Just Enough Disunity For Progress

Valuable innovation is often the product of discord and disagreement. "Stop",

cries the innovator, "You're going the wrong way". Someone has to depart from
conventional wisdom however convenient and comforting it is. They need to
disagree even if they are wrong.

The Goldilocks theory suggests that you need enough unity but not too much,
enough disunity but not too much. Too much agreement and there are no new
ideas. Too much disagreement and no one can work together to make the new
idea work.

At the national level, this happened in 15th century China when the all powerful
emperor ordered the destruction of its ocean-going ships. Because there was no
possibility of disagreement China quickly lost its technological lead over the rest
of the world because it was no longer connected to new ideas. In Europe, disunity
meant that ideas rejected in one country could be adopted in another. Famously,
Columbus pitched his idea to five European monarchs before finding one to
support his proposed voyage to bring unimagined wealth to the continent.

At the organizational level, you have the same friction between stability and
progress. There are those who want their experience respected and their
fiefdoms secured. There are others attracted to discontinuity because they either
want things to be different so they can get ahead or they simply like to see things
done better. These improvers have an emotional need to see just how well they
can do something. They are vital to progress.

The former CEO of Intel was devoted to the idea of scientific debate. In the
technical domain, he believed that the best idea should win and the argument
should be robust. He called this approach "constructive confrontation" and it
enabled Intel to double the number of transistors on a chip every couple of years.
He was far less willing to embrace ideas questioning his business direction. He
sent mixed messages about effective leadership, acted as if they are not mixed,
made his mixed messages undiscussable, and made the undiscussability
undiscussable. At its best, constructive confrontation allowed open debate that
improved solutions. At its worst, it allowed powerful managers to crush the
arguments of their underlings while pretending that the interaction was a
balanced debate between equals. It was only after he retired that the company
was able to open up the discussion about business direction. The new CEO holds
more than 100 meetings a year with engineers but without their managers. New
ideas previously squeezed out, in calls for unity of purpose, are allowing Intel to
diversify into mobile phones, health care, and wireless communications.

Patience Is Needed With Disagreement. The comfortable level of disunity and

unity shifts depending on the work that is being done. Most people expect
disagreement early on in a project. Some of this disunity is a group finding out
about each other while the rest is the result of alternative ideas conflicting and
competing. As a project continues, impatience grows with anyone who still argues
for different approaches or keeps throwing up dissenting opinions. The rest of the
group, or managers who are focused on an image of consensus, attempt to isolate
the dissenting voices or simply ignore them.

The Goal Unifies. If the goal is flexible enough, big enough, broad enough it is
possible for individuals to disagree while still sharing common objectives.
Agreement on vision allows progress to be made that utilizes diverse viewpoints
as a source of strength. Willingness to embrace the benefits of disagreement is a
key characteristic of so-called high reliability organizations. These are companies
that operate in high risk environments like medicine, nuclear fuel, space travel,
and policing, but have far fewer accidents or problems. They encourage
commitment to the objective of having fewer accidents rather than any particular
way of achieving it. Substance is more important than style or saving face.

Politely Pretending to agree allows bad decisions and increases frustration

between colleagues. Aggressively seeking to win arguments, or defend positions,
is damaging. It’s better if individuals criticize their own ideas without becoming
upset and accept the benefits of open enquiry at all stages of projects and in all
circumstances. If everyone feels obliged to sing from the same hymn sheet and
drink the same Kool-Aid the chances of innovation diminish because it requires a
departure from sameness. Innovation is about making difference work.
References

Argyris, C, 2004, Reasons & Rationalizations: The Limits To Organizational

Knowledge, Oxford University Press

Diamond, J, 1997, Guns, Germs, and Steel, W. W. Norton & Company

Ford, C, & Sullivan, DM, A time for everything: how the timing of novel
contributions influences project team outcomes, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, John Wiley & Sons

Pearce, CL, & Ensley, MD, 2004, A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the
innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process
innovation teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, John Wiley & Sons

Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York:
Basic Books. (Princeton University Press, 1999)

Roberts, K.H. and Bea R. (2001)When systems fail. Organizational Dynamics. 29,
179-191.

Roberts, K.H., and Bea R. (2001) Must accidents happen? Academy of

Management Executive, 15 (August), 70-79