Feature

Reasonable dissent ensures team success

Teams that agree on every issue are not the most successful ones. Tanu Talwar on the negative impact of constant consent.

In the fast paced world of information technology, where companies are met with everyday challenges that require them to take immediate decisions in order to keep pace with their competitors, corporates for long had been implementing the ideas and solutions set forth by their top management. The team managers had been playing the role of updating team members with the management’s decisions constantly and receiving their consent without much deliberation. However, the growing realisation within the industry about the need, power and results of debates and discussions on important business matters has exposed the dangers and vulnerabilities of constant consent and approval of every single matter or idea suggested by the team leader.

Dangers of consent

Invariable consent to every idea set forth by the manager or team leader has many dangers to its credit. Throughout corporate history there have been no shortage of instances when team members have gone ahead and consented something they have not understood completely, thereby facilitating a probable wrong idea. Shurjo Ghosh, COO, R S Software says, “Unvarying consent means only one thing—that somebody is choosing not to think, and therefore, not to participate. Most decisions impact several roles in an organisation, and each role has a perspective to bring to the table. Continuous agreement means that perspective is lost.”

Steady backing up of each suggestion presented by the leader without much deliberation or discussion on the subject highlights several deficiencies such as lack of originality, complacency, mediocrity and communication restrictions created within organisations. Anil Bakht, Chairman and Managing Director, ESS comments, “Constant nodding of heads is nothing but a sure shot ingredient for failure. It leads to complacency and no new ideas emerge.” It is a given that to solve problems different views must emerge and the best one under the circumstances should be chosen. However, if the team members and managers simply consent as a tactic it leaves little opportunity for discussion. Agreeing with the view, Biju S Nair, Vice-president, Finance and HR, Four Soft says, “If every team member agrees with each other, then the drawbacks of the current idea will not be revealed much, which will not provide ample room for improvement and minimise the space for innovation.”

Then again, excessive and invariable approval reflects that there is no creativity or originality in a team. It shows that an organisation is struggling with dearth of ideas. Amit Azad, points out “Regular approval points out that the team does not have fire in their belly to come up with innovations. This kind of attitude shows meekness and lack of out-of-the-box thinking which is so necessary to propel teams and organisations to greater heights.” Seconding this opinion, Kalpana Srinivasan, HR Head, Aspire Systems adds, “When there is invariable support to leaders’ ideas, then the best is not brought forward. Everyone agrees to the same ideas and work processes. This creates an environment that is dull, monatomic and lacks enthusiasm.”

Reasons for consent

To precede further one first needs to analyse the numerous factors that promote or force consent. In most situations approval is not forced directly but is driven by the personal perceptions that the members have of their leaders and vice versa. While on the one hand the members might take up a ubiquitous notion, of the ‘boss being always right’, on the other hand the lack of enthusiasm shown by the team may force the leader to perceive that the members lack interest. Often these perceptions arise due to lack of communication.  

It is often observed that teams tend to hand out their leaders invariable support due to several factors such as lack of confidence, competence or inability to articulate a sound argument and earning brownie points from superiors. Nair of Four Soft adds, “Team members might feel that if they agree to everything the leaders suggest they will be in his good books and can expect rewards in terms of their growth in career.” This type of notion gives birth to the idea of ‘apple polishing’ where the employees agree and applaud to every idea set forth by the boss in fear that disapproval may have an undesirable affect on their growth and promotions.

Besides the sycophancy to earn some brownie points from the boss, there are other reasons that push this kind of laidback attitude among employees. Pointing out some of these factors Shurjo Ghosh, says, “At times members know it’s going to be a bad decision, so they let the other guy down offering an conditional, unaccountable and group-mode affirmation to an idea. Another reason could be pure give-and-take; you stand by me now and I will stand by you.”

