The inclination to question is not common - looking back, most of us would admit that we uncritically accepted what we were taught. There is a general assumption that authority figures know what they are doing, so it may not necessarily occur to us that the consensus view that is espoused might be flawed or even untrue. Yet it is always worth allowing for the possibility that the prevailing view may not necessarily have a sound basis or at least might be missing something important. It might serve us well to consciously foster in ourselves and others a readiness to challenge preconceived ideas and the received wisdom, simply in the interests of our own enlightenment. More broadly, it merits highlighting that willingness to question, to voice diverging views and to offer competing ideas are necessary ingredients for progress. Clearly this has some important implications for leaders and organisations, as well as for the professions and fields of study that we are part of.
THE VALUE OF DISSENT…
Questioning and openness to alternative interpretations are the means by which ideas and how they are applied evolves. What prompts us to revise our positions and update our models of the world is when the flaws in the underlying assumptions and supporting arguments are revealed. Engaging with different arguments and encountering interpretations that deviate from what have understood to be true is illuminating: it lends a different perspective and prompts us to consider explanations what have not previously considered.
If the received wisdom is indeed valid then it should be able to withstand critique. What ideas survive the test of time and what solutions emerge over time should be determined by their fitness. Being exposed to dissenting voices and doing battle with competing ideas is the tempering process by which their mettle is tested.
Dissent and conflict are generally viewed as negative and something to be avoided, especially in a group or team setting. Yet within an organisation, a profession and even in society, it is the tension between opposing viewpoints that is what holds things together and keeps us from drifting off track.
The existence of diverging views and the willingness to dissent are both necessary and important. It is cognitive diversity and diversity of opinion (rather than the surface level diversity that so many are so intently focussed on) that are the key ingredient of effective teams. This is what creates the conditions for ideas to evolve. It is this free and open exchange of diverging yet similarly valid viewpoints that creates the alchemy by which winning solutions ultimately emerge. The likelihood of team members holding diverging views and the extent to which dissent is not only tolerated but encouraged by those in charge are key indicators of the health and dynamism of the organisation.
As leaders we need not fear dissent as a threat to our authority. This applies even when it is our own ideas that are being critiqued. The exchange of views might reveal something we had not previously considered and in any event we learn something about the strength of our arguments by engaging in the debate. Of course, this does assume that we are more invested in arriving at the best way forward, rather than simply winning the argument and being proven right.
A major problem arises when the debate is considered to be closed. When the prevailing dogma is deemed to be above questioning, what we are doing is removing the possibility of open challenge and impeding the tempering process by which faults are revealed.
NATURAL ENEMIES TO DIVERGENT VIEWS…
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned”
We should also recognise that there are perverse incentives at play that must be overcome. Some proportion of those acting as protectors of the faith who suppress dissenting voices and contrary views are doing so because they have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Among this number include those who have risen to positions of authority in their field on the strength of espousing a particular view. Beyond protecting status, another more simple motivation for individuals and institutions is simply sparing themselves the embarrassment of having the flaws in their teachings and writings exposed.
Zombie ideas lurk in every coaching manual and this is equally the case with what is taught and what is published in textbooks and journals in various realms of sports science and medicine. These are still young fields of study, such that there is much that remains unknown and all of this is compounded by the inherent complexity of the subject matter (i.e. human performance). Yet authorities are naturally inclined to pretend to know the answers.
Due to inertia and other forces and interests at play, patently flawed assertions and demonstrably false models can persist for years by being reproduced in textbooks and regurgitated in lectures, despite the inconvenient fact that they do not hold up under real world conditions or bear much resemblance to what we observe with live humans. There are so many examples of discoveries and competing hypotheses that were ridiculed and excluded for decades before their veracity was finally accepted. By their nature the social sciences are beset by models that cannot be tested and theories that cannot be falsified, but the hard sciences are hardly immune from this either - the story of George A. Brooks and his 40-year quest to gain acceptance for lactate shuttle theory is one such cautionary tale in human physiology.
There are arguably three elemental forces that govern the dynamics and interactions between individuals within a group: competition, cooperation and coercion. Competition in this sense is the free market of ideas, whereas cooperation is more about persuading others that the proposed solution serves their interests. In either case, the strength of the case presented determines what prevails in the debate or how persuasive the ideas presented prove to be.
