THE ETHICS OF FOLLOWERSHIP AND EXPRESSION OF LOYAL DISSENT
George E. Reed, Ph.D.
University of San Diego
Presented at the International Leadership Association annual conference, Denver,
Colorado, October 25, 2012
Please do not further distribute without permission of the author
5998 Alcalá Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-940-4102
[email protected]
The Ethics of Followership and Expression of Loyal Dissent
Ethics and moral philosophy are branches of study that, in part, seek to help
us determine a rational approach to a proper course of action in a given situation. At
the heart of ethics are “should” and “ought” statements that provide guidelines for
how we lead lives that are bounded by limitations of time and information. If ethics
sits on a spectrum with adherence to the bare minimum requirements of laws and
directives on one end and high aspirational ideals at the other, this essay leans to
the latter in suggesting that when it comes to followership there are behaviors that
are more or less morally supportable. There may be few absolute rules, but we
might well ask, “In light of what we know about the concept of followership, how
should a person act if they aspire to be an excellent follower?” Underpinning this
question is an Aristotelian assumption that people generally strive for a good life; a
life of wellbeing and human flourishing. Since following is something we do on a
regular basis, perhaps we should strive to do it well.
This essay explores some of the literature of followership in search of ethical
guidance for the follower. Followers could use some advice as they seek to navigate
such thorny dilemmas as expressing loyal dissent, being true to oneself while in
service to the goals and values of an organization, and actively opposing supervisors
whether that be in a public manner or surreptitiously when necessary as in the case
of what Rosemary O’Leary describes as “guerrilla government” (2006). How should
a follower act if they seek to be virtuous and achieve the greater good? How should
a person who is morally aware and sensitive to the dilemmas that are inevitable in
organizational life act when serving in the role of follower?
The concepts we will explore from the literature of followership eventually
lead us to the thorny issue of dissent. How and when should a follower look
someone with more status, power and prestige in the eye and tell them that they
disagree? Aaron Wildavsky called this courageous act “speaking truth to power”
(1979). In Why Smart Executives Fail Sydney Finkelstein and his research team
examined some of the most extraordinary corporate failures of the contemporary
age and searched for patterns in the executive leadership teams that portended
catastrophe (2003). In almost every case there were loyal, dedicated persons who
raised their hands and pointed out the folly of a course of action that was advocated
by those in power. In almost every case the loyal dissenters were not only ignored,
but were ruthlessly eliminated from the group. This led Finkelstein to note that one
of the seven habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives is to ruthlessly
eliminate anyone who is not 100 percent behind them. Popular author Jim Collins
makes a similar case in How the Mighty Fall (2009). He identified five stages of
organizational decline: Hubris born of success, undisciplined pursuit of more, denial
of risk and peril, grasping for salvation, and capitulation to irrelevance or death. One
of the markers of stage three, denial of risk and peril, is an erosion of healthy team
dynamics such as dialogue and debate. In these dysfunctional and failing
organizations there is a shift to either consensus or dictatorial management (p. 81).
Both authors suggest that an ability to tolerate dissent is a hallmark of a healthy
leadership team. Whether appreciated or not, good followers are sometimes morally
compelled to give voice to their conscience.
Followership
Robert Kelley (1992) was key in popularizing the concept of followership in
his book The Power of Followership. He made a distinction early on between
followers and sheep just as he decried the romanticization of leadership. He
suggested that followers are exemplary when they assert themselves as individuals,
think critically, and maintain an identity separate from that of the leader. Good
followers are willing to confront leaders. When at their best followers compliment
leaders, commit to the organization, and add value. Kelley emphasized the follower’s
duty to disobey under certain circumstances such as when a wrong is committed.
That stands in stark contrast to the myth of followers as mindless sheep or
automatons. It is at this point we might recognize that a conflict of values confronts
the follower in what Joseph Badaracco (1997) calls a right versus right dilemma. It
is right to be loyal to an individual and acquiesce to a superior who has benefit of
greater experience and information. It is also right to advocate for actions that move
the organization to its intended purpose, even when those in authority disagree.
Doesn’t the follower owe the leader some personal loyalty? How can we square
loyalty to the leader with loyalty to other values and principles such as our loyalty to
the organization or to rules and laws when they come into conflict as they inevitably
will?
