Why your business needs dissenters | Andrew Millar | TED Institute

[0:06]I'm a dissenter. I live to disagree. In fact, I'm a serial dissenter, relentless, to the point of annoying and deliberately provocative. If I'm dissenting, it's because I'm listening, and I'm interested. Although to be honest, my wife would rather I just answer the damn question. I believe we need to take care of the serial dissenters amongst us. Don't marginalize us. Make the most of our unique skill set. So what is a serial dissenter? Well, I think you know who we are, and I bet we piss you off sometimes, because we are the person that doesn't give up on the questions. There you are, presenting the idea that you have spent ages preparing. And then, any questions you ask? Actually, yes, we say, and we're off. Have you thought about, did you consider, did you know, why did you, can you tell me more about? It's a lot for the person on the receiving end to take. Judith Glazer sums it up when she says that people seek connections and appreciation, not criticism and judgment. It's true, when a dissenter speaks up, it can come across as criticism. Never mind that the intent is connection. We don't mean to question your effort or dispute your idea. We see ourselves as caring enough to disagree. We aim to improve upon it. Because dissenters love the robust debate, the ideas and the action. And we don't need or seek credit. We just really and truly give a shit. Although I acknowledge, we are very hard to impress. Looking more closely, a mentor of mine put it like this. There are three kinds of people. Colluders, who need to belong more than they need to be heard. Adversaries, who need to be heard more than they need to belong. And dissenters, who need to be heard and to belong. And when there's a system or a culture that tolerates it, dissenters are given the space to be both. And that's when you see great stuff happening. At consulting giant McKinsey, the obligation to dissent is in their core values, which they walk and talk, making sure the customer comes before the firm. When Alfred Sloan ran General Motors, he would postpone discussion where everyone agreed with him to have developed disagreement. And at hedge funds like Bridgewater Capital, they credit their success to implementing radical truthfulness, where it's an ideas meritocracy. In all three cases, finding the smartest people to disagree with is an integral stress test. Even companies that pride themselves on openness aren't really that comfortable with it, because hierarchy naturally reduces dissent. We're all guilty of it, dissenters included. Uber was so intolerant of dissent that Susan Fowler was forced public, which saw the end of their CEO. Nokia crashed because social pressure saw people afraid to admit that it couldn't match what Apple were doing. And 42% of startups fail because they actually make products that nobody wants. Former Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, said that freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate. In my opinion, at this point in time, we don't have enough dissenters in positions of power, but we do have dissent. And those who seek to maintain power are becoming less and less tolerant of it. From controlled talking points, to attacking a free press, right up to killing journalists and protesters. History shows that having yes-men is rarely the driver of progress. There would be no Manhattan Project had Roosevelt not been willing to listen to outside advice. And the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved because Kennedy actively sought out dissent, in contrast to the way he handled the Bay of Pigs. Years of study here in the Netherlands by Gert Hofstede uses the power distance index, which establishes how comfortable a population is with the distribution of power. So if you look at these countries here in red, these are places where hierarchy is both accepted and expected. But this concentrates power, and that in turn quashes dissent. Whereas countries like this in yellow have a flatter hierarchy, and more even distribution of power, and they punch above their weight, because they're more open and tolerant. These are places you would expect it to earn respect. Studies show that 90% of companies encourage conformity. But within them, the non-conformists are viewed as authentic and credible. And this has proven results, and where you have high inclusiveness and diversity, that is tolerance of dissent, you outperform. You are nearly twice as likely to be innovators. You are nearly three times more likely to be able to identify and build leaders. Nearly four times more likely to be able to coach people for improved performance, and you outperform your peers by 35%. Now, I don't know if dissenters are born or made. I grew up in Scotland, where arguing could be introduced as an Olympic sport. And then I moved to Australia, where they would build an elite academy for it. I'm going to call it the Australian Institute of Bluntness. Through school and my early career, I got away with being mouthy, annoying and opinionated. I was always able to talk my way into and out of arguments, because it is easier to give dissent than to receive it. As my career progressed, I had this glass ceiling created by my lack of awareness. I pissed off enough people that my progress stalled, and coupled with my idealism, I found it hard to accept compromise or as I saw it, mediocrity. Now clearly I can't read the signals. I have been screamed at in a board meeting because I just wouldn't stop. I've been fired because I wasn't welcome, and yet I didn't stop. Now you might be wondering if I'm stupid, but I've got the mic, so let's go with naive, for sure. And I have been outrageously wrong at times, insulting people when I just wouldn't back down with my point. And I really wish I could go back to shut my mouth for me. But there have been times I wish I had dissented more. I was once made to hire someone who I knew wasn't ready, but to get along with the group, I relented. When I was told to fire them, they attempted suicide. And as much as I know that wasn't my fault, I sought help through therapy. And this is where my awareness increased, and I became better at controlling my dissenting urges. So these experiences came with lessons, which I would like to share. If you're a serial dissenter in a hierarchical organization, you're in the wrong place. Go and find your tribe. If you're going to give dissent, you must accept it in return. Now I struggle with that too, but I work alongside a serial dissenter who reminds me way too frequently that I must continue to accept it. Watch your persistence. People get tired of telling you to stop when you really should. You're not always right, but because you speak up and others don't, your opinion holds sway, so you need to look for the compromise. And find a strong leader to watch your back because you are always making waves somewhere. If you're a leader and you struggle to accept dissent, work on it. Your ability to tolerate dissent feels finite. It isn't. If you feel threatened by the center, ask yourself, does dissent really hurt, or is it your ego? Are you afraid of being wrong, concerned about losing control? Remember, listening does not mean agreeing, but it does show that you care. And it's our responsibility as leaders to ensure that everyone can contribute. Colluders, we don't need the relentless positivity, so don't promote it by putting down dissent. Look to the interns. They're nearly three times more likely to dissent on principle, which is an amazing values check. Adversaries, you need to be heard, and so do we. Try dissenting against us. We're comfortable with it, and we will hear you out. Assume good intent. It's a great way to engage dissent. It demonstrates humility and a willingness to listen. And it recognizes we all say things the wrong way when we mean them the right way. So let's not be so harsh on each other. If you're willing to hear me out, I'm willing to hear you out. But of course you may disagree. Thank you.