SHELDR #32-2019 (2/2): Loyal Dissent: Assessing and Launching the Squeeze Strategic Health Leadership (SHELDR) Thought Leadership Series

The Loyal Dissenter’s Song

In Part 1 we discussed the need for better strategic minded leaders, the root cause of dysfunctional teams, and the need and when to engage in loyal dissent. Part 2 Courageous followers should not have to drain themselves emotionally and expend so much energy to get someone or a group to do what is right. If they do, they need to practice mindfulness. They shouldn't have to, but toxic leaders feed it, many of whom do not know it. Sad. However, if they have determined the goals of the organization are at stake, teams are dysfunctional, laws are being broken or fall into grey zones, leaders are being disingenuous, or the mental energy is being collectively sucked out employees, then they have a moral obligation to engage in loyal dissent. 

In addition to cross checks and documented evidence, loyal dissenters reach for mental models, symbols, criteria, and experiences to help them navigate their actions similar to the song, “Lean on Me.” Remember? Examples, some of which are abastact, most specific, dissenters can lean on include: 

1.     The Constitution

2.     Law

3.     Nation or Country

4.     Democracy

5.     Organizational/bureaucratic norms

6.     Policies – interpretable and inviolate

7.     Profession and Professionalism

8.     Ideals on leadership competencies

9.     Organization mission statement

10. Words and deeds and non-deeds of leaders

11. White lies for downright lying

12. Family and Friends for support

13. Self for wellness, morals, and resilience

14. Public Interest/general welfare

15. Humanity or the world

16. Religion or God

Textbooks are full of advice, such as loyal dissent as the antidote to groupthink. Easier said than done, right? For example, while discussing this article, a mentor stated, “Another thought might be – how does my supervisor view the world and is his/her world view different from mine resulting in this behavior? This can go to psychological make-up and/or belief systems. Narcissism comes to mind. I worked for a senior leader who had a very different definition of integrity than me. His definition of integrity was doing what was right for him or what he thought was right. I found myself at odds with him often because of this – only after we had a long discussion about our differing views of integrity did I come to understand why he tried to do the things he tried to do. Our relationship did not get easier, but it helped me understand his context better.” The personal dilemmas and uncertainly of a beneficial outcome weigh heavily on a courageous followers. Efforts are often met with righteous indignation or even hostility from their superiors even when they preach this is a safe space to express yourself.

Progressive or Simultaneous Options

Courageous followers must be willing to live with consequences. They must do their homework too. In other words, ask yourself: If the Juice is Worth The Squeeze, What the Best Way? While every situation is different, courageous followers seek sources of creativity for their dissent and develop a strategy. Today, many progressive or simultaneous options or levels of dissent exist:

1.     Be proactive, gather facts, seek wise counsel

2.     Work within the system

3.     Offer to be the voice of reason or red team to offer an opposing view to make it better

4.     Cultivate allies inside and outside the organization

5.     Frame your position so it will be heard

6.     Educate others on how your view serves their best interests

7.     Take collective action

8.     Build fortitude, confront front line supervisor on the need to follow through or decide

9.     If you meet resistance and non-action, seek higher authority

10. End run around the supervisor

11. Engage in informal tactics

12. Walk the supervisory chain openly or privately

13. File a lawsuit

14. Go to the Inspector General or equivalent neutral agency

15. Let it go, become a working zombie till you retire

16. Occasionally, sabotage their organization in the interests of public welfare

17. Seek another position and transfer to escape the toxicity

18. Leak information in hopes outside pressure drives results

19. Blow the whistle and withstand the formal and informal blowback

20. Go public while in the same position

21. Quit, go public

Make Sure You Are Not Part of the Problem

Courageous followers who want to truly challenge the status quo with alternative ideas or strategies, address lack of decision making, report infractions, or propose going another direction will be at odds with the dominant culture. That is why courageous followers should do their best to operate within accepted organizational norms by considering success in incremental changes, choose their battles and small wins, and continue to build partners. Some call is it open loyal dissent. SHELDRs should encourage it. They often don’t. They’re scared. Before engaging in loyal dissent, check your own squeezability by:

1.     Build Trust:Trust is at the center of all good employee-employer relations. Show you care about your working relationship, not just your work. Keep to your project deadlines. Go the extra mile when there’s an opportunity to. Make sure your performance is consistent. You want to demonstrate over time that you’re a reliable part of the organization.

