I sort of browsed my way through In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (Basic Books, 2018) by Charlan Nemeth, a UC Berkeley psychology prof. The focus of the book is on dissent versus consensus (or even groupthink) in business and government, but it is easy to extend the discussion to the role of dissent in the Church. Is dissent a good thing or a bad thing? How much of it should be tolerated? How does the presence or absence of dissenting opinions in group decisionmaking affect the quality of the resulting decisions? If you’re going to be a dissenter or troublemaker, how do you be a good one as opposed to just someone who like to stir up trouble or start arguments?
The most striking examples in the book were the decision of President Kennedy and his circle of close advisors to support the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles in April 1961, uniformly regarded as a disastrous decision, and the contrasting conduct of President Kennedy and his close advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis just 18 months later. In the first episode, dissent was discouraged. Those who thought the plan was a bad idea were discouraged from voicing their opinion in discussions, instead being encouraged to “get behind the President on this one.” During the second episode, having learned from his mistakes, the President encouraged alternate proposals and absented himself from some meetings to encourage the sharing of dissenting views. Remember that all his senior military advisors were advocating some kind of forceful military response to take out the missile launch facilities under construction in Cuba. The President chose an alternate course of action (a quarantine, coupled with serious communication and negotiation with the Soviets) and that’s why we’re still around today to do things like write blog posts and raise our families.
Here’s a quote about the perils of group decisionmaking.
All the ways in which groups promote consensus and discourage dissent become part of the problem. Our desire to foster agreement, put pressure on dissent, and self-censor doesn’t just come automatically from cohesion or even a directed leader, nor does it come from a simple preference for agreement or from individual motivations. A large part of this comes from normal group processes that prevail in everyday life just as they do in domestic foreign policy decisions. These common processes contribute to a group’s narrow focus, premature consensus, and exaggerated positions. it is common for groups to favor the initial preference and rush confidently to judgment. More often, it parallels convergent thinking, which … is often exacerbated in groups. (p. 145-46.)
One of these group processes discussed in the book is polarization, in which even moderate preferences or opinions shared by the group get exaggerated as discussion happens and a decision gets made. So if a group of early risers meet together to discuss when the camp should be awakened for breakfast, they play off each other’s preferences and before you know it the bugle sounds at 4:45 am. If a group of missionary-minded Mormons meet to set goals for the coming year, they end up with a goal of 24 convert baptisms next year for the ward, even though the ward has only baptized 6 people in the last 4 years. You probably have your own examples. My favorite is when the stake president was at the blackboard inviting those at an adult fireside to offer items for an “evil influences to avoid” list. First X-rated, then R-rated, and eventually even PG-rated films made the list. Porn of course, then the SI swimsuit edition, then the Sears catalog (this was a few years back).
Another interesting discussion in the book was about the devil’s advocate. The term actually comes from a Catholic practice of appointing someone to bring forth and present to the Committee on Sainthood (not the actual name) the most potent criticism of a candidate for sainthood that the evidence supports. Obviously, this helps decisionmakers consider contrary evidence and avoid early consensus or groupthink. The author goes further in advocating not just an appointed advocate (who may not actually object to the proposal) but an authentic critic who truly opposes the proposal. Reading this discussion, I naturally thought of the provision in the D&C for six of the high council to speak for the accused and six to speak for the charges brought by the stake president in a stake-level church court proceeding. This is a great idea — it would be even better if the accused were given advance notice of the actual charge and the evidence, if any, supporting it. Reports I have read suggest the procedure in the D&C is not generally followed, which is unfortunate.
The bottom line for LDS group decisionmaking is: (1) Dissent and sharing of opposing opinions improves group decisionmaking; (2) dissent and opposing opinions are strongly disfavored in most LDS group scenarios, whether local or general; so (3) LDS group decisionmaking could be improved by tolerating more discussion of opposing views.
Apart from these problematic group dynamics, there is generalized dissent voiced in public discussion: conferences, editorials, books and articles, social media, blog discussions, as well as public discussion on Sunday in church. In general, broad discussion ought to be seen as a good thing, as long as you’re making reasonable points rather than just an inveterate contrarian who can’t avoid stirring up trouble whenever the opportunity arises. If we want group decisions to reflect broader opinions and considerations, we have to get broader ideas into the minds of those group members, and public discussions and publications of various sorts are really the only avenue to achieve that broadening.
