Educating for Dissent As a Civic Responsibility

Journal of College and Character

Volume 4, Issue 6 2003 Article 2

Educating for Dissent as a Civic Responsibility

Geraldine Perreault∗

∗University of Northern Iowa

Geraldine Perreault

Abstract

A democracy needs an informed citizenry with citizens who are actively engaged in civic life. Fortunately, colleges have shown increased interest in leadership and in civic engagement. Educating students as informed followers and dissenters needs to be included as part of those endeavors. This paper presents a typology of followers to assist educators in helping students critically examine the roles they might take in an organization or in society.

KEYWORDS: civic engagement, society, democracy, citizenship, participation Educating for Dissent as a Civic Responsibility

Geraldine Perreault currently serves as the Director of Leadership Studies at the University of Northern Iowa.

ABSTRACT

______

"A holocaust stops or starts with every human being." --Rhode Lewin, NWSA conference, June 26, 1988

". . . ceding all power to the powerful is perilous." -- Elizabeth Janeway, Powers of the Weak, p. l05

Patriotism is never having to say you didn't know. --Stephen F. Cohen, Director, Russian studies, Princeton University, July 1991

______

INTRODUCTION

Civic engagement and an informed citizenry are important for the survival and flourishing of our democratic society. Discussion of the need for civic engagement has been pervasive and persistent over the last two decades or so (e.g., Astin, 2000; Beaumont, 2003), as has been discussion of the need for the development of leaders (e.g., Burns, 1978, 2003; Gardner, 1990). Educating students as informed followers and dissenters--in both organizations and society--must be included as part of these endeavors.

In educating for civic engagement, a quality and skill that needs discussion is the importance of dissent as a civic responsibility in a democratic society. The crisis generated by the September 11, 2001, tragedy has certainly shown how easily dissent can be quelled and the dangers to life and to civil liberties that can result. How quickly people have been willing to give up many long-standing civil liberties and the right to know what their government is doing in their name. The aftermath demonstrates the ongoing necessity for thoughtful dissent as a civic responsibility of citizens in a democratic society.

The question students need to ask is, "What are my responsibilities as a citizen of a democratic society?" This question can evolve into, "Where do I stand in times of a moral crisis?" and "When am I ethically obliged to dissent from my organization or society?" One way to approach these questions is to examine the various roles that followers/citizens hold in an organization or a society. For my classes on leadership, I've developed a typology of followers to help students critically examine the roles they might play in an organization or in a society.1 By analyzing and discussing these different roles, students might come to recognize that they could take a more active role, that they need to become informed, and that they need to carefully assess when they should follow and when they should express disagreement or dissent. Followers have immense power, but many followers are unaware of their powers and ability to make a difference. My assumption is that understanding of follower roles and powers will empower more followers to make their voices heard on issues that need to be addressed. In doing so, of course, they become leaders.

This article intends to assist educators in educating students/citizens about dissent by discussing what it means to follow and by describing different types of followers. First, followers are defined positively as those who are in general agreement with the leader and/or organization but who also express disagreement or dissent when the situation calls for it. Then, four categories of followers are discussed: Pseudo-Followers, True Followers, Pseudo-Dissenters, and True Dissenters. The Pseudo-Followers are those who only appear to be following. The True Followers are those who are in general agreement and committed to the leader or organization but also dissent when necessary; they fit my overall definition of followers. The Pseudo-Dissenters are those who only appear to be dissenting. The True Dissenters are followers who are in general agreement with the leader or organization but disagree on an issue or policy on the basis of principle as opposed to ego or a bid for power. A fifth category--The Exiter--is discussed also; these are people who are no longer followers, are no longer in the leadership relationship. Exiters emerge when their disagreement with their organization grows to such an extent that they feel compelled to leave the organization. These types and their subcategories are outlined in a chart on the next page.

THE FOLLOWERS

Followers are integral to the process of leadership, whether in an organization or in a society, yet the traditional conception of follower is a negative one of passive sheep and compliant subjects. That is not my view. In my model, to be a follower is positive. I conceptualize followers as people who in general accept the goals and practices of an organization or society. This view aligns with that of other scholars who consider both leaders and followers to be active participants in the process of leadership (e.g., Burns, 1978, 2003; Rost, 1991). As Rost (1991) argues, ". . . followers do not do followership, they do leadership. Both leaders and followers form one relationship that is leadership.. . . . Followers and leaders develop a relationship wherein they influence one another as well as the organization and society, and that is leadership.2 (p.109)" Being a follower, however, is not the same as having a position defined as a follower, e.g., a subordinate in a hierarchically structured organization. A subordinate working for a leader in a hierarchical organization may or may not be a follower. One can be a positional follower just as one can be a positional leader.3 A distinction must be made between actions a person carries out because the leader's request or command is accepted and actions carried out without acceptance of the leader's request. In the latter case, the person may be merely obedient; s/he may comply and carry out the.

