CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

5. DISSENT AS A FACILITATOR 167
troversial debate during group meetings, high-quality decision making is
associated with this leadership style (Peterson, 1997; Peterson et al., 1998).
Finally, the expression of dissent as well as its transformation into
outcomes that are beneficial to the organization benefits from a “critical
norm.” This means a common understanding in the group (or even in the
whole organization) that independence and critical thought are essential
components of the group’s (or the organization’s) collective work (cf. Postmes,
Spears, & Cihangir, 2001). If group members have internalized such
a common understanding, they should feel free to express dissent if they
disagree with proposals or solutions favored in the group. Groups with a
critical norm should be characterized by high degrees of task reflexivity
(West, 1996), that is, a tendency to critically reflect the team’s task-related
objectives, strategies, and procedures on a regular basis. As demonstrated
by De Dreu (2002), dissent is particularly associated with team effectiveness
and innovation if the team’s task-related reflexivity is high. Furthermore,
acceptance of dissent occurring in the group should be higher among
the other group members if a critical norm prevails in the group, and this
acceptance facilitates interest in the dissenting position, accurate perspective
taking, and incorporation of the dissenter’s arguments by the
recipients of dissent (Tjosvold et al., 1981). Finally, in groups with a critical
norm, dissenters should not be seen as disloyal. As shown by Dooley and
Fryxell (1999), dissent enhances decision quality in teams only if loyalty is
attributed to the dissenters. In sum, a critical group norm is a precondition
for many processes that facilitate the expression of dissent as well as its
transformation into beneficial outcomes. In contrast, if the group is characterized
by a norm that praises harmony at all costs, the members are
likely to fall prey to a pattern that is called “groupthink” (Janis, 1982)—a
collective concurrence-seeking tendency that avoids dissent by means of
self-censorship and mindguarding, as well as subtle and overt pressures
on dissenters, and that is supposed to lead to faulty decision making.
Mimicking Dissent
As already mentioned, it is not always possible to make sure that “authentic”
dissent occurs, that is, dissent being expressed because the corresponding
person truly disagrees with something that is proposed in the group. For
example, a managerial board might experience that right from the beginning
of a meeting all members of the board have the same preference with regard
to a product launch decision. In this case, the only way to ensure authentic
dissent would be to (temporarily) exchange board members or bring in new
members to the board—which is hardly realizable in a managerial board.
In situations like this, an opportunity to achieve dissent is to use socalled
“dialectical” decision techniques (for an overview, see Katzenstein,
1996). Dialectical decision techniques are procedures that contrive dissent
by enforcing a controversial debate independent of the actors’ real opin-