Wheat & Tares 
I fully agree with your 3 points of “bottom line for LDS group decisionmaking “.
I have had some coworkers on a few teams that loved to take the role of devil’s advocate and it took a while for others to come around that this was good for the discussion. It made decisions from the group more well thought out and defensible to criticisms. After one hour long drag out confrontation one of the team members was exasperated and said, “I just can’t believe you really think your position is right!” The other person responded, “You assumed what I was arguing was what I believe, but I don’t and I just thought we should be thoughtful and hash this out before we open ourselves up to criticism that we didn’t even think about.” A few folks appreciated that and other just thought we wasted an hour of the team’s time. I learned to appreciate it and for important issues it is good to look at it from another perspective.
I find a general lack of interest in hashing out all angles of a discussion. People get uncomfortable with sometimes charged discussions, which is unfortunate. I find a thorough discussion, taking in all viewpoints, to be useful. It’s hubris to think one or two of us have it all figured out.
In the information security field we use attack trees to map out all possible ways data can be compromised, no matter how trivial. We then assign costs to each branch. The security team’s responsibility isn’t to eliminate the risk but to increase the cost to an attacker for each attack. To do this, honesty and a willingness to discuss any idea, no matter how silly, is required. Dissent is critical to success.
There is nothing wrong with reasoned dissent.. I think that the time, place, venue also are really important. The idea of dissent is to get people to think rather than just follow the group think. All too often, people holding dissenting opinions do not voice them and then also do not sustain whatever decision or policy that comes out. As a result, especially on local levels, those policies or courses of action fail.
Dissenting during a lesson can often lead to the instructor not being able to complete his or her lesson or get the main point across. A person with an opposing point of view has to be careful not to derail the class, and that is often hard to do.
I think, bottom line, is that anyone having a dissenting opinion needs to put as much prayer and study (or more) into seeking a way to present the dissent without causing contention, etc.
Glenn
Glen, Unless the teacher allows for different opinions, presenting different opinions will disrupt the lesson, and we will continue to have shallow, primary level lessons. The point of the blog was that hearing different views produces better results.
Do you have a tv programme there called QI with Stephen Fry. The discussions on that programme range all over the place, but have a direction. Church lessons that were more about the needs of the members, and less about finishing the lesson, could be good, and perhaps more interesting if different views are aired.
Geoff-Aus
I understand your point. What I was saying goes back to a point by the author of this blog “In general, broad discussion ought to be seen as a good thing, as long as you’re making reasonable points rather than just an inveterate contrarian who can’t avoid stirring up trouble whenever the opportunity arises.” I was talking about dissenters that do not follow the reasonable and reasoned part of debating but rather try to steer the debate the way they think it should go. But it seems that people who argue for dissent do not like any type of dissent against that idea also.
Glenn
Great post. I fully agree with your position that responsible dissent and open discussion is essential–during lesson discussions and especially in church leadership meetings with the unspoken and enormous cultural bias of hierarchy.
However, when you said, ” I naturally thought of the provision in the D&C for six of the high council to speak for the accused and six to speak for the charges brought by the stake president in a stake-level church court proceeding….Reports I have read suggest the procedure in the D&C is not generally followed, which is unfortunate.” I thought of my own experiences in that setting. From the late 1970’s through the early 1990’s, I was in attendance at about 20 high council courts/disciplinary councils in stakes in the East, in the South, and in Arizona. In every case this procedure was followed. Often it was termed, “see that the rights/interests of the church and those of the accused are represented.” But it was always followed. Just FYI.
I’m wondering about dissent in the church.
It seems to me that there shouldn’t be dissent on the foundational truth claims of the church. We all agree on these as tenets of faith.
On matters of mystery or folklore, a difference of opinion is not dissent — it is simply a difference of opinion. One member’s opinion carries as much weight as another member’s opinion, and both of them should generally avoid introducing their opinions on mysteries or folklore in our three-hour block of meetings. When a member does so and risks upsetting the peace of others present, another member could act as a peacemaker by noting that the matter has not had the benefit of revelation or is otherwise unsettled among us. I don’t see this as dissent.