TYPOLOGY OF FOLLOWERS

THE FOLLOWERS

The Pseudo-Followers The Uninformed Pseudo-Follower 1. The Pawns 2. The Resigned 3. The Conformists 4. The Prisoners of Society The Informed Pseudo-FolloweSr 1. The Abdicators (or knowing right but doing wrong 2. The Sabotagers

The True Followers 1. The Affiliatives 2. The Personalists 3. The Missionists 4. The Ambitionists

THE DISSENTERS/FOLLOWERS The Pseudo-Dissenters 1. The Permanent Rebels 2. The Conformist Dissenters 3. The Power Seekers 4. The Sabotagers 5. The Abdicator Dissenters

The True Dissenters

THE EXITERS assigned tasks but is not a follower (accepter) of the goals of the leader or the organization. The person is a positional follower; s/he has a position defined as a follower but is not a follower. In the leadership literature, a consistent theme is the dependence of the leader on the consent of followers. The leader's authority is dependent upon how much the followers allow, consciously or nonconsciously, thoughtfully or thoughtlessly. This dependence reflects the fact that followers have immense power, even though many do not recognize this fact. Ultimately, it is followers who determine who the leaders are; their overarching power is their power to decide whether to follow or not follow a leader. Chester Barnard in his 1938 classic, The Functions of the Executive, for example, talks about "the acceptance theory of authority" as follows: "The decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the persons to whom it is addressed, and does not reside in 'persons of authority' or those who issue orders." Others express similar views on leadership. For example, Korda (1984) believes that people "can only be led where they want to go" (p. 62). And Wills (1994) in Certain Trumpets discusses the importance and power of followers: "Followers 'have a say' in what they are being led to. A leader who neglects that fact soon finds himself without followers. To sound a certain trumpet does not mean just trumpeting one's own certitudes. It means sounding a specific call to specific people capable of response." (p. 14) Burns in his new book, Transforming Leadership (2003), goes even further and discusses how followers lead and empower leaders (e.g., p. 171).

In order to be "capable of response," followers often need intellectual discernment, persistence, a keen political sense, a deception-detector sensitivity, and psychological ego strength. Some leaders wield overt tyrannical power, but the more dangerous are those who wield power more subtly and manipulatively. As Greenleaf (1977) points out, "Most of us are more coerced than we know" (p. 42), and " . . . all leadership is, to some extent, manipulative. Those who follow must be strong" (p. 42). Part of the manipulation by leaders has to do with whether or not a leader provides accurate information, a necessary ingredient for followers, as will be discussed later.

Note that I say a follower "in general" accepts the goals and practices of a leader or organization, because a follower can be in general agreement with a leader or organization but still differ on one or more issues. My model not only leaves room for dissent but also insists on it. Part of being active in the leadership relationship means taking responsibility to voice one's disagreement when it exists. This will become clearer as I explain my types.

The Pseudo-Followers

Pseudo-Followers (false followers) are the people in an organization who share the characteristic that they look as if they are following but they are not following, that is, they only appear to do so. There are two major types in this category: The Uninformed Pseudo- Follower and the Informed Pseudo-Follower.

The Uninformed Pseudo-Followers

The first type of Pseudo-Followers are people who are generally uninformed, or indifferent, or uncaring, or inattentive, or all four. Although the reasons differ, these Pseudo-Followers have not informed themselves and have not gone through any critical process that leads them to make a decision to follow or not follow the leader or organization. Of course, they are de facto followers when a decision is made. The following four subcategories will be described: the Pawns, the Resigned, the Conformists, and the Prisoners of Society.

1. The Pawns:

Pawns4 have a long-term disposition toward obedience. This type of person has embedded within her or his psyche and emotional makeup what De Charms (1968) would call an external locus of control. Pawns are the classic victims, believing they are at the mercy of fate. The feelings associated with such a view of the self are helplessness and insignificance. Pawns feel like pieces--the pawns--on a chess board, subject to the control of external forces. When people have a negative definition of followers, they are really talking about Pseudo-Followers, especially those who fit this Pawn category.5

Pawns can be contrasted with "origins" (De Charms, 1968) who have an internal locus of control, that is, origins believe they can control events and are not at the mercy of others. They do not sit back and react to events; they are proactive and initiate. Interesting research supporting the importance of an internal locus of control was reported by Oliner and Oliner (1992) in The Altruistic Personality, a study of the rescuers of Jewish people and resistance fighters in Nazi Europe. The authors found that in the decision to get involved in rescue, an internal locus of control was an important factor, even more so than self-esteem.

Pawns fit the characteristics of a dependent personality described in Prisoners of Leadership by Manfred Kets De Vries (1989):

Dependent personalities lack initiative. They believe themselves to be at the mercy of events. Unable to assert themselves, they prefer a passive lifestyle, attaching themselves to others. They tend to abdicate responsibility. Instead, they search for an all-powerful, almost magical figure to take control. (p. 8l)

Psychoanalytically-minded theorists like Kets De Vries (1989) and Kellerman (1986) would argue a psychoanalytic explanation whereby some people search for a father figure whom they can admire and to whom they can submit. Kellerman says a strong leader provides father-like protection. Using their views, one could speculate that the attraction some people had to former President Reagan was because he conveyed a fatherly protectiveness. Others have discussed him in terms of "the politics of feeling good." He was able to make some people feel good, even when they opposed his policies. When these characteristics are combined with a belief in the authority of those in superior positions of authority, the Pawns have a dangerous tendency toward unquestioning obedience.

2. The Resigned:

The resigned are people who are simply too overwhelmed with personal problems to pay attention to anything else. They have a more internal locus of control than the pawns but they have given up. Unlike the pawns, the obedience or compliance of the Resigned is short term or temporary. They are resigned to "just doing my job" for the moment. They may be resigned for a number of reasons--ill health, little meaning in the job, poor job fit, overwhelming personal problems, lack of respect for a particular supervisor, or depression. Their focus and all of their energies are devoted to their personal situation, and little else receives attention.

