Dissent is important to decision-making because it forces a group to test assumptions and consider alternatives before committing resources. Without dissent, groupthink, overconfidence, and poor execution are common (does this sound familiar?).
Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” describes how Lincoln purposely built a cabinet of men who had wide-ranging opinions – and he became friends with Frederick Douglass, even though he thought emancipated slaves should be sent back to Africa at the beginning of his presidency. Eventually, with Douglass serving as an honest witness, Lincoln came around; Black troops, uniformed and paid the same as white troops, were instrumental in winning the Civil War.
The Harvard Business Review notes that many groups make worse decisions precisely because they suppress dissent to preserve harmony, which is why disciplined disagreement is a decision-quality mechanism, not a cultural nicety.
Employees are less likely to engage in difficult conversations, voice disagreement, or participate fully in decision-making when they do not believe the environment is safe. That condition is called psychological safety: when it is present, employees are more willing to ask questions, raise concerns, discuss mistakes, and challenge prevailing views; when it is weak, silence, avoidance, and obsequious boot licking become more likely.
This is where inclusion work either proves its value or loses credibility.
At Fair360, inclusion results are not defined by sentiment or programming. They are defined by outcome. Across five years of benchmarking data from large employers, organizations with strong implementation of five inclusion initiatives show:
• 44% lower voluntary turnover
• 38% higher promotion velocity
• 55% lower promotion asymmetry
The mechanism behind these outcomes is that better inclusion systems increase the flow of useful dissent into decisions.
When employees avoid difficult conversations or choose not to challenge decisions, three things happen: decision quality declines, execution errors increase, and high performers disengage or exit.
The solution: Make sure you are using your inclusion initiatives as culture infrastructure.
Each initiative addresses a different failure point. Leadership Engagement: creates permission and accountability for dissent. Mentorship: builds the capability to challenge constructively. Sponsorship: reduces career risk associated with dissent. High-Potential Programs: embeds dissent as a leadership competency. ERGs: surface weak signals early
Organizations that implement only one or two initiatives typically see limited impact. Our data shows a clear inflection when multiple initiatives are strong simultaneously. (Learn more, email survey@fair360.com).
Companies should audit where dissent is required in decision-making (but not occurring) and align inclusion initiatives to decision processes. Inclusion should be structured as a human capital performance system tied to retention, promotion velocity, and decision quality. Inclusion initiatives should be totally inclusive of everyone; we all come to the table with different levels of preparedness for the corporate environment. Don’t let ignorance thwart your talent.
Bottom line – inclusion is a system for improving how decisions are made and who contributes to them.
References
Pew Research Center – Workplace and political conversation avoidance trends:https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/02/16/how-americans-view-workplace-issues/
Harvard Business Review – Employee silence and dissent behavior: https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-employees-are-afraid-to-speak
Edelman Trust Barometer 2026: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer
Boston Consulting Group – Diversity, inclusion, and performance:https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/diversity-inclusion-performance
McKinsey & Company – Psychological safety and leadership:https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/psychological-safety
EY – Workforce trends and leadership dynamics: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/workforce
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.
