Dissent. It’s a word that often makes leaders uneasy. According to the Oxford Learning Dictionary, it means “the expression of opinions that are different from what is officially or generally accepted.” Dr Jeffrey Kassing, one of the leading researchers in organisational dissent, goes further: “The expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organisational practices and policies.”
On the grand stage, dissent may look like whistleblowing or legal challenges — the kind of bold, high-profile defiance that makes headlines. But for most of us, dissent shows up in everyday work: questioning a decision in a meeting, challenging a process, or suggesting an alternative perspective.
And yet, dissent is often misunderstood. It is not deviance. It is not rebellion for rebellion’s sake. In its most constructive form, dissent is considered disagreement — the type that helps organisations learn, adapt, and innovate. Without it, teams stagnate. With it, they thrive.
To illustrate, let’s turn to a fictional, but all too familiar, scenario.
Jordan’s Story
Imagine a product development team deciding the future of a new feature. Early user feedback suggests problems, and most of the team is leaning toward scrapping the project. Jordan, a thoughtful and data-driven team member, disagrees:
“I’m not sure we need to scrap it entirely. I’ve looked at the data more closely, and I think we might be overreacting to a small segment of feedback.”
His manager, Dana, shuts him down quickly: “Jordan, the feedback was clear, and we don’t have time to analyse it to death.” The project lead, Marcus, piles on: “Jordan is wasting time.”
The rest of the team stares at their shoes. Silence falls.
It’s a scene many of us have witnessed — or experienced. But what happens next for Jordan is crucial to understanding why dissent matters.
The Psychology of Silence
Research shows that when employees are silenced, their well-being suffers. Elizabeth Morrison, a leading voice on employee silence, found that people who feel unable to speak up experience higher stress, disengagement, and a greater risk of burnout. The act of suppression creates a toxic loop: employees withdraw, leaders miss critical insights, and organisations weaken.
Jordan, once eager to contribute, may now hesitate. The likelihood of him speaking up again in the near future is slim. And the damage goes deeper than just reluctance: his credibility in the team is dented, and his own belief in his ability to make a difference — his self-efficacy — starts to erode.
Self-efficacy, a term coined by psychologist Albert Bandura, is the belief in one’s capacity to execute tasks successfully. When employees lose that belief, they stop trying. Jordan’s question, “Can I do this?” quickly becomes “Why bother?”.
The tragedy is that Jordan’s idea may have been right. But even if it wasn’t, silencing him comes with long-term costs — not only to him, but to the whole team.
The Risk of Being the “Troublemaker”
Jordan’s experience is not unique. Research by Ethan Burris shows that managers often view employees who challenge them as less loyal, even when dissent is constructive. In performance evaluations, employees who support their manager’s ideas are rated more favourably than those who challenge them — regardless of whether the challenge improves outcomes.
In other words, those who speak up may pay a price. Those who stay silent are rewarded with safety — at least in the short term.
Professor Binna Kandola’s recent survey of over 2,000 employees reinforces this point: nearly one in three felt unsafe to speak up at work, and only one in four felt safe challenging authority. For every Jordan who dares to dissent, many more choose silence.
The Human Cost of Not Being Heard
It’s easy to frame dissent as an abstract concept, but at its heart, it is deeply human. To speak up is to seek acknowledgement. To be silenced is to feel invisible.
Being heard is not about being right — it’s about being valued. The act of listening tells employees that their contribution matters, that they are part of the organisation’s story. When that is stripped away, employees disengage, morale falls, and turnover rises.
This is not about coddling adults or managing egos, as some leaders argue. It is about recognising that psychological safety — the shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks — is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite for productivity, creativity, and mental health.
Why Dissent Matters for Employees
When dissent is encouraged, individuals benefit in profound ways:
- Confidence grows – Speaking up and being taken seriously reinforces self-efficacy.
- Learning accelerates – Constructive disagreement forces people to refine ideas and sharpen thinking.
- Well-being improves – Professor Kandola’s work shows that psychologically safe environments reduce anxiety and build resilience.
- Engagement deepens – When employees feel their voices matter, they invest more energy, loyalty, and creativity in their work.
By contrast, silencing dissent damages well-being, erodes confidence, and breeds resentment. Over time, talented people like Jordan stop sharing — or worse, they leave.
What Leaders Can Do
If you’re a manager, the Jordan in your team is watching your reactions closely. A dismissive response may take seconds, but its impact can last months. Consider instead:
- Pause before reacting – Ask questions, even if you disagree. Curiosity costs little but signals respect.
- Acknowledge the effort – Recognition of thought and initiative reinforces self-efficacy, even if the idea isn’t adopted.
- Frame dissent as contribution – Make it clear that speaking up is not “troublemaking,” but a valued part of collaboration.
The goal isn’t to agree with every challenge. It’s to show that disagreement is safe, welcome, and part of the team’s DNA.
In conclusion, when dissent is stifled, the harm is invisible but real: lost ideas, broken confidence, and disengaged employees. Jordan’s silence is not just his loss; it’s the organisation’s loss too.
In an era of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, we cannot afford silence. We need employees who question, challenge, and offer alternatives. We need people willing to be the Jordans in the room — and leaders willing to listen.
Because the cost of silence is not just personal, it is organisational. And the longer we ignore dissent, the higher the price we all pay.
Unlock innovation in your team
If you’re looking to build a culture where your leaders and teams can truly innovate, tackling problems head on through robust debate and healthy dissent, then contact us via info@pearnkandola.com