2.     Make teamwork a priority: Make teamwork part of performance management. This begins with performance expectations. Know the expectations.

3.     Pinpoint The Issue: Explore your feelings and behavior toward your colleagues and supervisors. While this might be a bitter pill to swallow, you may be the very root of the problem and the first step toward recovery is discovering this.

4.     Do not Whine: Take the steps to remedy the situation first, document everything, only turn to loyal dissent as the last resort. Do your best to be part of the solution.

5.     Be Proactive, Ask For Advice: Ask your supervisor for advice on how to improve support, communicate, and add value. This may help your supervisor see themselves as part of the problem.

6.     Seek First to Understand: Don't assume it's personal. It may be they don't have the competencies or training necessary to do the job or make a decision.

To be an effective courageous follower, understanding the style of presentation matters and advocating a calm, unemotional and tactful, yet dynamic approach will go a long way. It could be fun, exciting, and even encouraged by the inept leaders who should be doing it regardless. Then again, its no wonder organization dysfunction gets out of hand. No wonder many employees turn into working zombies. It drains them mentally and emotionally.

Do a double Check on Your Emotions and Facts

In order to avoid visceral reactions, loyal dissenters should exercise a level of restraint and become a double agent, so to speak. Unfortunately, if you are someone like Dirty Harry who has no feelings or remorse, these can exact a personal toll. Invalidating or suppressing a deeply held belief or value is not wise either. It can be demoralizing and draining. The toll for operating inside the system can be increased anxiety, guilt, loneliness, and accusations of hypocrisy, frustration, and burnout. However, courageous followers may willingly pay the price because they do not see better alternatives. The Tom Cruise character in the movie: The Firm is a perfect example. If you want to minimize some of the unintended personal consequences, the following factors should be considered:

1.     Homework:  As summarized above, rule out you are not part of the problem. Gather facts, timelines, examples, observations, comments by others, and direct and indirect impacts. Doing so puts you on solid ground.  

2.     Timing: Appropriate timing can mean the difference between receptiveness and rejection. Turnover happens every year. Fresh minds might be a better target.

3.     Stakes and Partners: Pick your battles carefully. Evaluate what you and others have to gain and lose. Anticipate when others might be invested and more likely to mount opposition with you. Build partners inside and outside the organization helps.

4.     Likelihood of Success: Changes requiring significant behavior change are less likely to succeed than those requiring less modification. Change consistent with the underlying culture is more likely to be successful than change in opposition to the existing culture. It the culture is full of boiling frogs, the chance of success is less.

5.     Options: Risk is a factor that should be weighed. Consider other options that might enable the taking of a stand without jeopardizing one’s credibility.

6.     Consequences of failure: Consider the worst-case scenarios of various courses of action and the likelihood they will occur. Can you afford to quit? Not get a bonus?

7.     Personal Association: Risk to the individual is increased when it is seen as “their issue.” Seeking a third party intervention is sometimes warranted.

8.     Doability: Not all change is feasible. Responses that are not overwhelming have higher odds of being implemented effectively.

Courageous followers favor action, yet exercising patience in choosing when to speak up and when to go along must be considered. They are astute operators who prod the organization in an incremental fashion. These prods add up over time and could lead to normative shift. They harness relationships to prevent isolation and loneliness and forge alliances with those who share their agenda. They preserve their sense of well-being and mental energy. Blind followership is not an option either. However, thinking through the factors and strategy should be assessed.