It is often said that the only idea that is bad is the one not suggested. At times, there could be a feeling of insecurity or low confidence among employees for their ideas. Rahul Mulay, General Manager, Operations, Harbinger Group, states, “Consent is good, but mute consent without any discussion on the options is definitely not. Members at times choose not to participate, as they fear that their ideas may have certain loopholes. They may feel insecure and keep their ideas to themselves.”

Then again, most of these perceptions are born out of the impression presented by a leader. Swaminathan Krishnan, Chief Marketing Officer, Sasken Communications Technologies states, “A lot depends upon the managers and supervisors. If a leader is bent upon getting things done his way and does not encourage or involve his members in necessary discussions, he gives out an impression of being an autocrat and that his team members are better off agreeing with him consistently.”

In Bakht’s mind a team leader’s personality drives the team. If the team leader is not receptive to new ideas and is constantly cutting his members short, criticising any ideas emanating from them, the message is loud and clear for the team. In such cases, the team thinks that it is better to just agree with the leader than disagree and invite his wrath. Krishnan adds, “For the sake of their job security they decide not to express themselves even if they can see a blaring loophole within a plan.”

Another factor that discourages employees from presenting their views is the fear that opposing their leader’s opinion would be seen as rebellious behaviour and would affect their promotional avenues. “A chief factor responsible for non-participative attitude is that anybody seen opposing the team leader is thrust into the hot seat where he is given the responsibility and the challenge to take leadership mantle and many individuals are not up to taking the responsibility,” adds Azad. 

However, at times an individual may simply choose not to participate for the reason that the prevailing organisational hierarchy and culture restricts individuals from frankly exchanging their feelings.  Srinivasan states, “Working in constant fear of the boss forces the employees to always nod their heads to anything their team leads say.” Then again, some individuals feel that going along with the boss will not only help them but also their team and the overall goals set for the organisation. “This mostly happens in organisations where the team lead is a veteran and has been working for more number of years than the team member. In such cases there is never a question that is raised,” adds Srinivasan.

The side effects

The fact remains that businesses are no longer looking for a ‘yes-man’. Regular consent and lack of debate within the team hints on the fact that is there’s something wrong, for every individual is different. In fact, their ideas and ways of implementing things are different as well. Mahendra Lalwani, MD, ZyXel Technology India, states, “Teams that show constant consent are like robots instructed to do something. They go about it in a very mechanical manner, blindly following a code of sorts, without thinking through and this may spell disaster for the business.” The practice comes with grave side effects and promotes mediocrity, leads to disillusionment, affects confidence, lowers productivity and increases attrition rate.

Arun Rao, Vice-president, HR, AppLabs Technologies, says, “Constant consent when positively reinforced is a two-edged sword. It would have people who would be “happy” and continue to be a part of the system. However, employees who are keen to learn and challenge the limits are likely to feel stifled and would eventually move out.”

The problem with invariable consent is that it leaves no room for new ideas thereby barring innovation causing low productivity. Due to less productivity, there is no growth of employees, and there are higher chances that they look for better options. There may be some team member with a revolutionary idea but then if he is not given a platform to express the same, he may just sit over it. “This frustrates the employees and it becomes difficult for the business to retain them. The competition may benefit from their idea as and when they leave and join them eventually,” adds Rao.

Alekhya Talpatra, Director-Government and Public Sector Sales, Dell (India) believes that consistent approval has a direct bearing on innovation, “Not all inventions end up in innovations. Constant consent might hamper the process and chain of invention and the organisation might not innovate, thereby limiting itself in growth.”

Seconding this opinion, J P Santhanam, adds, “This kind of culture leads to the teams not performing to their optimal calibre and stifles fit competition among members.” Employees who have the initiative will tend to look at other prospects under such conditions. As the word gets around amongst peers, not only employee retention but employee attraction could also be affected. 