3. The Conformists:

Conformists go along with what the majority is doing. People can conform for various reasons. One reason is that it is just easier to do so. But lack of information can be another reason. Scott Peck (1983) in People of the Lie has an interesting analysis that is relevant here. Peck discusses the Vietnam War and the Lyndon Johnson administration, and argues that "it would be a mistake and a potentially evil rationalization itself for us to blame the evil of those days entirely on the Johnson administration. We must ask why Johnson was successful in defrauding us. Why did we allow ourselves to be defrauded for so long? Not everyone was . . . . But why were most of us not aroused to ire or suspicion or even significant concern about the nature of the war?" (p. 242)

Peck blames this lack of being informed on "our all-too-human laziness and narcissism. Basically, it was just too much trouble" (p. 242). Interestingly, in an undergraduate leadership class discussion (Perreault, 2001), the view offered by Shannon Bonwell, one of the students, was "laziness." Peck's narcissism explanation is discussed in the next category.

4. The Prisoners of Society:

Some people are prisoners of their group or society. The Prisoners are people who for various psychological reasons are so emotionally bound to a leader or organization that they can be described as psychological "prisoners." They appear--even to themselves--to agree with the leader or organization, but their critical faculties have been so blocked by their psychological and emotional bonds or particular mindsets6 that they are unable to render a considered judgment.

Prisoners are cousins to the "Pawns" in their dependency but the causes differ somewhat. The dependency of the "Pawns" is more general; who the leader is is not important for the Pawns. The dependency of the "Prisoners" is more specific, due more to the psychological and emotional tie to the leader than to a lack of an internal locus of control. This bond can become very pathological, as noted, for example, by Carter Heyward (1984) in her analysis of the tragic case of Jim Jones:

"The most apparent problem was the manipulation of people by a demented leader. But the most basic problem was the willingness of the people to submit themselves totally to the authority of a leader--sane or insane, creative or destructive." (p.72)

Followers can be prisoners because of a particular mindset that allows them to see only what their group (organization, nation, etc.) permits. As Harrington points out, "most people see only what their times and culture permits them to see" (quoted in Hills, 1987, p. 2). Mindsets are able to not only block out information right in front of people but also thwart any inclination to move beyond such blindness to recognize that one's information may be limited and that it is necessary to actively seek out information and other views.

Peck's (l983) insights regarding the Vietnam War show how narcissism can function as such a mindset. His analysis of that war led him to conclude that the American people shared Johnson's narcissistic mindset and, therefore, they shared with Johnson the blame for the war: "Besides, we shared with Johnson his enormous large-as-Texas narcissism. Surely our national attitudes and policies couldn't be wrong. Surely our government had to know what it was doing. . . . And surely whatever type of regime our rulers and experts and Educating for Dissent government specialists thought was right for Vietnam must be right, for weren't we the greatest of nations and the leader of the free world?"

By allowing ourselves to be easily and blatantly defrauded, we as a whole people participated in the evil of the Johnson administration. (p. 243) Maccoby (2001) has a related point in his discussion of the effects of subordinates on narcissistic leaders. His view is that subordinates who feel helpless and idolize their leader "feed the leader's narcissism, which transforms his or her self-confidence into arrogance" (p. 210).

The Informed Pseudo-Followers

Unlike the first type of Pseudo-Follower (the Uninformed Pseudo-Follower), the second type is informed and attentive. These Pseudo-Followers have gone through a critical process and although they disagree with the leader or organization, they have chosen not to express their disagreement within the organization or to engage in public disagreement (dissent). Therefore, like the Uninformed Pseudo-Followers, they too appear to be following. Two subcategories are discussed: the Abdicators and the Sabotagers.

1. The Abdicators (or knowing right but doing wrong):

The Abdicators give up--abdicate--responsibility for their actions. Abdicators can be characterized as knowing right but doing wrong--they believe what is being done is wrong, but they comply and go along anyway.7

People give up responsibility for a variety of reasons. The classic works of Stanley Milgram (1974, 1977; Blass, 2000) on obedience to authority and Irving Janis (1982) on groupthink are worth recalling. Milgram's work shows the willingness of people to obey authority, even when they realize they are doing wrong. Different factors account for this willingness, including diffusion of responsibility in organizations, distance from the consequences of their actions, entrustment of responsibility to others, politeness, and lack of inner resources. About the lack of inner resources, Milgram (l986) explains: "Tyrannies are perpetuated by diffident men who do not possess the courage to act out their beliefs" (p. 137).

Janis (1982) in Groupthink discusses the factors that contribute to the suppression of dissent when an organization is making a critical decision. Janis refers to groupthink as a "mode of thinking" that occurs in a cohesive in-group when the group is so focused on seeking concurrence that it "tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action" (p. 192). This is especially true when Educating for Dissent the group shares the responsibility for needing to make a vital decision (p. 196). Note, however, that Janis' conception of "groupthink" differs from the common meaning of that term of everyone thinking alike. Rather, he is referring to the situation when people do disagree or have doubts but they censor their views, and the result is what Janis calls an "illusion of unanimity." Each person in the group thinks there is widespread agreement because those who have doubts have suppressed them.

2. The Sabotagers:

The Sabotagers are people who are out to derail a leader or organization. They are very well informed about the goals and practices of the leader and organization but they are in fundamental opposition, and they want to undermine the leaders and the organization. Motives for sabotage vary. One is that the leader or organization is considered to be a threat to the Sabotager's interests or values. In the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration (Moyers, 1990), for example, the people involved were well-informed about the Boland Amendment passed by Congress but they disagreed with it. To circumvent the Amendment, they set up their secret government to aid the contras in Nicaragua.8

A second motive is the familiar one of revenge. An employee is treated badly by a supervisor and in turn sets out to sabotage the supervisor. Note that this is not the same as "going postal." Sabotage is done in secret; the person being sabotaged does not know it is happening until its results become evident later. Even then, the identification of the Sabatoger may not be known.

