Benefits of Leadership-Encouraged Constructive Dissent

Sonya L. Sigler, founder of PractiGal Consulting and Coaching, and an executive coach, strategy consultant, and operations and legal executive.

Dissent is part of the human experience. It’s not always handled well yet that doesn’t mean it can’t be navigated skillfully and successfully. One approach that is practiced and can prove helpful is called constructive dissent. One leader has seen, up close and personal, how this process works best.

Sonya L. Sigler is the founder of PractiGal Consulting & Coaching and an executive coach, strategy consultant, and operations and legal executive. In her career she has learned how other leaders made some form of intelligent disagreement — especially through intense, challenging emotions, work for the overall good.

Sigler was employed at Intuit as Corporate Counsel from 1995 - 2000, where the company followed what she calls, “an operating value of fostered dissent.” It made a positive impression on her.

This Q&A (Question and Answer) piece converses about constructive dissent, or as Sigler calls it, “fostered dissent.”

You have said that, "Bill Campbell and Scott Cook taught the new employee module on company values so we knew from the beginning how important it was." A) Do you recall some of what most stood out to you about the company’s particular values and B) what your general impressions were about the module that new employees were shown?

When I became an employee at Intuit, we had to complete a few classes as part of our new employee orientation. One of the classes included a discussion of ten of our company values.

Our founder Scott Cook, and CEO at the time, Bill Campbell taught that module. Having the top two executives show up and teach a new employee training course emphasized the importance of our operating values and what they meant and looked like on a daily basis.

I remember three of the values from that training very clearly: “Integrity Without Compromise,” “Do Right by All Our Customers,” and what I remember as “Fostered Dissent,” but was really “Speak, Listen, and Respond.”

The “Integrity Without Compromise” was memorable because they said it’s always important to do the right thing even if it is difficult. This value came into play when we were doing an acquisition and part of the due diligence turned up information that did not align with this value.

We, the lawyers, had to bring up this investigative finding in a very tense meeting and call a spade a spade. Someone who is barred from practicing in front of the SEC did not comport with this value. Needless to say, we did not complete that acquisition.

The “Do Right by All Our Customers” came into play for me quite a bit because I negotiated a lot of agreements with business partners – banks, data providers, content providers, etc. We not only cared about our customers, employees, and shareholders but we cared about doing right by our business partners too.

This came up when two different groups were negotiating with a data provider, unbeknownst to the other group. I had to bridge that gap and bring them together to negotiate one, consolidated agreement.

In my five years at Intuit, I would come to understand that Intuit was one of the rare companies that actually operated by their core values.

You told me earlier that "Fostered dissent was put into action." How specifically was “Speak, Listen, and Respond,” implemented and what did that process look like and maybe just as importantly, "feel like" not only to you but for other people who, well, dissented?

I guess I took away from the training the importance of speaking up, especially if you disagreed with something or a direction we were taking.

It was kind of like, “speak now or forever hold your peace.” There would be a time in meetings when the person or persons running the meeting would draw out others who may have been quiet during the meeting to seek their opinion and feedback. Or they may pick up a disagreement thread and ask more about it.

It felt like you had an opportunity to be heard no matter what the discussion was. It felt good, it felt safe, and it felt inclusive. It felt like the right thing to do. When you feel that kind of safety, you are willing to speak up more often.

An excerpt was, “Speak, Listen, and Respond: Managers at Intuit have a responsibility to create an environment that encourages people to speak openly, knowing they will be listened to when they do. Listening, however, is only a first step. It’s also key to respond – if not through direct action, then through acknowledgment or feedback.”

You have said that "Drawing out dissenting viewpoints and opinions is an art form for any manager, but especially so in managing periods of transitions." I agree with you. How is this best accomplished though, from your experiences -- drawing out dissenting viewpoints -- to where it is effective and proves to be, as you described, an art form?

We had a facilitated process to do this when we were transitioning from a desktop software company to an online financial powerhouse. We would have a company meeting, C-Suite, meetings, then VP-level meetings, then Senior Manager-level meetings and department-level meetings to disseminate information and to gather opinions.

You can imagine a newly formed legal department, of almost all women, and the strong opinions we held. It was a good process to gather all sorts of opinions.

Giving a line item on the agenda to feedback helps facilitate the fostered dissent process. An unskilled manager might rely on this agenda item alone. A skilled manager might play devil’s advocate or throw out an unstated position or add a “What if?” scenario to the discussion.

The important part of this fostered dissent process was that everyone was supposed to be on board with the decision and direction afterwards. It meant that you couldn’t, or shouldn’t bitch and moan about something you disagreed with afterwards. Now, this isn’t to be confused with improving a process or changing a decision. It was a way ensuring respect for the decision made and minimizing any divisiveness from those with a different viewpoint.

What were the obvious and subtle differences for leadership, the organization, all its people and customers?

I’ve worked in many different kinds of organizations over my career – from “my way or the highway” to “I’ll let you run with it as you like until I disagree, then I’ll redecide, redo what you did,” to passive-aggressive undermining.

Intuit was by far and away the best company I have worked for. The obvious difference is the safety people felt in stating their opinions, dissenting or not.

In other organizations where people did not feel safe, respected, or heard, there was a lot of back-channel, undermining conversations behind the scenes and afterwards. The end result is that not everyone is rowing the same direction, towards the same goal. It is undermining and takes away from meeting shared goals. The mindshare it takes to navigate the unsafe environment is enormous and it destabilizes an organization.

One other organization that encouraged fostered dissent — or constructive dissent — is The Sedona Conference, which is a group of lawyers and others who are interested in moving the law forward in a just and reasoned way. They get together in working groups to make suggested policy changes to the legal industry and flush out best practices to share.

Richard Braman, who founded the group, used to start the meeting with a few admonitions about acceptable behavior in these meetings. His primary advice and requirement was “dialogue, not debate.”

He fostered an environment where opinions and viewpoints could be stated without fear of repercussions. What was said in those meetings, stayed in those meetings, until it became a paper, published by the organization, then you supported what was published.

Again, it was a safe environment in which to state your opinions, confirming or otherwise. The ground rules were laid out, and more importantly, followed. Just like at Intuit, with their ten operating values.

You’ve shared how you were personally, positively affected by being able to experience leadership approaches where you and fellow professionals were valued to the point where you knew you could speak and feel heard and understood in a safe environment. I can tell it has meant a lot to you. What was the byproduct of that for the companies you served?

I think the bottom line is that people trusted the organization, for Intuit and the Sedona Conference. You wanted to be a part of it – to be heard, to matter, to make a difference.

Note: This interview was edited for length and clarity.