Kelley (1992) suggested a consequentialist analysis in such situations by
proffering six questions: 1) What is at stake for the organization? 2) What will
happen when you fail to act? 3) Does the leader have both the expertise and the
legitimate authority to issue this order? 4) Are human costs and societal values
being overlooked? 5) What role are you being asked to play? 6) What is at stake for
you personally? In one of the later chapters of the book Kelley provides a primer to
achieving what he calls “courageous conscience (p. 184).
1. Be proactive
2. Gather your facts
3. Before taking a stand, seek wise counsel
4. Build your fortitude
5. Work within the system
6. Frame your position so it will be heard
7. Educate others on how your view serves their best interests
8. Take Collective Action
9. If you meet resistance, seek higher authority
10. Have the financial and emotional cushions to exercise other alternatives.
Such questions and lists may not do provide an ethical formula for the
follower, but they are helpful. They also infer that some consequentialist weighing of
options and costs is warranted, both in terms of cost to the organization and the
individual. In his list we see some themes that are repeated by subsequent authors
including the exercise of restraint, the importance of tact and diplomacy, escalation,
and courageous acts that bear increasing costs to the individual with exit or
expulsion as a real possibility. The focus on courage is a theme that was carried
forward and emphasized by Ira Chaleff in his book The Courageous Follower (1995).
Courageous Followership
From an ethical standpoint Chaleff (1995) took a largely virtue ethics
approach to the subject. We recall that courage is one of the original virtues that
Aristotle identified as essential to living a good life. We might note also that
Aristotle suggested that virtue sits on a spectrum between deficiency at one end and
extreme on the other. Thus, while being courageous is a virtue, too little would be
termed cowardice while too much would be recklessness. There is no virtue in the
extremes. For Chaleff, a focus on the overriding purpose and core values of the
organization rather than a focus on the leader is what grounds the follower (p. 11).
He gives a nod to restraint on the part of the follower and suggests that it is not
virtuous for a follower to challenge leaders on all subjects. It is not good to be too
subservient and deferential, yet neither is it virtuous to be rebellious and alienated.
Aristotle would likely approve of that depiction and the balance that it infers.
Chaleff (1995) also advocated selective rule breaking. “It is not ethical to
break rules for simple convenience or for personal gain, but neither is it ethical to
comply with or enforce rules if they impede the accomplishment of the
organization’s purpose, the organization’s values, or basic human decency (p. 47).
We have a duty to obey and implement the leader’s vision, but we also have the
right to challenge and even disobey under certain circumstances: 1) When human
life or health are being unnecessarily risked. 2) Common decency is being violated.
3) The rule of law is being sacrificed to expediency. 4) The organization’s purpose is
being undermined. 5) The organizations stakeholders are being denied a basic
service 6) A clique or special interest is being served at the expense of the common
good. Contextually appropriate guidance is important lest we fall into the trap of
spouting proverbs.
Herbert Simon observed that proverbs usually come in mutually
contradictory pairs (1946). It is good to look before you leap, but he who hesitates
is lost. The early bird gets the worm and the early worm gets the bird. Both
statements are sufficiently true to be useful, but they only make sense in retrospect
as an explanation for why a course of action was proper or mistaken. Proverbs often
lack the contextual explanation that is useful in determining in the moment when it
is appropriate to hesitate and when it is necessary to leap. For that we need some
rules of thumb or guiding principles more encompassing than a pithy proverb.
When we think about the context in which followership is enacted we should
take notice of the fact that there are often power dynamics in play in contemporary
organizations that have very real consequences for followers. This is especially the
case for followers who refuse to comply with or actively oppose authority figures
even if they are right and just in that opposition. That does not justify ethical egoism
where good and right are measured merely by their impact on the dear self, but
neither to we expect rational individuals to relinquish all attention to self-interest.
Speaking truth to power is one thing but metaphorically falling on one’s sword over
an inconsequential matter seems foolish. We have ambivalent feelings toward what
Kellerman (2008) calls activists—those eager and engaged followers who strongly
advocate for their beliefs.