A third motive is that of justice. An organization or society can become so corrupt or evil that a citizen comes to the conclusion that secrecy and sabotage are the only answers. One classic case here is Nazi Europe. As mentioned above, during the Nazi period in Europe, people risked their lives to rescue Jewish people and resistance workers. In a video that features interviews of people who engaged in rescue, The Courage to Care (n.d.), Irene Opdyke tells about how she hid a Jewish family in the house of a Major who was with the local Gestapo and for whom she was the housekeeper. The lives of rescuers and the lives of the people they rescued depended upon maintaining an appearance of compliance.

Although Sabotagers may come from within the organization, they may also be people who have been sent from outside the organization for the specific purpose of sabotage. When the stakes are high, organizations or governments may direct people to infiltrate an organization to try to discredit and bring down the leader or organization. I learned the phrase "agent provocateur" during the Vietnam War era. Agent provocateurs were the people sent in to disrupt the peace movement and discredit it. A recent article by Dan Eggen (2003) points out that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's CONTELPRO program "engaged in broad and questionable tactics aimed at monitoring and disrupting student activist groups" (p. 29). Eggen goes on to describe how the FBI agents "infiltrated leftist antiwar and civil rights groups with informants, tapped into radio frequencies to disrupt protest plans, stole membership rolls and compiled dossiers on student political leaders" (p. 29). Even student newspapers were targeted. The FBI "produced bogus student newspapers, one conservative and one liberal, to spread inaccurate information and sow dissension among student groups" (p. 29). One peace movement person recently (2001) mentioned that when someone was advocating violence, he knew they were not from his organization.

When people in an organization or society do not speak up, the silence is often assumed to be agreement with and consent to the direction being undertaken. The result of the behavior of Pseudo-Followers is that the leader and organization can be led to think there is widespread agreement. Instead, what they have is an "illusion of unanimity." People who do not speak up when a critical decision is being made bear responsibility for that decision.

The True Followers

The True Followers are people who are informed and who, in general, accept (follow) the ideas and practices of the leader or organization. If someone is uninformed, by definition, that person cannot be a true follower. True Followers are dependent on having accurate information. Given the amount and level of deception and outright lying in organizations and society,9 being able to obtain accurate information is a difficult responsibility and task. One of the most bizarre and tragic examples is the Johnson administration and the Vietnam War. People who supported the war were following Johnson and McNamara who did not themselves believe the war was winnable! Another example is that in the early 1990s, the fraudulent incubator story (Hart, 2003) was used to promote going to war against Saddam Hussein. In an appearance before the U.S. Congress, a young women known only by her first name of Nayirah testified that Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait in 1990 were throwing babies out of incubators. It turned out she was the daughter of the Ambassador to Kuwait and the story was untrue. However, this lie was perpetuated again in a 2002 HBO movie on CNN's coverage of the 1991 Gulf War, perhaps because it fit the renewed focus on Iraq, a focus which has generated its own series of lies and deceits (e.g., Media Advisory, 2003; Lack of . . ., 2003). Can you be a True Follower if you are following a leader or organization based on deceptive information? By the definition used in this paper, the answer is no. To be a True Follower, one's following of a leader must be based on reasonably accurate information.

True Followers, then, are informed, are clear on, and in line with the mission of an organization. They can also be characterized as "origins" in contrast to the "pawns" discussed earlier. They have an internal locus of control, and are actively engaged with the leader in the process of leadership, whether in an organization or in society. Four types of True Followers will be discussed: The Affiliatives, The Personalists, The Ambitionists, and The Missionists. Although in general agreement with the mission, they are distinguished from each other on the basis of the other needs and motives which affect their commitments.

1. The Affiliatives:

Affiliatives are in tune with the organization but have high needs for affiliation; they need a lot of attention and many opportunities for socializing. If the leader is focused only on the tasks, the Affiliatives will leave to find an organization with a similar mission but one that provides more time for social interaction and social activities.

2. The Personalists:

Personalists, as the name implies, are tightly linked to the person (leader) rather than to the organization. Although the Personalist is also committed to the organization and its mission, the Personalist is likely to leave when the leader leaves and to follow the leader to another organization as long as it is one in which s/he believes. If the organization is Greenpeace, for example, and the leader leaves to go to the Sierra Club, the Personalist would follow the leader to the Sierra Club. Such belief and commitment to one's leader is represented by one of General Douglas MacArthur's officers who said, "I'd follow that man anywhere--blindfolded " (quoted by Kets De Vries, 1989, p. 189). At first glance, this could sound like the Prisoner talking, but the distinction between the Personalist and the Prisoner is that the Personalist has made an informed and critically-analyzed decision to follow the leader.

3. The Ambitionists:

Ambitionists are committed to the mission of the organization, but the Ambitionist also views her/his position as an important step in her/his career plans and aspirations. The Ambitionist will leave if s/he thinks another organization might provide better opportunity for meeting those goals. For example, an Ambitionist working for Green Peace and whose goal is to be a U. S. senator or representative might leave for a staff position in the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.

4. The Missionists:

The Missionist is tightly linked to the mission of the organization, is passionate about it, and will remain with the organization no matter who the leader is. The Missionist would leave, however, if the organization changes its mission or if the organization or leader is perceived to be much less committed than the Missionist is. The mission is of primary importance. Because of their commitment, Missionists are often the ones most likely to speak up when they see the organization heading in the wrong direction.

In summary, True Followers are knowledgeable, their decision to follow is an informed one, and they are actively engaged with leaders in fulfilling the mission of an organization or in sustaining and renewing a society.