On decisions about actually doing something, or the best way to do something, there will always be differences of opinion. For example, some persons may want the ward Christmas party to be on a Friday evening, while others may prefer a Saturday evening. Still others might prefer a Saturday morning breakfast (yes, my ward did this!). Or, a bishop’s counselor might not support a bishop’s decision to disfellowship a member. In these situations, I try to discern where the proper decision-making authority lies, and sustain their decisions (even if it means not attending the party).
But still, on decisions about actually doing something, or the best way to do something, the patterns we are shown by the brethren suggest that full and open discussion is encouraged before these decisions are made. I am not certain that we are fully magnifying this pattern in our local wards and stakes, and this may be a big part of our problem, or rather, I am certain that we are not fully magnifying this pattern locally. With our current emphasis on councils, I hope we will improve. I generally agree that we need more full and open discussion in our local church council settings.
I wonder how the mormon behavioral pattern of being strongly ‘conflict averse’ fits into this.
ReTx,
Certainly, it does. It inhibits full and open discussion even in settings where such is invited. Too often, even when a bishop in ward council invites full and open discussion, the other ward council members may harshly judge anyone who offers an opinion that differs from what they think the bishop wants to hear. I hope this improves as time passes.
JI, Not sure we even agree on the basics. I had a bishop refuse me a temple recommend because I would not agree that “obedience is the first law of heaven”. This was an issue because his wife was gospel doctrine teacher, and managed to get into every lesson that obedience was the first law of heaven. Every few weeks I would ask for a scripture reference for it and point out that I had a reference for the Saviour saying love was the first law.
This is fairly basic and determines how we live our lives, and is not agreed on.
Geoff-Aus,
Yeah, I hear you. Differences of opinion on mysteries or folklore can be problematic when one member pushes a matter too hard. If you spoke up as a peacemaker to try to strengthen fellow students by offering a complementary insight while still sustaining the teacher’s role, or to ask a question where you simply didn’t understand what the teacher was saying, that’s good — we should encourage meaningful discussion in our classes. But to me, speaking up for the sole purpose of being a dissenter or troublemaker is problematic in a church setting with lay volunteer teachers.
Regarding your bishop, well, I hope you were able to have a full and open discussion with him. He’s a lay volunteer bishop.
These are difficult matters. I hope we are improving as time passes.
At work we had Covey training. One of the illustrations was a large arrow pointing to the right. This represented the organization. Inside the large arrow were small arrows pointing in the identical same direction. They represented the employees. This was supposed to represent how a well-oiled organization functioned. I disagreed. I wanted to see employees will divergent views. Otherwise the company is filled with brain-dead followers. Where are the innovators?
In a top-down organization like the Church (which preaches obedience) how do you affect change? How do you stir the pot? Hopefully, someone in upper management reads blogs, etc.. I don’t see a lot of possibilities for bottom-up ideas to reach the upper echelon.
On the Ward level, it is hard to get excited about discussions. Why cause trouble, unless your plan is to wake people up?
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I was out of town for a few days and could not respond to comments.
Glenn, thanks for highlighting the balanced position I was trying to express in the post. Broad and open discussion is good, including alternate and at times opposing views, but don’t overdo it or throw out opposing views just to stir the pot. It’s Sunday School, not the debate club.
fbisti, I’m glad stake courts are working well in your neck of the woods, at least as far as some HC members speaking on behalf of the accused. It would be even nicer if the accused were given a meaningful statement of the charges against them and an actual advocate of their choice.
Geoff-Aus, I think your experience is an outlier. If your bishop actually practiced what he preached, he would be “obedient” to the direction given in Handbook 1 and would not be adding additional requirements to the temple recommend interview process. Try this one: “Making stuff up is the first law of local leadership.” He’ll like that.
rogerdhansen, someone has to lie down in front of the tanks. In the Church, they then get run over (figuratively, not literally). Following which the leadership quietly makes some changes in response to the loudly voiced public complaints, while not acknowledging the changes were made in response to loudly voiced public complaints or even denying the changes were made in response to loudly voiced public complaints.
Dave B. but all too frequently the responses to a tank tragedy, are only superficial. Take “Ordain Women;” so far the changes have been simply eye dressing.
“Is dissent a good thing or a bad thing?”
Generally it is a bad thing. If contention arises, it is a bad thing.
“How much of it should be tolerated?”