On the one hand, we are inclined to admire those strongly committed to an
individual or an idea that they willingly, even eagerly, invest heavily in
someone or something other than themselves. But on the other hand, we
know by now that most of us prefer to be left in peace most of the time, to go
our own way unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. (p. 177)
Kellerman (2008) suggests a hierarchy of motivation by proffering that it is
better to be motivated to the collective interests of the organization than it is to be
motivated by self-interest (pp. 229-230). She also prefers engagement on the part of
followers to non-engagement. To determine whether a follower is acting in an
ethical manner we should look at the ends being pursued by the leader. She suggests
that five axioms follow from this perspective (See Figure 1). To do nothing is to be a
bad follower. To support a leader who is good—effective and ethical—is to be a
good follower. To support a leader who is good—effective and ethical—is to be a
good follower. To support a leader who is bad—ineffective and/or unethical—is to
be a bad follower. To oppose a leader who is good—effective and ethical—is to be a
bad follower. To oppose a leader who is bad—ineffective and/or unethical—is to be
a good follower.
Figure 1: Kellerman’s Criteria-Based Evaluation of Followership
Ends and Means of the Leader
Level of
Engagement
Leader is Effective/
Ethical
Leader is Not
Effective/Unethical
Support
Good Followership
Bad Followership
Do nothing
Bad Followership
Bad Followership
Oppose
Bad Followership
Good Followership
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adapted from Kellerman (2008, p. 230).
In Kellerman’s approach we see an ethical tool that might be useful for a
follower, at least in theory. If we can discern leader effectiveness and the morality of
the end being pursued we should be able to judge whether our support or
opposition is appropriate. When taking a consequentialist viewpoint it can be
difficult in the moment to discern whether a leader’s actions are going to be
effective in the long run. This makes the matrix more useful for evaluating followers
in retrospect than as a guide for ethical decision making under conditions of limited
time and information. We might also ask, what about the leader who is effective, but
unethical? The problem of dirty hands or the necessity to cause some level of harm
in order to accomplish a greater good has long been of concern to ethicists,
especially in the public sector (Walzer, 1973). It does provide useful criteria in clear
cases although many of the situations we find ourselves are in the murkier shades of
grey.
Johnson (2009) suggests in the third edition of Meeting the Ethical Challenges
of Leadership that followers have moral responsibilities that establish challenges for
those who seek to act in an ethical manner. His taxonomy includes the challenge of
obligation to their employer, family, and themselves; the challenge of obedience to
policies or orders they might not like, bounded by a duty to disobey when obedience
threatens the mission and health of the organization; the challenge of cynicism that
destroys trust and commitment; the challenge of finding the sweet spot of dissent
between protecting the organization and its members on one end and generating a
constant stream of complaints at the other; and the challenge of bad news that
requires followers to deliver necessary, yet uncomfortable messages (pp. 25-26).
The list of challenges is aptly named because the obligations often conflict. The life
of the morally aware person is fraught with such dilemmas. The dilemma that
stands out most starkly for the purposes of this essay is the challenge of obedience
and the challenge of dissent. Public Administration Scholar Rosemary O’Leary’s
notion of guerrilla government starkly illustrates the conflict between loyalty to the
boss and loyalty to a purpose (2006).
Guerilla Government
O’Leary describes guerrilla government as “actions of career public servants
who work against the wishes—either implicitly or explicitly communicated—of
their superiors” (2006, p. xi). She sees guerrillas as sources of creativity provided
their dissent and eccentricity are listened to and harnessed effectively. Guerillas
cultivate allies outside the organization, leak information, and occasionally even
sabotage their own organization in the interests of public welfare. They are an
antidote for groupthink (Janis, 1971) and serve as a prod for organizations that fail
to see the need for change. Sometimes they are heroic defenders of an important
public agenda as in her example of Department of the Interior workers who fought
for protection of wetlands against the expressed direction of their agency. They are
also rogue elements within the government as in the case of Oliver North’s
participation in the Iran Contra affair. O’Leary’s effort to point out the importance of
tolerating guerrillas is an especially enlightened one. Their efforts are more often
met with righteous indignation or even hostility from their superiors. In her book
she relates a story of how her advocacy for a guerilla in her own agency cost her the
trust and support of her superior. So what distinguishes the guerrilla’s actions as
laudable or despicable? There is always the possibility that the guerrilla might be
often wrong, but never in doubt.
