A critical reminder for more constructive dissent?

Constructive dissent is critical for innovation and problem-solving. The generation of potential solutions needs to be followed by a critical evaluation of assumptions and challenge to determine the best choices. This requires a shared curiosity in available information and respectful consideration of conflicting viewpoints. The prize is the discovery of important insights, more informed decision-making and better solutions.

It is not difficult to imagine organisations that may have benefited from a more effective dissenting voice. A need for speed always risks a trade-off with breadth of perspective and depth of debate. The Blackberry team in their response to iPhone did not recognise the growing popularity of touchscreen technology. The failed launch of “New Coke” reflected a focus on blind test taste results with insufficient representation of customer views and change risk. Kodak is one of many cases where a profitable core business and groupthink needed the challenge of new perspectives.

Theranos is an extreme innovation case study for the absence of constructive dissent. Elizabeth Holmes was a dominant, charismatic leader that made bold claims. She hindered collaborative decision-making, stifled debate and demanded alignment with her beliefs. A culture of secrecy was supported by channels and organisation that prevented the connection of information. Restricted access to critical data made it difficult for board members to comprehend the true situation. Supported by deceived investors a solution that simply didn’t work and did harm survived too long.

“Elizabeth told the gathered employees that she was building a religion. If there were any among them who didn’t believe, they should leave.”

John Carreyrou, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup

Constructive dissent requires leaders to embrace challenges to assumptions, plans, and choices, even when it is not comfortable to do so. They need to promote the psychological safety, inclusive culture and structures to support productive debate. Leadership role modelling, of course, matters.

Embedding simple steps (see below) within development processes will promote positive challenge within a culture. As with any solution development an initial definition of the problem and success criteria is needed. A critical first step in the establishing of constructive dissent is generating alternative ideas or options without moving to early judgment. Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor¹specifically recommends establishing an obligation for dissent across an organisation. If a meeting does not adequately address an alternative view then request one from participants.

Adopting a simple structured process will facilitate effective dissent. Source: HBR

For me, the return of Trump has served as a robust reminder of the necessity of establishing constructive dissent. Of course, my perspective on Trump and team will differ from others. Certainly my ‘European’ concern² on Trump’s potential impact was not shared across the globe in January this year:

Source: The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), January 2025 survey.

Any leader articulating inaccurate facts, surrounded by staunch supporters, and in a hurry must be subject to critical evaluation and alternative perspectives. Securing a solution to a complex problem requires iteration and positive engagement with constructive dissent. For a Trump and team prone to tirades against rival opinions and managing media access this will obviously be an uncomfortable place. Worryingly, whether it is Ukraine or trade tariffs that commitment so far is not evident.

A dominant leader attached to their solution and with contempt for alternative views can only get so far, but can still cause considerable harm on the journey. For those leaders keen to embrace healthy dissent, here’s some guidance from McKinsey’s. I have attached the full article below.