How reasonable dissent helps

Though the word disagreement may appear negative to some, it’s this disapproval among members that gives rise to reasonable discussions and debates giving birth to new ideas and concepts. In other words, disapproval is the spark required to ignite the flame of above average performance. Unlike constant and unquestioned consent, reasonable disapproval is necessary in order to gain insight to different angles of thoughts and develop well-formed strategies, sche-mes and bonding among members. Vivek Govilkar, Senior Vice-president, HR and Training, i-flex Solutions points out, “Disagreements give scope for team members to voice their inner-most thoughts and opinions, which can be polished by leaders to plan effective business strategies. However, disagreements should be healthy and reach a consensus.”

Besides putting forward all the best ideas on the table, disapproval not only helps in fostering healthy competition but also aids in building strong teams. Prashanth L J, AVP and Global Marketing Head, Infinite Computer Solutions asserts, “Dissent in teams is necessary and inevitable as it encourages a debate and a healthy exchange of ideas between team members. In today’s complex work environment, it is not always possible for everyone to be on the same page all the time and the leader needs to encourage healthy debates, even if it leads to heated discussions. Disagreement on ideas spurs healthy competition by driving each individual to achieve greater heights.”

In Rao’s opinion, dissent represents a challenge for organisations to move beyond their stereotypical methods to explore new ideas. It helps organisations explore beyond the obvious and unearth opportunities for innovation. Disapproval, as opposed to insubordination, comes from the fact that the person has an alternate line of thinking and has the confidence that his line of thinking can produce better results. Furthermore, disagreements provide the team members with an opportunity to present their leadership skills.

Jayanthi Ruben, HR, Aventail India, states, “Disapproval gives a person the chance to take the hot seat and prove his potential amongst his peers, thus earning recognition. This not only leads to employee devotion but also benefits the organisation by creating a second generation of leaders who can be trained to take the leadership position.” When the team members come to know that their thoughts and ideas have been taken into consideration, there will be bonding between the teams resulting in good employee-employer relationship and lower attrition rate.

However, disagreements should not be carried out for the sake of disapprovals. Dissent should be based on solid foundations and be backed by well-studied facts and figures. Krishnan says, “Intelligent black hat thinking, rather than dissent for the sake of dissent, creates respect among team members. Disagreements should always be based on experience and facts rather than opinions or intuitions.” Thus teams that disapprove and do not blindly accept their leader’s decisions have a potential to perform better since once in disagreement the onus for performance shifts from the leaders to the team members.

Encouraging participation

Time and again, it has been proved that people don’t leave companies but managers or supervisors. A good manager is the one who can recognise the potential that his team members hold and drive them to that limit; disagreements provide them with just the opportunity. For this disapproval to arise managers should not only create a culture whereby the members can voice their opinions openly but, should also encourage and make participation mandatory. Managers should not only encourage initiative but also reward them. According to Rajesh Pathak, Manager-HR, Safenet (India) “Managers should learn to handle and take criticism in a constructive way. To build team spirit a senior needs to adopt a flexible attitude and not an overbearing one.”

A manager must not send out a feeling that disagreement will be punished. Govilkar adds, “A manager should know how to handle feedback and should avoid reprimand and retribution against people who speak their heart.”

Besides, exploring formal channels for discussions, team leaders should also consider informal ways such as outings with his team members to bring openness of ideas. Leaders should always listen attentively to all the ideas presented. But listening alone is not enough. “Besides listening actively to all the views expressed, managers should also express appreciation for genuine ideas and go ahead with their implementation,” says J P Santhanam.

There are numerous formal and informal ways to encourage discussions and debates. One of the most effective formal ways to invite opinions is by conducting regular team meetings and group discussions. The manager should throw the floor open to discussions during such meetings.

Lalwani of Zyxel Tech-nology India, states, “A senior should always keep in mind that he should never undermine or criticise the ideas presented by his subordinates even if their inputs are of no significant value or relevance. The attitude not only puts off that particular employee but also sends a wrong message.” Other employees may grow insecure that their ideas could be treated in a similar manner. This prevents them from giving suggestions any further.