THE DISSENTERS/FOLLOWERS

Recall that the definition of followers is someone who in general accepts the goals and practices of the organization or society. Dissenters are followers also, that is, they are people who in general accept the organization or the society's goals and practices. But they disagree with one or more issues. Of course, disagreement may reach such an extent that a person no longer considers herself/himself a follower of a leader or organization, as will be discussed later in the section on Exiters. In discussing dissent, distinctions can be made between private disagreement and public dissent. Private disagreement is the formulation of a view that differs from the mainstream (for example, one's family, group, city, nation) but the view is not expressed in any public arena. An employee of a company or a citizen of a nation may critically assess a situation or policy and conclude that s/he does not agree. Coming to such a determination is one process.

Public dissent is a different process. After formulating one's disagreement, a citizen or employee has to decide whether or not to express that disagreement publicly. If s/he decides not to do so, s/he is a Pseudo-Follower as discussed above. S/he may, however, come to the decision that s/he has an ethical obligation to express the disagreement in a public way, either within the organization or to the larger public outside the organization. Such judgments about how to do this are complex and difficult, and deserve a separate paper. Suffice it to say that these decisions involve political, social, economic, and ethical considerations. Both leaders and followers need to note the different types of dissenters. They need to note, also, that not all dissent is the same and that behavior that appears to be dissent may not really be dissent. In this section, the differences among dissenters are explained, and they are discussed in terms of two major categories: The Pseudo-Dissenters and The True Dissenters.

The Pseudo-Dissenters

Like Pseudo-Followers, Pseudo-Dissenters give a misleading appearance. Pseudo-Dissenters are the people in an organization who share the characteristic that they appear to be dissenting. Although they look as if are dissenting, in actuality they are not in disagreement with the leader or the organization. They have other agendas that impel them to behave as if they were dissenters. Four subcategories are discussed: the Permanent Rebels, The Conformists, the Power Seekers, and the Sabotagers.

1. The Permanent Rebels:

The Permanent Rebel, because of a particular life history, rebels against all authority. The Permanent Rebel is the person who will object or find something to criticize no matter what is on an agenda of a meeting or what idea is presented. For this person, the issue at the center of controversy is not the real reason for the dissent; it is only a vehicle to assert one's stand against authority. Most of us have been in meetings whereby when this person starts to talk, there is a silent groan and people tune out. We have one on our faculty and it is amazing to observe his behavior (IF you are not his target!!!). It takes energy to continue to listen attentively. However, the danger for listeners who tune out is that they may also tune out useful suggestion that might be made.

2. The Conformist Dissenters:

Similar to the Conformist Follower discussed earlier, the Conformist Dissenter goes along with the crowd. They are uninformed and have not made a critical assessment of the issues involved in the dissent. Any protest, for example, will have principled, committed dissenters but will also have people who participate for other reasons. Some of these reasons are to socialize and meet new people, to have fun, or to join their friends who are involved in the protest. Sometimes a few join because there might be a risk of violence and that risk excites them. Perhaps "hangers-on" might be a broader term to cover some of the differences among the people involved in a protest. In an organization, you can find similar dynamics whereby people may join in someone else's criticism and dissent without analyzing the issues for themselves.

3. The Power Seekers:

The Power Seeker is the person who dissents because s/he is trying to score points with someone in the audience. This is probably the most common type of Pseudo-Dissenter, and the dynamic surrounding these dissenters is very prevalent in public settings.10 Politicians, of course, are very prone to this behavior. A politician for example, may criticize another politician on her/his position on an issue even when the politician holds the same or similar view. This is especially prevalent in political campaigns when the candidates' political differences are minimal. Of course, this dynamic or criticism that is not really criticism is not limited to the political arena.

4. The Sabotagers:

These are people who are out to sabotage a leader or organization. You will recall the Sabotager was also in the Pseudo-Follower category. The Sabotager can appear either as a follower or as a dissenter, depending upon which strategy is going to achieve the goal of sabotage. The Sabotager may advocate for a direction suggested by a leader if the Sabotager thinks it is a bad direction and will bring down the leader. Conversely, the Sabotager will dissent from a direction that s/he thinks might lead to success for the leader.

A Sabotager is different from a whistle-blower. Although whistle-blowers are often accused of sabotaging their organization, whistleblowing has a public aspect to it whereas sabotage by definition is secretive.

5. The Abdicator Dissenters:

The Abdicator Dissenter is in agreement with the leader or organization but goes along with the dissenters. Motives for doing so vary; motives can be fear of ostracism, concern about a negative mark on one's career record, public ridicule, etc. The Abdicator Dissenter differs from the Conformist Dissenter in that they (Abdicator Dissenters) are informed and disagree but do not express their disagreement. Sometimes a classroom or an organization can develop a climate of dissent (sometimes just griping) and people who do not share the complaints participate anyway. For politicians, partisan pressure may result in senators or representatives joining in a disagreement even when they are not in substantive disagreement. Leaders and followers need to determine when dissent is legitimate and when it is an avenue to some other goal. Being attuned to the context of a situation and the political dynamics can help with this analysis.

The True Dissenters

The True Dissenters are the people who are informed and publicly reject one or more of the goals and/or practices of the leader or organization. They are people who differ from the leader on the basis of principle, that is, they have a legitimate difference of opinion or facts or values from the leader or the organization. Although they differ on an issue, however, they are still in basic agreement with and committed to the leader or organization, which is why they are included in the overall follower category in this paper.

In becoming a True Dissenter, people take on the role of leader by providing a direction, in this case, a direction different from the leader or organization. Neither the leader role nor the follower role is a fixed role. These roles change from time to time, regardless of the title one holds or does not hold.

