to cooperate in a mutually respectful manner at the intersections of different fields. Another client's sales department usually excluded the design and delivery teams in the early stages of sales negotiations, often over - promising and underestimating the delivery cost. After listening to each other's concerns and working together at the intersection of the two functions, they improved the innovation level of the design, shortened the delivery time, and significantly increased profitability and customer satisfaction.
Cultivate deep trust
Tolerate frank expression
When team members establish deeper personal connections, they often have the courage to speak their minds and provide frank feedback. Deep trust among colleagues enables them to better predict others' motives and behaviors, which helps them have a higher tolerance for frank expression and encourages them to boldly put forward ideas and seek clarification. When dissent is driven by pure motives, it is often more easily accepted.
We've seen a team succeed in this: through a set of carefully designed in - depth questions, team members interviewed each other, quickly elevating their relationships from simple colleagues to a more personal level. In addition, they arranged for team members to have lunch together in a rotating order, conducting these interviews in a relaxed environment. This practice effectively curbed the tendency of people to group based on natural affinity and promoted in - depth communication and mutual understanding among team members.
Practice constructive dissent by assigning roles
To establish constructive dissent as a norm, mere encouragement is not enough; practice and an accountability mechanism are also needed. First, you can arrange for some members of the team to present opposing views after sharing ideas. Second, after different views have been shared, you can arrange for team members to support each other's views.
Another effective practice is to publicly share an idea and then challenge your own idea. After demonstrating this process, ask each member of the team to do the same: present an idea, share it with the team, and then challenge your own idea.
Be question - oriented
In our work with teams from different demographic and cultural backgrounds, we have observed a common pattern: when a team member directly rejects or refutes another person's view, constructive dissent is immediately threatened. In team interactions, we call direct and empathetic - lacking different opinions "frontal conflict." Even if team members try to stay objective and avoid personal attacks, frontal conflict almost always triggers strong emotional reactions and may lead to the other person's resistance. The more intense the conflict of views, the more likely both sides are to have strong emotional reactions and may even intentionally or unintentionally undermine the results of the discussion.
Instead of directly clashing with others' views, present dissent from what we call a "soft angle," that is, guide the discussion through questions. You can use questions like these:
• Why do you feel this way?
• Have you considered such - and - such a situation? Are you willing to look at this problem from another angle?
• Can I share my experience? It might be a bit different.
• If I introduce another method to you, can you tell me what you think?
Finally, always be sincere and pay attention to the team members' attitudes towards those who position themselves as "opponents." For example, in a traditional manufacturing enterprise we worked with, there was an experienced but domineering employee who self - appointed himself a role of opposing any different ideas. Over time, colleagues and subordinates stopped presenting ideas, but for different reasons. Competent employees found this contrarian behavior offensive, a waste of time, and frustrating. New and less confident employees found this behavior intimidating and scary. In both cases, employees chose to withdraw and no longer participate in the discussion.
Lead by example
If you are the leader of the team, remember that team members mainly learn by observing and imitating your behavior. The power conferred by your position is both an advantage and a disadvantage. When presenting ideas, you should take the lead; when there are conflicts in views, you should intervene last.
Controlling the team in a traditional autocratic way will cause team members to retreat into a self - protective state. Remember, between the first step, "Generate ideas," and the third step, "Create friction," is the second step, "Clarify." This is a step full of curiosity, questioning, and exploration. You should carefully demonstrate this step. To set the right tone and rhythm at the beginning of constructive dissent, express your views wisely and carefully, then draw conclusions based on the discussion results and set the direction for the next step.
Stimulating innovation from different views is the core of constructive dissent. As a norm, that is, a common behavior pattern, it combines creative collisions, social collaboration, and emotional regulation. If a team cannot find a way to engage in constructive dissent, it will default to maintaining the status quo. But if it can do so, this norm will unleash the team's innovation ability.
Timothy R. Clark, Alistair Aitchison, Paul Terry | By
Timothy R. Clark is a social scientist graduated from Oxford University and the founder and CEO of the global leadership consulting and training company LeaderFactor. Alistair Aitchison is a senior partner at LeaderFactor, based in Oxfordshire, UK. Paul Terry is a senior partner at LeaderFactor, based in Boise, Idaho, USA.
This article is from the WeChat official account "Harvard Business Review" (ID: hbrchinese). Author: HBR - China, Edited by: Zhou Qiang. Republished by 36Kr with permission.