Principles and Steps

An “agree-to-disagree” stalemate will only go so far too. There does come a time when a loyal dissenter believes the issue must move forward. If so, they must ask: How Do I Squeeze the Lemon to Get the Most Juice? Seeking outside advice is a start. For example, when discussing this issue with a mentor, he stated, “For folks who are comfortable with ambiguity, this might be easier or at least less painful. However, when you are a black and white, down the middle person. these situations can become harmful (either internally or externally). Another point of advice for a dissenter is to talk the situation over with a trusted mentor as part of the reflection process; the opportunity to talk it through can be enlightening.” As such, engaging in loyal dissent suggests there are some principles to help courageous followers develop courses of action to reduce tensions, act deliberately, and take the high ground: 

1.     The Goals of Organization Are at Stake: Understand what’s at stake. Don’t act like a know-it-all. There is little virtue in zombie-like behavior by followers who execute directives without thought, nor is it admirable to stand aside and watch a leader make bad decisions or sabotage leaders through malicious compliance with decisions they believe to be wrong. These are not the actions of the morally astute follower. While there may well be a personal price to pay for dissenting, it is sometimes an obligation when placing the goals of the organization first. Have the facts, timelines, and examples straight. Keep the conversation focused so it doesn’t become a heated argument about something else. Document the observations and missteps, then get an unbiased review.

2.     Respond in Kind: Before confronting a more powerful superior with a dissenting opinion, the follower ought to be prudent and exercise some level of restraint. Not every issue warrants such confrontation and personal risk. While self-interest may not be the controlling value, complete disregard of the personal ramifications of an action is not rational. There should be some sense of proportionality about dissent. The more significant the consequences of a decision the more strident should be the dissent. It is appropriate to consider the possibility that the leader might have information or perspectives that the follower does not. The default setting should be to assume good intent on the part of the leader, but that is not a license for continuous deference.

3.     Seek Advice Before Launching: Ethics rightly tends to focus on the role of the lone moral agent since we are all accountable for our actions at an individual level. Important decisions that have personal and collective impact, however, need not be made in isolation. Consultation with valued colleagues and mentors is advisable when facing crises. Build and use a support system.

4.     Be Part of the Solution and Present Problems with Tact: Consider how the dissent is expressed, respecting the need for the leader to maintain the confidence of others. It is generally better to confront a superior calmly and privately before they have invested significant interpersonal capital in the course of action. Tact and diplomacy are not only moral behaviors, but they are also techniques that increase the likelihood that the dissenting opinion will be heard. Followers who present solutions or options to the leader are likely to be valued more than those who merely point out problems.

5.     Delivery: Be sensitive about personality. Dig deeper. Incompetence may be shrouded in hubris, politics, or poor self-esteem. See the world from their eyes. Devise a strategy accordingly. Say it tactfully in private. No public outcries, you will lose. Confer in private and point out your view of the issue. Never lose sight of the big picture. Connect your issue to a higher purpose. Be calm, focused, clear, and firm when you speak. Have your facts and examples ready.

6.     Be Tenacious In Advocating Through Channels: There is rarely a case where there is only one person with whom a concern can be registered. It is appropriate to go over the head of supervisors on a matter of conscience after giving them an opportunity to address the issue. It is generally preferable to express dissent internally rather than externally. If time permits the follower should exhaust internal means of dissent before moving the issue to collective action or an external audience.

7.     Rehearse and Strategize: Anticipate a counterargument. What led to the position you disagree with or poor leadership behavior. How will they perceives or react to your facts? Grill yourself on questions answers they might ask. Have the resources and data to back up your case and make it more credible.

8.     Know When To Back Down: Not all arguments are worth the squeeze. There’s a time and place for everything. The time might be right. If your supervisor refuses to consider your argument, respect the decision, make sure they know you support them, and make the decision to engage in dissent.

