Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 105

LOYAL DISSENT

to carefully consider dissenting opinions could potentially waste too much time at critical junctures
and create some measure of inefficiency. This could
potentially risk soldier’s lives if undertaken at wholly
inappropriate times or in the presence of an inappropriate audience (though such a deliberate pause
might also save the unit from making a grave mistake).
There is no substitute for a leader’s judgment in these
circumstances.
Consequently, it is essential to recognize that there
is a time and place for open debate, a time for loyal
dissent, and a time to rapidly execute orders without
question. A leader’s time is precious, and allowing every single subordinate to have his or her say whenever
he or she chose would lead to anarchy.25
Ethical and thoughtful subordinates must be taught
to discern when such dissent is appropriate if they are
to be trusted to loyally dissent to their leaders. They

will not get the timing right every time, but they must
try hard to do so. To cultivate the process, leaders may
consider selecting a few key subordinates who are
encouraged to question the leader’s ideas in a loyal way
at most any time, while others are asked to do so only
formally through formal dissent mechanisms.26
The key to establishing an environment where loyal
dissent is encouraged is remembering that subordinates are not attacking the leader’s personal authority.
They trust in your right to lead them but want to help
you make a better decision. Loyally dissenting subordinates are attempting to help their leader and their
organization succeed.
A command environment that invites disciplined,
thoughtful, and well-intentioned loyal dissent increases
soldier commitment, a leader’s access to alternate
solutions, and helps foster true unit cohesion and
discipline.

Maj. Thomas B. Craig, U.S. Army, is a Special Forces officer assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne)
at Fort Campbell, Ky. He has deployed numerous times including combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Craig holds a B.A. from the Virginia Military Institute and has completed an M.A. from the University of
Kansas.

Notes
1. Rosemary O’Leary, The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2006), 3.
2. Patrick E. Connor, Linda Lake, and Richard W. Stackman,
Managing Organizational Change, 3rd edition (Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2003), 153.
3. William Ian Miller, The Mystery of Courage (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2000).
4. Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To
and For Our Leaders, 3rd edition (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2009).
5. Russell M. Linden, Leading Across Boundaries: Creating
Collaborative Agencies in a Networked World (San Francisco:
John Wiley and Sons, 2006), 185.
6. O’Leary, 13.
7. Chaleff, 216.
8. Ibid., 218.
9. Howard Gardner, Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 22.
10. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th edition (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2010),
232.
11. J. Richard Hackman, Collaborative Intelligence: Using

MILITARY REVIEW  November-December 2014

Teams to Solve Hard Problems (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc., 2011), 135-136.
12. Ronald A. Heifetz and Marty Linsky, Leadership on the
Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading (Boston:
Harvard Business Review Press, 2002), 101.
13. Ibid., 137.
14. Chaleff, 214-217.
15. O’Leary, 114.
16. Chaleff, 219.
17. O’Leary, 7.
18. Hackman, 135.
19. Sandy Kristin Piderit, “Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes
Toward Organizational Change,” Academy of Management
Review, 24(4)(October 2000): 790.
20. Chaleff, 211.
21. Ibid., 211.
22. O’Leary, 97
23. Ibid., 104.
24. Hackman, 127.
25. Chaleff, 209.
26. Ibid., 209.

103