Note that it is important not to confuse the True Dissenter with the Permanent Rebel. When this paper has been presented at conferences, some people objected to the category of Permanent Rebel because they considered themselves to be Principled Dissenters who would then be labeled Permanent Rebels. The women who have featured so prominently in the news over the last year or so and were selected as Time magazine's "Persons of the Year" (2002/2003) fit well the description of True Dissenters. They were Cynthia Cooper from WorldCom, Coleen Rowley from the FBI, and Sherron Watkins from Enron. Watkins was Vice President of Enron when she became aware of the off-the-books arrangements that seemed to be backed only by Enron stock that had deflated (Morse and Bower, 2002-2003, p. 55). Watkins notes, ironically, that Enron use to hand out note pads with the following quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" (p. 56). Watkins was an employee who took the quote seriously.

Rowley, Special Agent with the FBI in Minneapolis, testified before Congress how she and her staff were suspicious of Zacarios Moussaoui, fearing he might be part of a scheme to hijack commercial jetliners, but FBI Headquarters ignored their requests to investigate him further (Ripley and Sieger, 2002-2003, pp. 38-39). Marion Bowman, the FBI chief who refused to let Rowley search Moussaoui's belongings, has since been cited for "exceptional performance" (Ratnesar and Burger, 2002-2003, p. 40).

Cooper, Vice President of internal audit at WorldCom, discovered problems with illegal corporate accounting. Interestingly, and pointing to the difficulty of having accurate information, Cooper obtained information about the accounting irregularities through a fluke. Another worried executive shared with her his concern that the accounting unit had taken $400 million out of his reserve account to boost WorldCom's income (Ripley, 2002- 2003, p. 46). From then on, Cooper pursued the problem, even though recognizing she might be fired for doing so. Reflecting the views of True Dissenters who are committed to their organizations, Cooper explains, "I'm not a hero. I'm just doing my job" (Ripley, 2002- 2003, p. 49).

True Dissenters also fit the category of Missionist discussed earlier. They believe in the leader and/or organization but they want their organizations to be better in some way. Time magazine (Lacayo and Ripley 2002-2003) refers to Cooper, Rowley, and Watkins as the "truest of the true believers" (p. 32). They really believed in their organizations and "When headquarters didn't live up to its mission, they took it to heart" (p. 33). The three women fit the characteristics of whistleblowers who have been the subject of research. For example, Glazer and Glazer's (1989) study of the motivations of whistleblowers found that whistleblowers were motivated by conscience, a firm belief in their organization, and a strong belief in individual responsibility. In addition, they had a long history of successful employment as well as some naivete about the potential response from the organization.

Discussion of the role of dissent in a leadership context is still quite rare, but its important is recognized by Warren Bennis (2001), a well-known scholar of leadership, who recently stated that the "new leader will encourage healthy dissent. . . " (p. 254).11 Leaders, especially at the higher levels, have a difficult time obtaining honest feedback, feedback that could help them avoid pitfalls. Too often most voices remain silent. In voicing their disagreement, True Dissenters take on important leadership roles for their organizations and society. Although often denigrated and treated like traitors, True Dissenters are a gift to a leader and to an organization. True believers in their organizations, these dissenters see what is wrong or needs changing and voice their concerns. In bringing attention to injustice, fraud, incompetence, or violation of human rights, they call us to act in accordance with our better selves.

This section has discussed a variety of dissenters to assist both leaders and followers in being responsible members of their organizations and society. Leaders need to be able to recognize that there are different types of dissenters in a group, and that some people only appear to be dissenting. As indicated above, because most of us do not like negative feedback, leaders need to remind themselves of the important role True Dissenters can play for leaders and their organizations. Followers, on the other hand, need to assess which type of dissenter they might be, that is, they need to assess their motives regarding a decision to dissent. Is their dissent, for example, intended to help the organization or is there some darker ego-centered motivation involved? Followers need to remind themselves of their powers as followers, and the important role of the True Dissenter in shaping organizations and societies toward more humane ends.

THE EXITERS

An unrecognized leadership dilemma for leaders and for followers is "When do I lead and when do I follow?" An even more unrecognized and related question is, "When can I no longer remain as a follower of a leader or an organization?" These questions apply to disagreement and dissent in general but are especially poignant and difficult when one begins to recognize that the discrepancy between one's own values and the organization's values has become quite wide. Such is the case with Exiters who have arrived at the conclusion that they need to leave their organization.12

The Exiters are an extension of the True Dissenters in that both are engaged in principled dissent from their organization. The Exiters take their dissent a step further and resign; their resignation is based on the fact that the differences between them and their organization or society have developed to such an extent that they believe staying would violate their conscience. In addition, in some cases they may hope their leaving will bring attention to changes that are desperately needed.

A number of examples exist; some are people who even gave up prestigious positions. One example is Peter Edelman, an appointee in the Clinton administration. He resigned as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services when President Clinton signed the new welfare law. He had fundamental disagreements with President Clinton about this policy, and he went on to write an article titled, "The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has done" (1997).

A second example is from the U. S. Olympics Committee (U.S.O.C.). Five officials, including the ethics officer, have resigned because of conflict of interest charges against its Chief Executive Officer (Sandomir, 2003, p. A1; Sandomir & Pennington, 2003).

A third example concerns what was then a potential pre-emptive attack against Iraq by the U.S. John Brady Kiesling (Editorial, 2003), a 20-year career diplomat submitted a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell on February 23, 2003. He was resigning, he stated in his letter, because he was not able to "reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U. S. Administration" (p. 28).

