When we think of dissent at work, it’s tempting to see it as a personal act: one individual pushing back against authority. But dissent rarely affects just one person. It reverberates through the entire team. How a group responds to a single challenge can shape trust, creativity, and performance for everyone in the room, and by extension, the culture in the team.
To understand why dissent matters for teams, let’s revisit a familiar meeting scenario (it is both a common scenario, and it features in my previous article)
The Meeting Where Silence Fell
The product development team gathers for its weekly meeting to review early feedback on a recent feature launch. The feedback highlights some flaws, prompting most team members to lean toward scrapping the feature. During the discussion, Jordan, one of the developers, decides to speak up:
“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, immediately shuts him down. The project lead, Marcus, supports Dana and then adds his own disapproval. The rest of the team says nothing.
That’s it. That is all it takes to instil fear in all team members for future meetings. Not only has this quick interaction silenced Jordan, but it has also sparked a ripple effect across the entire team.
Dana’s dismissal sends a clear signal: dissent is unwelcome. The unspoken message to everyone else is ‘stay quiet, or risk being branded the “troublemaker.”
What the research tells us
Research supports this ripple effect. Professor Binna Kandola’s recent study of over 2,000 employees found that nearly one in three people feel unsafe speaking up at work. Even more telling, only one in four feels safe challenging authority. When leaders silence dissent, it’s not just one voice that is lost; the whole team learns that disagreement is dangerous.
The cost is high. Without alternative perspectives, the team risks making decisions based on incomplete or biased information. By ignoring Jordan’s input, they may waste time, money, and effort pursuing a flawed direction.
Why do teams fall silent even when they suspect something is wrong?
Because the instinct to conform is powerful. Classic research in social psychology shows that people often give incorrect answers in group settings just to avoid standing out. We would rather be wrong together than right alone. Irving Janis coined the term groupthink to describe this phenomenon in the 1970s: “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in-group pressures.” Groupthink curbs originality and fosters mediocrity.
In today’s fast-changing world, this is a serious risk. If we continue to cling to reaching consensus too quickly, organisations can become blind to emerging threats or opportunities.
Think about cybersecurity. One unchallenged assumption (“That email looks safe, I’d rather not embarrass myself by asking”) can lead to devastating breaches. Without space for dissent, teams are more vulnerable to error.
History offers sobering reminders of what happens when dissenting voices are ignored:
- Enron: Vice President Sherron Watkins warned that the company’s accounting was a “house of cards.” Her warning was brushed aside until after the collapse.
- UK Post Office scandal: Internal staff and external investigators raised red flags about flaws in the Horizon IT system. Management ignored them. The fallout continues today, with payouts expected to exceed £1 billion.
In each case, it wasn’t just individual whistleblowers who were silenced — it was teams, departments, and sometimes entire organisations conditioned into silence. The results were catastrophic.
A Different Reality
Now imagine if Dana had reacted differently to Jordan. What if she had paused and said, “That’s an interesting point. Can you walk us through the data you’ve seen?”
By inviting Jordan’s perspective, she would have signalled that dissent is not dangerous but valued. Other team members, encouraged by her openness, might have added their own observations. Instead of silence, the meeting could have sparked deeper exploration — perhaps even a better, faster solution.
Research consistently shows that dissent improves both decision-making and productivity. It helps groups consider multiple angles, challenge assumptions, and reduce blind spots. At worst, it prevents stagnation. At best, it sparks breakthroughs.
It’s easy to put all the responsibility on the manager, but the truth is, everyone in the room shares responsibility. Marcus, the project lead, could have asked Jordan to elaborate. Another colleague could have suggested taking a few minutes to review the data. Silence, after all, is also a choice. When no one speaks up to support dissent, the silence itself is read as endorsement of authority. Teams must recognise that creating space for disagreement is a collective responsibility.
Practical tips to encourage Healthy Dissent
To avoid falling into the groupthink trap, teams can adopt practices that make dissent a normal and valued part of collaboration:
- Establish ground rules. Define what respectful disagreement looks like.
- Rotate devil’s advocate roles. Assign someone to each meeting to challenge assumptions. It reframes dissent as a team duty, not a personal risk.
- Celebrate challenges. When someone raises a tough question, acknowledge it as a contribution, even if it doesn’t change the outcome.
- Use structured tools. From silent brainstorming to anonymous feedback apps, there are methods to surface alternative views without fear.
These practices reduce the social cost of speaking up and normalise constructive dissent. Try them in 2026 and see for yourselves.
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