When those in authority artificially restrict or fail to leverage either of the first two (competition and cooperation), inevitably they will default to the third (i.e. coercion). Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) coercion is a very costly and unstable basis for holding a group together. When those in authority are forced to default to coercion, it is also a sure sign that their arguments have failed. Nevertheless, it takes a critical mass of people to stand against it, which necessarily begins with some plucky individuals who see through what they are being told, recognise the contradictions and insist that there is another way.
ENTER THE HERETIC…
To overcome the natural inertia and the added resistance of agents working to preserve the status quo, we need individuals who not only have the freedom of thought to entertain alternate viewpoints but who are also strong-willed enough to hold onto these divergent and even heretical views. These individuals do the important work of asking the uncomfortable questions, unmasking the logical fallacies and pointing out the discrepancy between what is taught and what is apparent in practice.
It takes courage to be the first to speak up and point out that the emperor is naked (or at least only partially clothed). In doing so they provide the important service of prompting others to confront these things so that they might realise their misconceptions. Yet oddly, those fulfilling this highly valuable and important service are not generally thanked for doing so!
Moreover, we need the pioneers like George A. Brooks to not only propose alternative models and solutions but also to do the arduous work of proving their efficacy in the face of so much resistance and opposition.
In this context disagreeableness is a virtue. It takes fortitude to resist the pressure to conform - naturally it is so much easier to go along with the prevailing mood of the herd. Not only does it take conviction to insist on the merits of the minority view but it also requires tenacity to persist. Neither of these are common traits.
Inertia means that a force of sufficient magnitude needs to be applied in the right direction in order for things to start to move in a different direction. Naturally this requires somebody to be the first to step up and start pushing.
Courage is required to dissent and to stand apart from the crowd. The role of heretic is not for the faint-hearted. Yet it is crucial to the progress of the field as a whole for there to be men and women of conviction who are willing to assume the mantle of heretic and take on this quest.
BEWARE IMPOSTERS…
Everything that has been stated on the merits and importance of dissent does however assume good faith on the part of those voicing it. For instance, good faith critique offers enormous value; however, criticism is not always in good faith and might be motivated by something else entirely.
The dissenting views expressed must be both legitimate and genuine to add real value. Somebody assuming the role of devil’s advocate who argues the alternate viewpoint for the sake of doing so will never argue their case as effectively or vigorously as somebody who truly holds the opposing view.
Similarly, whilst a defining characteristic of dissent is that it expresses a view that is contrary to the prevailing view, this is often misinterpreted as simply being contrarian. Despite important differences, these two things are often conflated. A contrarian adopts an alternative viewpoint simply for the sake of doing so. This is not the same as expressing a contrary view on legitimate grounds - that is, for the reasons that the person concerned is genuinely convinced of the merits of the alternative position they espouse. Social media in particular tends to incentivise adopting extreme positions to garner attention and attract a following. It is highly dubious whether these individuals truly believe in whatever fringe view they have decided to adopt.
These considerations aside, what is being expressed may also not necessarily be adding to the debate. Naysayers are not always helpful or motivated by a desire to help the collective. As the saying goes: beware negative people; they have a problem for every solution. Scepticism is appropriate and healthy; on the other hand, it is also a prerequisite that all parties involved are genuinely invested in contributing to the problem solving process and coming up with a solution. Shooting down ideas is one thing; there should also be some readiness on the part of those doing the criticising to offer alternative ideas and propose solutions.
In the context of a team or organisation there is also a question of time and place. Expressions of dissent might also not be helpful in the particular circumstances - there is a time to demur and a time to get behind the collective effort in spite of the reservations expressed. On that basis, as leaders we might refine our position to say that along with a collective commitment to freely expressing alternative viewpoints and vigorously arguing their case, there also needs to be agreement from everybody involved to fully commit themselves to whatever solution is arrived at.
Those interested in learning about the consulting services we provide to organisations and support we offer to individuals can find more via the What We Do section on the site. You are also welcome to reach out via the Contact page.
Found this a worthwhile read? Subscribe to get Informed Blog posts direct to your email inbox and free to share with anybody in your network who might find value. When you subscribe you will receive a link to access a course entitled Fundamentals of Physical Preparation for free.
Also check out the Books section for a host of resources that take a deeper dive on various topics relating to human performance, coaching, athletic preparation and sports injury. The recent release Prepared: Unlocking Human Performance with Lessons from Elite Sport is now available worldwide (feedback and reviews always very welcome).
Finally, the new e-learning courses Comprehensive ACL Rehabilitation and Return to Performance and Resolving Running-Related Injury are both now available for practitioners interested in better supporting injured athletes on the journey back to sport following injury and stacking the odds in the athlete’s favour when they return.
