INTELIGENCIA
ORI AND ROM BRAFMAN


A new bill making its way through the Russian parliament has raised more than a few eyebrows around the world. The Kremlinsupported legislation seeks to expand the legal definition of treason to include illicit secretive communication with nongovernmental organizations.

The Russian politicians claim that they are simply closing a technical loophole, but human rights proponents worry that the bill marks a return to the old ways - that the Kremlin is once again pressuring those who openly disagree with its policies.

But it’s about more than just human rights concerns. Squelching dissent - whether in government or business - carries serious negative consequences for the organization itself. All the Russians need do is look at the “you’re either with us or against us”policies of the Bush administration.

There’s a natural human tendency to avoid those who disagree with us. But this inclination can easily lead to organizational groupthink, the phenomenon in which individuals follow the group into extreme or irrational decisions. When everyone begins to agree and there are no contradictory voices, even the most ill-conceived ideas can take root.

Dissent offers a critical voice - and a critical tension - that helps preserve a healthy balance. But it does more than that. An organization that embraces dissent sends a strong message to all its members: it’s O.K. to introduce new ideas, question old ones, and have a real voice in the way things get done. In short, encouraging dissent empowers people who otherwise might hesitate to speak up.

While Russia is cracking down on opposing views, President-elect Obama is apparently ushering in a new era of embracing dissent. There is hope that this approach will help repair America’s international relationships.

Taking a historical cue from Lincoln, Mr.Obama has filled his cabinet with strongwilled people, many of whom have openly disagreed with one another, as well as with their new boss.

When describing the sort of people he would choose to serve in his administration, he remarked:“I want people who are smarter than me in their field and I want them to tell me‘no.’I want them to tell me when they disagree. I don’t need yes-men sitting around me.”

In a sign of the times, even Karl Rove has recently joined the choir of those lauding the benefits of dissent. Asked what advice he would give the new president, Mr.Rove - famous for enforcing “message discipline”in the Bush White House - offered that“forceful debate … plain speaking, straight talk, and dissent must be encouraged …”

While some leaders do consistently urge those around them to question decisions and policies, these are exceptions to the rule. More often, chief executives in both politics and business subscribe to the Kremlin’s approach.

As much as democratic countries like to celebrate dissent, it can be scary. Dissent challenges the status quo, increasing the level of uncertainty and chaos. Potentially good ideas come at the price of decreased stability. That’s why it’s only when a manager fully trusts the fabric of the organization, the people, and most of all his or her own sense of self that dissent can truly flourish.