Military Review

 

Publishing Disclaimer: In all of its publications and products, Military Review presents professional information. However, the views expressed therein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Army University, the Department of the Army, or any other agency of the U.S. government.

 

With All Due Respect

How to Foster Dissent in the U.S. Army

 

Lt. Col. Matthew Jamison, U.S. Army

 

Download the PDF Download the PDF

 
LT. Col. Dwight D. Eisenhower standing in front of a tank

After the closure of Camp Colt, Pennsylvania, in late 1918, Lt. Col. Dwight D. Eisenhower (standing in front of the tank) continued serving with the Tank Corps until 1922, when he left Camp Meade, Maryland (where this photograph was taken), to serve as executive officer for the 20th Infantry Brigade in the Panama Canal Zone. (Photo courtesy of the Eisenhower Presidential Library)

Professional discourse is not limited simply to writing and publishing articles. In fact, the presence of healthy dialogue and debate about military matters is key to critical thinking and supports the effectiveness of military units. However, this dialogue often does not happen organically. Instead, it must be encouraged in the form of a culture that supports dissent. This article addresses the importance of dissent, considers ways to dissent effectively, and offers concrete examples for fostering dissent within an organization.

Importance of Dissent

Just as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provides his best military advice to the president of the United States, military leaders owe informed and honest feedback to their bosses, whether in the context of national defense or internal military matters. Providing your best advice likely means challenging the status quo at times and offering alternative perspectives, which is critical for sound decision-making and planning at all levels. Dissent can play a vital role in ensuring that leaders consider all aspects of a situation before making decisions.

Cover of the Article 'A Tank Discussion'

While serving with the 305th Tank Brigade at Fort Meade, Maryland, then Capt. Dwight D. Eisenhower collaborated with other colleagues to develop new concepts for employment of armor in warfare. He attempted to articulate leading-edge ideas of speed-oriented offensive tank warfare through written articles but encountered bitter opposition from senior infantry officers, who considered tanks as having utility only in a supporting role. On publication of the article in the November 1920 issue of Infantry Journal, he was threatened with court-martial by Maj. Gen. Charles S. Farnsworth, chief of infantry, who instructed him to stop promoting concepts many senior leaders deemed heretical to the proper role of the infantry. The full article can be read online at https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p4013coll7/id/799/.

Dissent informs decision-making, offering a vital feedback mechanism to leaders. The on-the-ground commander often has a clearer perspective of available resources or the impact of a decision than the senior officer operating at the ten-thousand-foot level. It is his duty to offer that perspective, especially if it contradicts prevailing opinions. The more serious the issue, the more forceful the dissent should be. Once a final decision is made, however, subordinates must fully support the selected course of action.

Thoughtful dissent counters groupthink. Leaders who are surrounded by “yes men” will not be effective. Numerous historical examples demonstrate the negative consequences of failing to raise or effectively communicate dissenting opinions in the moment. H. R. McMaster’s excellent work, Dereliction of Duty, details the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s failure to “articulate effectively either their objections or alternatives” at the onset of the Vietnam War.1 Conversely, David Margolick’s “The Night of the Generals” addresses six retired general officers who spoke out against the conduct of the Iraq War, though they failed to do so while in uniform and in a position to affect change.2

Effective Dissent

The best way to dissent differs based on the context. When feedback is requested in a public setting, dissent can be provided publicly; otherwise, it may be best saved for private discussion. Regardless of how you choose to offer dissent, it is important that you separate any personal feelings from professional considerations. Professional disagreement is key to ensuring an ongoing healthy dialogue, while personal attacks encourage defensiveness and loss of trust.

  • Know your audience. Consider how your boss receives information. If your boss gets defensive, keep your feedback private; he or she will not want to be challenged publicly.
  • Do your homework. Be prepared to clearly articulate why you disagree. If you are unable to complete an assigned mission, explain the disconnect between available resources and mission requirements. Why are you unable to complete the task? What would work better and why? If you need more time, when will your readiness change?
  • Garner support. Group dissent can be powerful. When several leaders join to express their disagreement with a decision, it can prompt rethinking.

These same rules apply whether you are disagreeing with a supervisor’s decision or writing an article that challenges Army doctrine or conventional practices.

Dissent in Writing

It is a good feeling when you collect your thoughts, build a coalition, and get your boss to change his mind, driving change within your organization. However, the impact of your words can go much further. As the adage goes, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” As such, your ideas have greater impact as more people are exposed to them. Writing is the best way to get your message out and create a powerful, lasting impact.

Cover of the Article 'Changin the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations'

Reprinted in the November-December 2005 edition of Military Review, this article by British Brigadier Nigel R. F. Aylwin-Foster provided a blunt critique regarding what the author perceived as U.S. mistakes in the conduct of counterterrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan during the early phases of the Global War on Terrorism. The article provoked extensive spirited debate within the U.S military at the time and fostered intense internal scrutiny and attempts at productive change. Read “Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations” online at https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/PDF-UA-docs/Aylwin-Foster-Nov-Dec-2005-UA.pdf.