9.     Exercise Voice and Exit As A Last Resort: It may be necessary to move the dissent beyond the confines of the organization. Such actions should be engaged after giving those in authoritative positions an opportunity to hear the argument and understand the issue is important enough to be elevated to collective action or moved externally to the organization. In many cases, this course is also the path of exit since it is rare that leaders will tolerate those who organize collective dissent or extend the argument outside the organization.

There are very useful and justifiable ways to express loyal dissent. The headlines go for the whistleblowers to create sensational stories. Is that you? Is blowing the whistle your only option to achieve the same outcome?  While there are legitimate issues you do not agree with, leaking information, enlisting the aid of friends who work in other agencies, obeying in public while disobeying in private are less morally supportable. For example, a former Veterans Affairs (VA) official stated, “in the VA things can get muddled. If you are "blowing the whistle," a form of loyal dissent, and that is confirmed by VA attorneys, you are then protected and given special status. There are many ways to bring issues to the attention of the VA. They can call the IG, before going public, go the VISN, but that is very risky, as usually they are part of the problem. In many cases, the individual should be willing to leave the VA to share their message ... it is ugly and not forgiving.” Today, they are debatable and could back fire. For example, in some cases, whistleblowing appears heroic whereas in other cases it appears reprehensible. To blow the whistle means someone thought long and hard about the situation, their loyalty, and risks. 

Summary

There comes a time when incompetent, paralyzed, toxic Leadership must be dealt with. The SHELDR model offers a foundation to develop better prepared strategic leaders. It must be applied through leader development and leading effective teams of leaders. Some may question a follower’s loyalty and courage, but one has to ask, how did the organization get to this point? In cases where the organizational environment is toxic or immune to the influence conscientious followers, teams become dysfunctional and followers fear retribution, become walking zombies, or decide to engage in courageous followership. Before engaging in loyal dissent courageous followers must do some self reelection, asses the options, actions, factors, and principles to guide them to act morally and in the best interests of the organization.

Well-meaning followers face conflicting loyalties as they balance their sense of right and wrong with the desires of leaders and the best interests of the organizations they ultimately serve. Ultimately courageous followers get to point where they ask: Is the juice worth the squeeze? Engaging in loyal dissent is easier said than done. Don’t be the Gene Hackman character in the movie, The Firm.—too much Kool-Aid and corruption to the point of personal harm. Empower yourself in a methodical ways by preparing yourself. Walk through the steps above. Remember, you’ve been placed in your position for a reason. 

About the Author: Douglas “DrQD” Anderson, DHA, MSS, MBA, FACHE is a healthcare consultant, adjunct professor, strategist, executive coach and group facilitator. He has over 30 years’ healthcare experience in leadership, command, and corporate staff positions: military, international, academic, and commercial health sectors. He retired in the grade of Colonel in 2012. His last assignment in the military was as Director, Organizational Improvement and Strategic Communication in the U.S. Air Force Surgeon General’s Headquarters. He served on multiple deployments including Afghanistan as Medical Advisor to Afghanistan National Police Surgeon General. He is currently the Chairman of the U.S. Air Force Medical Service Corps Association. He specializes in health futuring, strategic leader development, strategy management, systems thinking, continuous quality improvement, and strategic communication. He is coauthor of Health Systems Thinking: A Primer and Systems Thinking for Health Organizations, Leadership, and Policy: Think Globally, Act Locally. Follow him on Twitter: @Doug_Anderson57. Contact him at [email protected] for information, comments, and opportunities.

Disclosure and Disclaimer:  Douglas E. Anderson have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose. The author’s opinions are his own and do not represent an official position of any organization including those he consulted. Any publications, commercial products or services mentioned in his publications are for recommendations only and do not indicate an endorsement. All non-disclosure agreements (NDA) apply.

References: All references or citations will be provided upon request. Not responsible for broken or outdated links, however, report broken links to [email protected]

Hashtags: #futuring #futures #futurism #strategy #scenarios #leadership #strategic leadership #leader development #health #healthcare #leader #health leader #healthcare leader

Copyright: Strategic Health Leadership (SHELDR) ?