Exiters, like True Dissenters, provide a voice of conscience that may or may not be heard or have any effect. Perhaps Edelman could have had more impact if he had stayed; the question of the impact of staying vs leaving is an important consideration. But one has to weigh that potential impact from staying against the degree of violence of one's conscience and the possibility that the resignation may have an effect. Regardless, True Dissenters and Exiters provide models of inspiration and courage for many.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Educating students as informed followers/citizens, including dissenters, needs to be included as part of their education. Educating students about their various roles as informed and responsible followers and leaders in organizations and in society can play an important part in their education for civic engagement as citizens. Students can use the above typology to consider in which categories they find themselves and why. For example, regarding the U.S. decision to pre-emptively attack Iraq, students can ask whether or not they were an Uninformed Pseudo-Follower who was indifferent, or a True Follower who had explored the different facts and arguments and agreed with the U. S. President, or a True Dissenter who disagreed with the President on principle, that is, stated in some public way that s/he believed the U.S. policy on Iraq was morally wrong? A too-typical response by students (and adults) is that U. S. citizens have to trust their President because the President has more information than they do. People who do not inform themselves still carry responsibility for decisions that are made. "But I didn't know" should not be an excuse when egregious actions are discovered later. As Stephen R. Cohen, Director of Russian Studies at Princeton University, has said, "Patriotism is never having to say you didn't know." Everyone is both leader and follower at different times and in different situations. The follower categories are intended for use in educating students about their roles and responsibilities as both leaders and followers-- to assist students as leaders to be aware of which types might be in their group and the importance of the True Dissenter; and, conversely, to assist students as followers to recognize the powers they have and to assess which type of follower they are in a particular situation.

Followers have immense power. As leadership scholars have noted, leaders who hold positions that carry the power to coerce and punish may be able to issue commands but they may not be able compel obedience (Burns, 1978, 2003; Janeway, l981). Followers have the power to dissent and, ultimately, to withdraw their consent as followers. The follower role needs as much attention as the leader role. Barbara Tuchman (1984) in her book, The March of Folly, describes--depressingly--the folly committed by many leaders throughout history and concludes with an emphasis on followers: "The problem may be not so much a matter of educating officials for government as educating the electorate to recognize and reward integrity of character and to reject the ersatz" (p. 387).

Students can also study inspirational examples in the many inspirational books that are available. They can read about leaders, followers, and dissenters who lived lives of integrity and commitment to the public good. Some of these books are The Moral Architecture of World Peace: Nobel Laureates Discuss Our Global Future (Cobban, 2000), The Courage to Care (Rittner & Myers, 1989), Some Do Care (Colby & Damon, 1992), The Altruistic Personality (OIiner & Oliner, 1992), Business Ethics: Profiles in Civic Virtue (Liebig, 1990), The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of a Common Humanity (Monroe, 1996), Merchants of Vision: People Bringing New Purposes and Values to Business (Liebig, 1994). The list goes on.

Milgram (1977) in his classic experiment discussed the willingness of some people to continue to the end with the "shocking," despite protesting along the way that they couldn't go on--and then proceeding to do so! He speculates, "Perhaps our culture does not provide adequate models for disobedience" (p. 113). Books such as the above not only provide such models but, more important, help to develop the ethical imagination, our ability as leaders and followers to see beyond what is to what ought to be.

It does need to be acknowledged that not all dissent is ethical, as evidenced by the actions of the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma Federal building, and the participants in the Iran-Contra debacle. However, my viewpoint assumes basic goodness on the majority of people. It assumes, therefore, that if more people inform themselves, they will see wrongs that need attention and in the process take on leadership roles; as a result, organizations and society will become healthier and more humane.

Students/citizens are bound up in the future of their/our country, whether as leaders or followers. They need to be aware of their potential influence and power to make a difference, for it is citizens/followers who make and unmake leaders. And it is citizens/students who--in their lives in their organizations and in their society-- will shape and create our common future.

______

References

Allen, M. (2003, March 7). Bush's distaste for news conference keeps them rare. Washington Post, p. A20.

Astin, H., & Astin, A (Eds.). (2000). Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging higher Education in Social Change. Battle Creek, Michigan: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

Beaumont, E. (2003). Educating citizens and leaders: Learning how to promote political knowledge, skills, motivation, and involvement in undergraduates. Concepts & Connections: A Newsletter for Leadership Educators (National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs0, II(3), 5-8.

Bennis, W. (2001). The end of leadership. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 247-259). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Westview Press/Perseus Book Group.

Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage Books/A Division of Random House, Inc.

Bok, S. (1989). Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Vintage Books/A Division of Random House, Inc.

Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm. Mahwah: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Asssociates.

Brookhiser, R. (2000, April). The mind of George W. Bush. Atlantic Monthly.

Barnard, C. (1968). The Functions of the Executive (30th Anniversary Ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Cobban, H. (2000). The Moral Architecture of World Peace: Nobel Laureates Discuss Our Global Future. Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitment. New York: The Free Press/A Division of Macmillan.

Courage to Care. Alexandria, Virginia: PBS Video, n.d. De Charms, R. (1968). Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior. New York: Educating for Dissent

Academic Press. (Also Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.) Edelman, P. (1997, March). "The worst thing Bill Clinton has done. The Atlantic Monthly, 279(3), 43-58.

Editorial. (2003, March 14). Who do we say we are? National Catholic Reporter, p. 28.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On Leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Glazer, M. P. & Glazer, P. M. (1989). The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry. New York: Basic Books. (Reprinted in paperback by Basic Books in 1991.)

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hart, P. (2003, January-February). HBO recycles a Gulf War hoax. Extra!, pp. 6-8.

Heyward, C. (1984). Chapter 9: Looking in the mrror: A response to Jonestown. In H. Carter, Our Passion for Justice: Images of Power, Sexuality, and Liberation (pp. 69-740). New York: The Pilgrim Press. Hills, S. L. (Ed.). (1987).