O’Leary (2006, p. 17) invokes Dwight Waldo’s twelve ethical
obligations of a public servant, a list that is even more expansive than that of
Johnson (2009). Waldo’s list includes the constitution, religion or God, the
law, organizational and bureaucratic norms, self and family, among others.
Not surprisingly it also sets up the possibility of even more conflicts that pose
challenges for the public servant.
Figure 2: Waldo’s Ethical Obligations of a Public Servant
The Constitution
Law
Nation or Country
Democracy
Organizational/bureaucratic norms
Profession and Professionalism
Family and Friends
Self
Middle-range collectives
Public Interest/general welfare
Humanity or the world
Religion or God
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
In Chapter five of her book O’Leary provides “Guidelines for Guerrillas from
Guerrillas” listing thirty options or tactics that dissenters might consider (2006).
The list is unsatisfying from an ethical perspective since it provides no means of
evaluating the rightness of a particular approach. Talk to your supervisor, neglect
policies and directives you disagree with, file a lawsuit and quit all appear on the
same list. She provides some good advice for building a workplace climate that can
constructively deal with dissent, but aside from a list of questions and options a
guerrilla might ponder, we need to look elsewhere for moral guideposts.
Tempered Radicals
For some useful guidance to followers we turn to the concept of Debra
Myerson’s “tempered radical.” Originally published as Tempered Radicals: How
Everyday Leaders Inspire Change at Work in 2003 she reissued the book with the
title Rocking the Boat: How to Effect Change Without Making Trouble in 2008. The
revision was motivated, in part, by negative reactions she received to the term
“radical” (xiii). Myerson sees virtue in those who find ways to “rock the boat, but not
so hard that she falls out of it” (p. 4). Tempered radicals push their organizations to
ideals that might be at odds with the dominant culture, but they operate largely
within accepted organizational norms. Theirs is a pathway to incremental change
through carefully chosen battles and small wins. While some objected to the term
radical, use of the term “tempered” is inspired. It connotes both an element of
moderation and consistency as well as resilience that comes from repeated heating
and cooling as with metal in a forge.
If we were to accept A.O. Hirschman’s (1970) suggestion that there are three
primary responses when a customer is confronted with dissatisfaction in the quality
of a product or service: voice, exit or loyalty, the tempered radical clearly falls in the
loyalty category. Because expulsion from the group tends to diminish voice, at least
internally, tempered radicals choose to find ways to influence from within. Thus the
dissenter is radical in the pursuit of a change from the status quo, but that
radicalism is tempered by advocacy that does not threaten their legitimacy within
the organization. Myerson suggests that dissent activities fall on a spectrum ranging
from quiet resistance and staying true to one’s “self” on one end to organizing
collective action on the other (See Figure 3). The further one moves to the right of
the spectrum the more likely they are to encounter resistance from the powers that
be.
Figure 3. How Tempered Radicals Make a Difference
Resisting
quietly and
staying true to
one’s “self”
Turning
personal
threats into
opportunities
Broadening
the impact
through
negotiation
Leveraging
small wins
Organizing
Collective
Action
The path of the loyal, yet tempered radical is ultimately one of compromise.
In order to avoid an allergic reaction from the organization the dissenter exercises a
level of restraint that can seem inauthentic and such feelings can exact a personal
toll. At the very least it can be personally invalidating to suppress a deeply held
belief or value. It can also be demoralizing and draining (Meyerson, 2008, p. 16).
The toll for operating inside the system can be increased anxiety, guilt, loneliness,
accusations of hypocrisy, frustration, and burnout (pp. 144-145). Tempered radicals
willingly pay this price because they do not see better alternatives. Myerson sees
tempered radicals as insiders who retain an outsider perspective. Some have
identities that are different from the majority that exclude them from the
mainstream while others have cultural differences that are not grounds on their
own for exclusion. Some have a philosophical conflict with prevailing norms or
perspectives operating in their organization. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and
gender are common sources of cultural difference, while differing values and beliefs
are usually the source of philosophical conflict.
