Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 104

Fourth, leaders must institutionalize real loyal
dissent mechanisms and other rituals in their organizations.19 There is no need to gripe behind the boss’s back
when you can, and should, speak directly to the leader’s
face. Leaders who take active measures to formally
institutionalize loyal dissent mechanisms create conditions to get the most from their loyal subordinates and
disrupt the influence of nonproductive dissenters.
The famous open door policy is just a start, but really
only a passive measure. Absolutely everybody has
an open door policy, and most require only that the
leader sit and wait for subordinates to come to them.
In contrast, private sector executive coach and author
Ira Chaleff urges business leaders “not to mistake the
fact that they have an open door policy with having one
that functions.”20 He argues that leaders can determine
if their open door policy is working well by counting
the number of times subordinates from two or more
levels down in their organization have actually used it.
If the answer is zero or very seldom, then either there is
no dissent present in the organization (which would be
a real miracle) or something is preventing its effective
use.21
Far better to employ dissent mechanisms that act as
safety valves against the formation of negative dissent
inside your unit.22 Leaders must actively and regularly
seek out dissenting opinions to create these outlets,
and this cannot be easily delegated. Asking subordinate
commanders to express a dissenting opinion at the end
of each briefing, regularly requiring three recommended ‘improves’ on unit policy from each subordinate, and
blocking time on a leader’s calendar for honest two-way
counseling are all examples of ritualized active mechanisms for the communication of loyal dissent to leaders.
Former NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe implemented active dissent mechanisms in his organization,
stating “my first rule is never to surround myself with
people who are just like me. My second rule is always
to insist upon someone voicing the dissenting opinion.
Always.”23 Similarly, loyal dissent is not something our
leaders must simply endure; it is something they must
actively encourage to improve their organizations.
Finally, leaders must recognize and accept that not
every loyally dissenting subordinate will get it right.
Leaders must resist the natural temptation to rapidly
dismiss the well-intentioned subordinate presenting an
imperfect (or bad) idea, lest they inhibit all future loyal
102

dissent in the organization. Word travels quickly when
the boss reacts badly to a challenging viewpoint. Truly
leveraging loyal dissent in our units means leaders have
to exhibit patience when listening to some subordinates
whose ideas are not quite ready for implementation, or
were formed without all the necessary facts.
This is not advocacy for leaders to needlessly suffer
fools or set low standards. Loyal dissenters care greatly
about their leader’s opinion. When their proposal is offbase and the leader provides constructive and professional feedback as to why this is so, their behavior will
become self-regulating very quickly. Loyal subordinates
do not want to waste their leader’s time with poorly
conceived ideas that will not, or cannot, be enacted, but
occasionally it is bound to occur.
Additionally, punishment of loyal dissent is self-defeating for leaders, as the organization will soon withdraw from providing any future input or advice and
move toward self-preservation. Hackman’s research has
found that “punishment fosters either withdrawal or
variation of behavior as people try to head off aversive
outcomes.”24 Certainly there are some negative behaviors leaders must always discourage and others they
must punish outright. Loyal dissent, however, cannot
be one of them. If a leader signals that he or she will
only listen to the good ideas presented by subordinates,
very soon leaders will find himself themselves listening
to no ideas at all.

Conclusion
The hybrid threats our Army faces require agile
formations at all levels where leaders can harness good
ideas from multiple sources. Loyal dissent empowers both leaders and subordinates alike to generate
these ideas, and will make our military organizations
more successful. When executed properly, leaders use
loyal dissent to create the conditions for unit-level
innovation by employing subordinates to their fullest
potential. In an era of reduced budgets and personnel
challenges, this is one way Army units must leverage
smart soldiers who fiercely want to directly contribute
to the success of the organization.
The Army must balance the need for synchronization with the requirement to innovate and conduct
successful decentralized operations. With that in
mind, there are some potential drawbacks to loyal
dissent. Under certain circumstances, leaders pausing
November-December 2014  MILITARY REVIEW