Corporate Violence: Injury and Death for Profit. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield. Hunt, A. R. (2001).

"The greatest man Churchhill and Truman ever met. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 229-231). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Westview Press/Perseus Book Group.

Janeway, E. (1980). Powers of the Weak. New York: Knopf.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (Second Ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin College. Excerpt reprinted in 1986 as Chapter 32: Groupthink. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), Political Leadership, (pp. 327-346). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Kellerman, B. (Ed.). (1984). Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Prentice-Hall College Division.

Kets De Vries, M F. R. (1989). Prisoners of Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Korda, M. (1984). Chapter 5: How to be a leader. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 61-63). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Kroll, M. J., Toombs, L. A., & Wright, P. (2001). Napoleon's tragic march home from Moscow. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 209-228). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Westview Press/Perseus Book Group. Lack of skepticism leads to poor report on Iraq weapons claim. (2003, March 25). Retrieved March 27,

2003 from mailing from FAIR ([email protected]) at http://www.fair.org.

Liebig, J. E. (1994). Merchant of Vision: People Bringing New Purpose and Values to Business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Published in cooperation with the World Business Academy.

Liebig, J. E. (1990). Business Ethics: Profiles in Civic Virtue. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.

Maccoby, M. (2001). Narcissistic leaders. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 281-295). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Westview Press/Perseus Book Group.

Milbank, D. (2003, March 9). For Bush, war defines presidency: Response to Iraq reflects convictions. Washington Post, p. A01

Milgram, S. (1986). The dilemma of obedience. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), Political Leadership: A Source Book. (pp. 129-138). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.

Milgram, S. (1977). The Individual in a Social World. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.

Monroe, K. R. (1996). The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of a Common Humanity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Moyers, B. (1990). The Secret Government: The Constitution In Crisis (Second Ed.). Cabin John, Maryland: Seven Locks Press.

Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1992). The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe (Reprint ed.). New York: Free Press.

Peck, S. M. (1983). People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil. New York: Touchstone Book/Simon and Schuster.

Perreault, G. (2001, January 31). Class on Leadership Concepts and Practice. University of Northern Iowa.

Perreault, G. (1993). Toward a theory of ethical followership. In C. Langone (Ed.), Proceedings of Leadership and Service, (pp. 81-100). Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Fanning Leadership Center. Rittner, C., & Myers, S. (Eds.). (1989). The Courage to Care: Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust. New York University Press.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

Sandomir, R. (2003, January 18). 3 on U. S. Olympics Panel quit in dispute over official's ethics. The New York Times, pp. A1, B18. Sandomir, R., & Pennington, B. (2003, February 10). Latest crises may finally mean change For U.S.O.C. New York Times, pp. D1, D5. Time, 2002-2003. "Persons of the Year" issue.

Tuchman, B, W. (1984). The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Knopf. (Reprinted by Ballantine Books in 1992.)

Walsh, K. T., Samuel, T., & Cannon, A. (2001, June 4). A tyranny of one. U. S. News and World Report, pp. 16-18, 21-22.

Wills, G. (1994). Certain Trumpets: The Nature of Leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Footnotes

1My work on followers is based on extensive reading in the leadership literature and related areas as well as extensive experience with groups, social movements, and organizations over a 30-year period. An early version of my work on followers appeared in the proceedings of the Annual conference of the Association of Leadership Educators (July 14- 17, 1993, Executive Plaza Hotel, Chicago). See Perreault, 1993. 2Rost (1993) has since rejected use of the term "follower." Instead, he uses the term "collaborator." His view of followers (or collaborators) remains the same as reflected in the quotation. 3In a discussion (February 14, 2003) with John Burtis, Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Northern Iowa, he pointed out that I was talking about "positional followers," just as people talk about positional leaders. There are positional leaders who are not leaders, and there are "positional followers" (subordinates) who are not followers. 4See locus of control research by DeCharms (1968); Rotter (1971); and others. 5This observation came from discussion with John Burtis, February 14, 2003. 6The role of mindsets, of course, applies to both leaders and followers as Peck's (1983) description of Lyndon B. Johnson illustrates. Recently, the mindset of the current U.S. president has come under study. See, e.g., Milbank (2003) and Brookhiser (2003). 7We need to note here, however, the important insight of Kets deVries' (1989) in Prisoners of Leadership that mere compliance (and co-optation) if continued long enough, can evolve into believing (p. 127). 8Bill Moyers' book (1990) and PBS program, The Secret Government, is probably the single best short summary of the Iran-Contra affair. 9A quick read of newspaper headlines over the last few years provides ample evidence of this statement. But for a thorough conceptual analysis of lying and secrets, see two books by Sissela Bok: Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (1999) and Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (1989). 10The perspective of the current U.S. president on news conferences illustrates awareness of this dynamic. George W. Bush rarely holds news conferences for two reasons; one is his "distaste for the format" and the other is "his staff's determined message management" (Allen, 2003). According to one of the President's aides, the "president thinks that sometimes East Room news conferences are more about the reporters and the theater of the moment and less about the substance of the answers" (quoted by Allen, 2003, p. A20). 11Although leaders often discourage feedback (e.g., Bennis, 2001; Maccoby, 2001), an interesting example of one who encouraged feedback was an Army general--General George C. Marshall. Hunt (2001) relates that Marshall "had no use for yes men" (p. 230). At the end of his first week as Army Chief of Staff, "he summoned his top aides and expressed strong disappointment: 'You haven't disagreed with a single thing I have done all week'" (p. 230). 12The Sabotager discussed earlier may or may not be an Exiter. It would depend on whether or not the Sabotager remains within the organization or has left the organization