Why healthy 'Dissent' Is the Lifeblood of A Company

I've been spending a lot of time this week thinking about the announcement by Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong, that he wants a 'mission focussed', 'apolitical' workplace and that any employee not bought into that can take their skills and their opinions elsewhere (around 60 of them have so far.)

There are many obvious challenges with this outlook which have been well debated everywhere from Business Insider to Fast Company but I did want to highlight the ones that I think bear further reflection as we think about what it means to be an employee or an employer in the world right now

The central question for me comes down to defining what we mean by 'politics' and whether based on that assessment, it has any business in the workplace?

There is the obvious interpretation of political discussion - 'how are you voting in the next election?' - for example. But that's not what Armstrong was alluding to as the change in approach came hot on the heels of the BLM discussions in their workplace.

If we define a discussion about whose lives matter and deserve protection as 'politics', then politics in its broadest sense is could encompass anything which has a bearing on people or policy.

What is defined as 'politics' therefore can run the full spectrum from equal human rights to statutory parental leave to how tech company monopolies are regulated. It seems then that what is being discussed is less about politics therefore than it is about avoiding dissent from the prevailing view of what Armstrong referred to as 'the silent majority.'

The late, great, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote powerfully about dissent. In court terms, a Dissent is written when one or more judges on a panel disagree with a decision made by the majority in a court ruling. When this is the case they can file an official disagreement known as a dissenting opinion.

Ginsberg famously said,

"Dissents speak to a future age. It's not simply to say, 'My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way. ' But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view."

So dissent then, may not always be the path the majority would take, but it can help us to consider alternative outlooks. These opposing views form the basis from which future growth might come. They can help challenge the status quo. If the debate is well-structured and powerful, it may even be that minds are changed and these dissenting views shape how the majority sees the world in the future.

Thinking about this in the context of a company dynamic, what is at stake here is whether a company can operate with only a single prevailing view held by all its people and without room for passionate dissent. Furthermore, whether it can ever be successful that way.

Silicon Valley has always seen itself as progressive, but to be progressive you have to have a culture of healthy dissent - where views are challenged in a way that helps drive progress. To quell that dissent in favour of an ideal of cohesion seems not only unrealistic but also antithetical for a company that has a mission to create 'more open financial markets.' The financial system is nothing if not political and in order to change that status quo Coinbase will need forward-thinkers who aren't afraid to speak up and speak out against majority views. Without the safe space to do so I find it hard to see how they will achieve their goals.

It's notable that Armstrong also referenced the 'distraction' that employee dissent had created at companies like Facebook. Employees there have long been protesting Facebook's inaction on distribution of misinformation and hate speech on its platform. This week Facebook created new policy to ban posts discussing Holocaust denial or expressing Anti-Semitism. This could be seen as a powerful and positive result of collective employee and public pressure for change and one which will help the company to rebuild consumer trust. What may have felt like a 'distraction' from BAU to some may actually help the company to progress.

For HR leaders and CEOs watching, Armstrong's approach, could at first glance seem like the easy answer to the increasingly hard conversations they are having to navigate. But it's not that simple. To be 'apolitical' in a climate where so much is at stake is actually a political act in itself because it implies accepting that you either agree with the status quo or you are are apathetic to it. But your talent expects more than apathy.

Employees are increasingly looking to fill the visionary leadership void as they lose faith in conventional systems of power and are turning to management for things they may previously have turned to government for.

“Ongoing IBV [IBM’s Institute for Business Value] consumer research has shown that the expectations employees have of their employers have shifted amidst the pandemic – employees now expect that their employers will take an active role in supporting their physical and emotional health as well as the skills they need to work in new ways.”

As leaders, this can either be a responsibility you run from or one you embrace. You have the opportunity to build unheard of levels of trust with your people and channel their dissent into passion for mission-driven work that will shape a future they want to be a part of. Or you can ask them to leave that passion and fire at the door.

I know what kind of company I'd rather work for.