Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 100

does not consist of continuous second-guessing, and it
is it never self-serving. Complaining is not loyal dissent,
and real loyal dissent is not about a subordinate’s fear
of change. It is about the good of the organization and
expressed out of genuine concern for the leaders.

Telling the Difference
Both loyal and disloyal dissent are present to varying degrees inside every Army organization all the time.
Both will naturally occur in military organizations
whether we acknowledge it or not, but their existence
does not mean an organization is broken or badly led.1
On the contrary, the presence of dissent is inevitable
because it is a normal human reaction to frustration
even among highly disciplined soldiers.
Sometimes dissent occurs as a result of the actions
of a toxic leader, or adverse working conditions where
members perceive little is being done by leadership to
remediate or assist them. The majority of dissent in
our formations, when it occurs, is not valuable loyal
dissent. It is usually the unproductive type and comes
in the form of a subordinate’s parochial resistance to
authority or change along with some cases of outright disobedience.2 Unproductive dissent commonly
occurs because some percentage of our subordinates
fear change or are just selfish and seek a way to resist
losing their position, privileges, time, or comforts. Most
successful Army leaders have dealt with and overcome
such negative challenges from time to time through
legal exercise of authority.
Loyal dissent, however, is markedly different and we
should learn to harness it to our advantage. Expressing
loyal dissent is risky to a soldier’s career as it potentially carries with it the penalty of estrangement from
the leader he or she cares about and ostracism by one’s
peers.3 Therefore, loyal dissent is not expressed by
selfish subordinates or those adverse to change. Instead,
it is selflessly undertaken by people who care deeply
about their organization’s purpose, its mission, and who
want to help their leaders. Moreover, it is undertaken
by subordinates who have a measure of moral courage,
are emotionally committed to the unit’s success, and are
perhaps concerned the organization may be heading in
the wrong direction. In expressing loyal dissent, they
have overcome their fear of becoming a lone dissenting voice because they are fiercely loyal to the unit’s
purpose and also to their leader. Those who undertake
98

this loyal and productive form of dissent may be among
those who truly care most for their organization. In
addition, these solution-oriented individuals often
have already earned positions of trust and responsibility with access and close proximity to their decision
makers.4
The dissent of subordinates who fit the profile of
loyal dissenters should be leveraged to a leader’s advantage, not simply counteracted like its unproductive
opposite. As leaders, we should pause for a moment to
determine the nature of the dissent within our ranks.
Loyal dissent is valuable. These dissenters are a valuable
resource available to Army organizations and leaders
because their contributions can help make their units
more efficient and potentially save leaders from making
mistakes that could lead to their own downfall or embarrass the organization.5 Therefore, these individuals
should be of special interest to smart military leaders
because they can be leveraged for their talents, ideas,
and dedication to make the organization better and
their superiors even more successful.

Why Some Subordinates Undertake
Loyal Dissent
When subordinates perceive an organization is in
decline, the late Harvard professor and Army veteran
A.O. Hirshman described them as having three choices. They could quit, which is not really an immediate
possibility for most soldiers in the Army. Next they
could outwardly feign loyalty while waiting quietly for
conditions to improve, which deprives both the organization and its leader of their advice. (We will call this
faking it.) Finally, they can openly voice their dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in an effort to
improve it.6 This final alternative, loyal dissenters have
concluded, is a far better alternative than quitting or
faking it, which does not contribute to the unit’s success
or immediate improvement.

Distinguishing Loyal from
Unproductive Dissent
There is a danger that leaders will conflate loyal
dissent with its opposite. Unproductive dissent is frequently manifest when subordinates merely complain
unproductively, as when they believe an organization
is in decline, or on the wrong path, without any intent
o r will to do something about it. Some, of course, can
November-December 2014  MILITARY REVIEW