It isn’t the amount, it is the type. The Gospel of God is not decided in committee.
“How does the presence or absence of dissenting opinions in group decisionmaking affect the quality of the resulting decisions?”
It depends on what is being decided. If you are deciding who is going to shovel the snow off the sidewalks, discuss it; it is a human decision with human actors. If you are deciding church policy, stop doing that.
“If you’re going to be a dissenter or troublemaker, how do you be a good one as opposed to just someone who like to stir up trouble or start arguments?”
I doubt a distinction exists. On the other hand, you might have an unrighteous leader in which case your dissent, if private, is at least not trouble-making.
Rogerdhansen writes “I don’t see a lot of possibilities for bottom-up ideas to reach the upper echelon”
As you observe it is top down. Presumably the top is God. Consequently, if you want to effect change, go to the TOP.
If God is not actually the top, then why would you care much about what this social club does?
Michael 2
“If God is not actually the top, then why would you care much about what this social club does?”
I could give you lots of reasons that people on different parts of the belief spectrum (and the spectrum is quite wide) would want to provide feedback. My children are interviewed by the bishopric, they go to the activities, etc, whether I believe or not.
But I think the question you are trying to ask is actually “given that god is on top, why should the leaders care at all what the people at the bottom think?” *
Restated that way, I think the answer speaks for itself, but I’ll spell it out a bit. Mormons should not believe in infallible leadership; there is no doctrinal foundation for it. The leaders should seek knowledge and understanding from every available source.
* You could accuse me of making your argument into a straw man, but that is my honest reading.
Rockwell writes: “But I think the question you are trying to ask is actually given that god is on top, why should the leaders care at all what the people at the bottom think?”
Close enough for government work. The topic is dissent, not merely seeking greater light and knowledge from others that might have it.
“Mormons should not believe in infallible leadership”
Some do, some don’t. I make distinction between Doctrine (set by God presumably) and policies and procedures (the philosophies of men and women).
In the case of the big moral doctrines, good versus evil, right versus wrong, I doubt there is much place for dissent. Things that are wrong do not become right by dissent.
When a decision is being made in a council is the time for people to declare various aspects; such as a stake where many of its wards have only one or two boys of Scouting age, should there be a stake troop? I attended a high council meeting where that very thing was discussed and several councilors had very strong, and widely differing, opinions which suggests that someone in the room is not inspired by God or we’d all be on the same page. The stake president listened to it all, then simply declared that the only way the boys were going to have a meaningful experience is with a stake troop. Then he appointed the most opposed councilor to be in charge of it. Dissent at that point becomes mutiny.
“The leaders should seek knowledge and understanding from every available source.”
That they should and in my opinion and experience, the wise ones do exactly that. But it is rare. I have had only one instance where a bishop asked me for advice; I am not his counselor (I was a clerk) but he wanted additional counsel anyway. It had nothing to do with “dissent” and everything to do with seeing a problem from different angles.
I have sometimes wondered what I would do as a bishop and I hope never to have to find out. My opinion is that a “calling” that cannot be filled by a well qualified and motivated person ought not to be filled at all. A man or woman compelled to anything is asking for failure. I’d be especially wary of empire builders and cliques, claques and cabals. Break ’em up.
You may have noticed that what I would do is not what my stake president did. By appointing a passionate, but dissenting man to head Scouting, he had to make a choice. Being a man of good character, he embraced the new reality and became a strong advocate for the troop. A man of poor character would say “yes” but act “no”.
There’s a scripture that pops into my mind, unfortunately the exact reference didn’t pop at the same time. Parable of Two Sons, Matthew 21: 28-31: 28 ¶ A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not [dissent]: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. [deception] 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first.
From this I learn that there is something worse than dissent, and that is false compliance; saying “yes” but not doing. I would vastly prefer to encounter dissent when such a thing accurately mirrors your beliefs.
“dissent and opposing opinions are strongly disfavored in most LDS group scenarios,”
It appears dissent is strongly disfavored here as well. Toe the party line; but of course, its a different party.
Michael 2, none of your comments have been removed and you have not been blacklisted. What you should say is how tolerant of differing opinions we are at W&T and how pleasantly surprised you are that none of the W&T contributors have given you a hard time for leaving strings of comments that are often longer than the original post.