While tempered radicals often find themselves at odds with the prevailing
culture, they are careful in when and how they express dissent. In choosing an
appropriate dissenting response Meyerson (2008, p. 75) suggests that the tempered
radical consider the following factors:
Timing: Appropriate timing can mean the difference between receptiveness
and outright rejection.
Stakes: Tempered radicals pick their battles carefully and evaluate what
others have to lose. It pays to anticipate when others might be deeply
invested and thus more likely to mount opposition.
Likelihood of Success: Changes that require significant behavior are less
likely to succeed than those requiring less behavioral modification. Change
that is consistent with the underlying culture is more likely to be successful
than change that is in opposition to the existing culture.
Options: Risk is a factor that should be weighed. The tempered radical
considers other options that might enable the taking of a stand without
jeopardizing one’s credibility.
Consequences of failure: The tempered radical should consider the worstcase scenarios of various courses of action and the likelihood that they will
occur.
Personal Association: Risk to the individual is increased when it is seen as
“their issue.” Seeking a third party intervention is sometimes warranted.
Doability: Not all change is feasible. Responses that are not overwhelming
have greater odds of being implemented effectively.
Tempered radicals favor action, yet exercise patience in choosing when to
speak up and when to go along (Meyerson, 2008, pp. 172). They are astute
organizational operators who prod the organization in an incremental fashion that
adds up over time to result in a normative shift. They harness relationships to
prevent isolation and loneliness and to forge alliances with those who share their
agenda.
A Military Perspective
From what those unfamiliar with the military might consider an unlikely
source (the united states Marine Corps) comes some very practical suggestions
about how to exercise dissent in a highly stratified organizational structure. Taylor
& Rosenbach’s fourth edition of Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence (2000)
contains a useful essay by Lt. Col. Mark E. Cantrell entitled The Doctrine of Dissent.
Cantrell examines the very real possibility that a follower might come to doubt the
wisdom of an order. He asserts that the first reflex of the follower should be to make
very sure that the boss is wrong and to take note of the fact that the leader might
have information that the follower does not have access to, or greater wisdom or
broader perspective. While this assumption could lead to a license to blind
followership, Cantrell intends it to be cause for care, not abdication. He suggests that
if the analysis confirms that an order is ill advised the follower should argue the
position and suggest an alternative. There is little virtue in merely “poking holes in
the plans of your supervisors” (p. 119). He advises the dissenter to avoid
disagreeing over trivial matters yet emphasizes the duty to do something if the issue
is significant and there is time to argue the matter.
Some of Cantrell’s most useful guidance comes after the decision to speak up
where thought should be given to the manner of presentation to the supervisor.
Note that this essay does not emerge from the followership literature so it uses the
language of superior and subordinate. The language is framed in more hierarchical
language suited to a military context. Cantrell notes that sometimes a verbal
disagreement is appropriate while a written paper can be more effective. As does
Meyerson, Cantrell emphasizes situational awareness with regard to the timing and
surroundings of the dissent. Since it is difficult for those in authoritative positions to
admit a mistake it is best to argue the point before it is announced publicly or before
it gains organizational momentum. Cantrell also acknowledges that style of
presentation matters, advocating a calm, unemotional and tactful, yet forceful
approach. If the argument fails and the issue is critically important, the subordinate
should inform the superior tactfully that they intend to make the case to the next
person in the chain of command. The next sentences of the essay might be unique to
Marine Corps culture, but could have application in other contexts:
It is better to be thought of as a stubborn fool than a disloyal coward. Also,
stick to your chain of command. Right or wrong, you’ll make few friends by
going to the press or Congress to resolve a problem that could have been
corrected by Marines. If you are right there is a Marine somewhere in the
chain who will see it. (Cantrell, 2000, p. 120)
Cantrell’s essay would appear to be oriented to relatively junior Marines. As
one progresses up the chain of command there are increasingly fewer Marines to
appeal to. His faith that a Marine somewhere in the chain will recognize a position as
right might strike some of us as hopeful at best and quite possibly naïve, yet the
respect for the better nature of the organization that his approach connotes seems
commendable.
