Seven Rules for Effective Dissent: Guest Column by Todd Kashdan
Seven Rules for Effective Dissent: Guest Column by Todd Kashdan
Issue 130: How to exert influence when you lack power, status, or a large number of allies who share your point of view
Introduction from Dom & Jay
Since publishing our book and starting this newsletter, we have been welcomed by a wonderful community of kind and smart fellow authors. With the purpose of increasing the cross-fertilization of ideas and sharing some of their brilliance with our audience, we have decided to publish an occasional post by other thinkers and writers who we think are doing great work related to smart groups and effective identities.
This week, we are pleased to publish a guest post by Dr. Todd Kashdan, Professor of Psychology and Director of The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University. Todd is author of the recent book, “The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively”, as well as the very popular “The Provoked Newsletter”. We encourage you to check out his book and sign up for his newsletter.
As Todd notes, “Even when the dissenter’s idea is wrong, other group members are stimulated to think differently. By thinking differently, on balance, groups generate more creative ideas and better decisions.” Here he offers practical advice on how to influence others when they disagree with you and your ideas might be the last thing they want to hear!
The 7 Rules for Persuasive Dissent
It’s easier when everyone in a group holds the same beliefs and values. For example:
Law enforcement requires less effort if everyone agrees that street murals are neighborhood enhancing art, not graffiti.
Organizations are more efficient when everyone agrees that work meetings should be short, focused, and cancelled often.
Talking with strangers is easier after admitting that Time Bandits will always be the greatest movie about little people.
Surrounded by like-minded folks, their sentiments and stories offer a reflection of what we care about and prefer to hear. We feel validated. We feel a strong sense of belonging. When heads nod in unison, there is a sense of solidarity. The group feels confident in their thinking. With this confidence, group decision-making is rapid.
In 1912, Émile Durkheim referred to this pleasure of coming together as “collective effervescence.” But he noted a problem inherent to homogenous, harmonious settings:
Rational thinking is hard for the individual because it creates conflict with the pleasure created and nurtured within the group.
Just as the amount someone speaks in a group is a piss-poor proxy of intelligent thinking, the speed that groups reach agreement is a piss-poor proxy of decision-making quality.
When conformity is commonplace in a group, the more important and powerful individual dissenters become. It is essential for individuals to speak up when the group misses something important, moves in the wrong direction, acts rashly, or does something dangerous. We need individuals to break free from the haze of harmony and contemplate the merit of what is being suggested.
By voicing dissent, we remind other group members of alternative perspectives and possibilities. Even when the dissenter’s idea is wrong, other group members are stimulated to think differently. By thinking differently, on balance, groups generate more creative ideas and better decisions.
But there is a price for dissenting. Negative judgment. Rejection. Social persecution. Because while the group craves collective effervescence, the dissenter pushes for productive conflict. The dissenter slows things down, disrupting jolly positivity. Which brings us to the dissenter’s paradox:
While it is often in the best interest of an individual to follow the crowd, the group becomes smarter and wiser if an individual shares their unique knowledge and perspective.
There is a very particular path for how to dissent effectively if you are a minority within a group, lacking power, status, or a large number of people on your side.
Demonstrate how your work has benefitted the team. No humility. Detail evidence on why you are a loyal group member.
Pass the group threat test. Clarify how your message is not something to view as a personal threat.
Be creative with your consistency. Be brave and disciplined in sticking to the same message. Just be sure to zoom in and out with the message to avoid lulling audiences to sleep.
Lean on objective information. Behavioral evidence is more valuable than subjective impressions. Label which category you are detailing.
Address obstacles and risks. Be your own critic and elaborate on where doubt and uncertainty exists.
Encourage collaboration. Understand the background and motives of audience members and invite them in as co-creators with plenty of opportunity for credit.
Get support. Understand the central ingredients of friendships and alliances. Ask for whatever will be of benefit whether it is advice, emotional care, or access to social, physical, and financial resources. Relinquish the myth of the lone creator. Appreciate how much your close friends want to help you, just as you would want to be there for them. (Make sure to avoid the 8th deadly sin - disingenuousness).
You should click here for more details on each Rule For Persuasive Dissent.
Take the PRINCIPLED REBEL quiz or connect with Todd on Facebook or Linkedin.
The Provoked Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Postscript from Dom & Jay
As scientists who have studied the dynamics of dissent ourselves, we would double down on two of Todd’s recommendations for dissenting effectively—be constructive and be consistent. Research reveals that people are more receptive to and accepting of ingroup critics when they understand their critiques to be well-intentioned, designed to help rather than tear down. In contrast, when dissent is not perceived as constructive, critics are criticized, which is one of the reasons that outgroup members and newcomers often struggle to convince anyone of their cause.
Likewise, consistency is key. Social psychologist Charlan Nemeth has observed that that minority voices who stick to their positions and aren’t wishy-washy are more likely to induce divergent thinking in others. By exhibiting commitment to an idea, perhaps especially when it is difficult to do so, you signal that you really mean it, which can encourage others to think, “perhaps they’re onto something”.
To use a cooking metaphor, when you dissent constructively and consistently, you aren’t just stirring the pot, you’re following a recipe for meaningful change.
News and Updates
Jay will be in Seattle for the American Psychological Association convention this week to discuss the science of partisanship & misinformation. He will also be co-hosting a session on writing for the public and signing copies of “The Power Of Us”. The conversation on misinformation includes Charles Duhigg, Tania Israel, Briony Swire-Thompson, and Dolores Albarracin on the Main Stage (Friday August 9). Then he'll be co-hosting a discussion on how to write a best-selling popular book with Charles Duhigg. They will talk about how to connect with readers through science communication.
Catch up on the last one…
Last week featured a discussion about the psychology of the Olympics—and how you can have healthy competition through cooperation.
 | A guest post by
|