I am reminded of a story related by a retired Army Colonel who served as
legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a very powerful four-star
general. The Chairman once asked him what he should do if he was asked by a
member of congress, while testifying under oath, a question that the President had
specifically directed him not to answer. What should he do if polite deferrals were
unsuccessful and he was put in the position of either lying to Congress or violating a
direct order from the President? The legal advisor came up with a creative
alternative to break the dilemma. He advised the Chairman to clutch his chest, roll
his eyes upward and collapse to the floor. Then, when he was evacuated to his
private suite at Walter Reed Army Medical Center he should call the white house
and say, “Mister President I need new orders because I will not lie to Congress.” We
might question the ethical foundation of such an inherently dishonest act as faking
an illness to avoid a question, but sometimes the option is not between right and
wrong, but between bad and worse. We might give the attorney extra credit for
creativity.
Perhaps it is a bit unique to military culture that there is such an emphasis on
the clear expression of dissent inside the organization before going public. Few
other organizations emphasize the chain of command to such an extent, but most
would agree that one should give the existing authorities a full opportunity to
address a problem before taking it over their heads. In what Time Magazine termed
“The Revolt of the Generals” a half dozen retired generals called for the resignation
of then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Bacon, 2006). Their actions were not
unprecedented but they were certainly uncommon and controversial. They touched
off an intensive debate within the military about the propriety of their actions.
Democracies like their militaries best when they are subservient to civilian
authority, but military officers are also honor bound to provide their best advice
precisely because they are professionals and not merely obedient bureaucrats
(Cook, 2008).
As one who was part of the internal debate at the time I recall that there
were several layers to the discussion. Some were concerned with the impact of such
public dissent on long-term relationships between civilian authorities and senior
military advisors. Thus the retired general’s actions were viewed as a breach of
professional ethics. Their actions could lead to distrust between elected or
appointed officials and the professional military, a situation that could exacerbate
well known tensions in civil-military relations and potentially harm the nation.
Much of the disdain that was heaped on the dissenting generals, however, seemed to
stem from a belief that they had not advocated their disagreements with
administration policies as forthrightly and vigorously while in uniform as they did
after they retired. Military insiders who held this perspective were concerned about
a perceived lack of courageous internal dissent that they felt was a moral
prerequisite to taking the arguments public.
Deriving Principles of Loyal Dissent
We began this essay with the suggestion that it would be helpful to identify
some means of providing ethical followers guidelines for engaging in loyal dissent.
Our exploration suggests that there are indeed some recurring themes from the
followership literature that we might craft into should and ought statements that
would help the follower discern courses of action that are more rather than less
morally supportable.
To the goals of the organization be true. The works reviewed for this essay
suggest that there is little virtue in sheep-like behavior by followers who execute
directives without thought, nor is it admirable to stand aside and watch a leader
make bad decisions or sabotage leaders through malicious compliance with
decisions they believe to be wrong. Such are not the actions of the morally astute
follower. While there may well be a personal price to pay for dissenting, it is
sometimes an obligation when placing the goals of the organization first. Thus we
see a recurring theme of courage and duty suggesting that dissent would not be
justified if self-interest were the only criterion.
Respond in proportion with prudence and restraint. Before confronting a
more powerful superior with a dissenting opinion, the follower ought to be prudent
and exercise some level of restraint. Not every issue warrants such confrontation
and personal risk. While self-interest may not be the controlling value, complete
disregard of the personal ramifications of an action is not rational. There ought to be
some sense of proportionality with regard to dissent. The more significant the
consequences of a decision the more strident should be the dissent. It is
appropriate to consider the possibility that the leader might have information or
perspectives that the follower does not. The default setting should be to assume
good intent on the part of the leader but that is not a license for continuous
deference.
Individual decisions need not be lonely. Ethics rightly tends to focus on the
role of the lone moral agent since we are all accountable for our actions at an
individual level. Important decisions that have personal and collective impact,
however, need not be made in isolation. Consultation with valued colleagues and
mentors is advisable when facing crises of conscience.
Present solutions as well as problems with tact and diplomacy. It is
important to consider the manner in which the dissent is expressed, respecting the
need for the leader to maintain the confidence of others. It is generally better to
confront a superior calmly and privately before they have invested significant
interpersonal capital in a course of action. Tact and diplomacy are not only virtuous
behaviors, but they are also techniques that increase the likelihood that the
dissenting opinion will be heard. Followers who present solutions or options to the
leader are likely to be valued more than those who merely point out problems.
Be forthright and tenacious in advocating through channels. There is rarely a
case where there is only one person with whom a concern can be registered. It is
appropriate to go over the head of supervisors on a matter of conscience after giving
them an opportunity to address the issue. It is generally preferable to express
dissent internally rather than externally. If time permits the follower should exhaust
internal means of dissent before moving the issue to collective action or to an
external audience.
Exercise voice and exit as a last resort. While it may be necessary to move the
dissent beyond the confines of the organization, such actions should be engaged
after giving those in authoritative positions an opportunity to hear the argument,
and to understand that the issue is of such importance that it will be elevated to
collective action or moved externally to the organization. In many cases this course
is also the path of exit since it is rare that leaders will tolerate those who organize
collective dissent or extend the argument outside the organization.
We should acknowledge that there might be very effective and possibly even
justifiable ways to express dissent that are not particularly loyal or courageous.
Some of the tactics listed by O’Leary (2006, p. 92) fall in this category. Neglecting
policies you don’t agree with, leaking information, enlisting the aid of friends who
work in powerful agencies and obeying in public while disobeying in private are less
morally supportable because of their surreptitious manner. There is a lack of
forthrightness that brings into question the follower’s loyalty and courage. In cases
where the organizational environment is toxic or immune to influence from
conscientious followers as in Sydney Finkelstein’s case (2003) where followers are
ruthlessly eliminated for their loyal dissent we might argue that less forthright
measures are justified. In such cases the appropriate response for the follower is
anxiety and regret that such actions are necessary in a way that is reminiscent to
Saint Augustine’s charge to the judges that they should cry out to God, “From my
necessities deliver Thou me” (Augustine, 1871, p. 310). We might make the
distinction that clandestine means of dissent might be necessary, but they are also
less admirable.
Conclusion
This study contributes to leadership literature by suggesting an ethical lens
be applied to analyze various followership behaviors, specifically with regard to the
expression of dissent. Well meaning followers face conflicting loyalties as they
balance their own sense of right and wrong with desires of leaders and the best
interests of the organizations they ultimately serve. Thematic analysis of the
literature on followership led to the identification of six general principles that can
be used to guide followers as they seek to act in ways that are morally supportable.
Self-interest might be one factor to consider, but when it comes to expressing
dissent it is insufficient on its own to guide an individual to ethical followership.
References:
Augustine (1871). The works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Marcus Dods,
Ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Bacon, P. (Sunday, April 2006). The revolt of the generals. Time Magazine, Available
at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184048,00.html,
accessed August 30, 2012.
Badaracco, J.L. (1997). Defining Moments: When managers must choose between right
and right. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cantrell, M.E. (1998). The doctrine of dissent. Marine Corps Gazette, 82 (11),
November, pp. 56-57.
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Collins, J. (2009). How the mighty fall: And why some companies never give in. New
York: Harper Collins.
Cook, M.L. (2008). Revolt of the generals: A case study in professional ethics.
Parameters. Spring 2008.
Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York: Penguin.
Janis, I.L. (1971). Groupthink: The desperate drive for consensus at any cost.
Psychology Today, 5, November, pp. 43-44, 46, 74-76.
Johnson, C.E. (2009). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or
shadow. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing
leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kelley R. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday.
Meyerson, D.E. (2003). Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders inspire change at
work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Meyerson, D. E. (2008). Rocking the boat: How to effect change without making
trouble. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Military leadership: In pursuit of excellence (2000). Robert L. Taylor, & William E.
Rosenbach (Eds.) 4th Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview.
O’Leary, R. (2006). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerilla government. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.
O’Leary, R. (2010). Guerilla Employees: Should Managers Nurture, Tolerate, or
Terminate Them? Public Administration Review, January February 2010, pp.
8-19.
Simon H. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6
(1), Winter, pp. 53-67.
Walzer, M. (1973). Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy and
Public Affairs, 2 (2), pp. 160–180.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis.
Boston: Little, Brown.