I have personally pushed back on the status quo in my own writing. When a teammate brought up an article by a senior leader that neither of us agreed with, I decided to craft a response. This article about the framing of officer experiences in the military was coauthored by a lieutenant general and several members of his staff.3 I recognized that I might need to tread lightly, but I also knew that my position was rooted in professional disagreement, not personal animus. I was in touch with numerous junior officers through frequent counseling and understood their concerns. I shared my perspective through a response in Military Review and received very positive feedback.4

In my most recent article on command declination, I raised issues and provided recommendations that might make some leaders uncomfortable.5 But this also generated valuable discussion and led to great interactions with leaders whom I had not known previously.

What can you take away from this for your own writing? I applied similar lessons as previously noted for effective dissent. I knew my audience and crafted my article to reach it; in the response article, it was the junior officers who wanted to feel heard from a “senior leader,” while the command declination piece addressed talent management concerns and was intended for those senior leaders directly. I did my homework and garnered support; my article on command declination incorporated research, interviews with senior leaders, and a survey of all air defense artillery majors and lieutenant colonels. With a 62 percent response rate, I was able to share analysis that clearly captured the considerations of that group. Shared at the unit level, my ideas led to a couple of good conversations. Shared through my writing, these same thoughts have driven much broader discussion and debate.

Encouraging Dissent

Cover of the Article 'Leveraging the Power of Loyal Dissent in the U.S. Army'

Maj. Thomas B. Craig provides a brief tutorial on what he asserts is the tradition and usefulness of loyal dissent in the military. Read “Leveraging the Power of Loyal Dissent in the U.S. Army” from the November-December 2014 edition of Military Review online at https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20141231_art016.pdf.

Unit culture is critical to encouraging dissent. The hierarchy inherent in the Army’s rank structure can discourage dissent and cause fear of repercussion if viewed as insubordination. It is incumbent upon leaders to create an environment that not only treats everyone with dignity and respect but also recognizes the value of diverse perspectives from soldiers of all ranks and levels of experience. Soldiers who are not comfortable in an organization will likely be unwilling to share their good ideas or differing opinions. As chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Randy George is taking steps to establish just this type of culture across the force, indicating a need to “strengthen our profession from top to bottom by building expertise through written discourse.”6 An environment that supports the sharing of diverse ideas and a willingness to improve will start to encourage dissent at the institutional level.

OK, so dissent is important; how can you encourage it at your level? It starts by increasing feedback mechanisms. Here are three simple ways to encourage dissent within an organization:

  • Bridge the rank gap. As a battalion commander, I started a Junior Enlisted Leadership Council in which a small group of highly motivated junior soldiers engaged directly with the battalion commander and command sergeant major. This forum provided them with an opportunity for mentorship and got them comfortable providing feedback on issues that were important to them, leading to new ideas that had a positive impact on the organization.
  • Ask for input. This sounds intuitive, but in a decision brief or similar venue, specifically ask each person what they think rather than issuing a general call for input. People are more likely to share their opinions when engaged directly.
  • Counseling and mentorship. Be clear about what information you want from subordinates and let them know how you will use it. I specifically told every staff officer that I counted on them to inform my decision-making. I also told every warrant officer that I saw them as a trusted advisor and that I expected the unvarnished truth from them. Those who provided it proved extremely valuable, and regular dialogue with them provided diverse perspectives.

Conclusion

While this broader edition of Military Review focuses on writing, fostering a culture that encourages dissent is critical. Military units benefit when individuals are comfortable providing feedback. Fostering dissent shows that all perspectives have value, encourages critical thinking, and helps leaders make better decisions. By promoting this behavior, more individuals will apply these principles in their writing along with their everyday interactions.

Notes

  1. H. R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty (New York: Harper Perennial, 1998), 327.
  2. David Margolick, “The Night of the Generals,” Vanity Fair, April 2007, https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2007/4/the-night-of-the-generals.
  3. Milford H. Beagle Jr. et al., “We Hear You!,” Military Review Online Exclusive, 27 March 2023, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/we-hear-you/.
  4. Matthew L. Jamison, “We Hear You, But You’re Wrong,” Military Review Online Exclusive, 13 April 2023, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/jamison/.
  5. Matthew L. Jamison, “Soldiers Deserve Outstanding Leadership: Examining the Battalion Command Crisis within the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery,” Military Review Online Exclusive, 3 May 2024, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2024-ole/soldiers-deserve-outstanding-leadership/.
  6. Randy George, Gary Brito, and Michael Weimer, “Strengthening the Profession: A Call to All Army Leaders to Revitalize our Professional Discourse,” Modern War Institute, 11 September 2023, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/strengthening-the-profession-a-call-to-all-army-leaders-to-revitalize-our-professional-discourse/.

 

Lt. Col. Matthew Jamison, U.S. Army, serves as the chief of missile defense policy for the Joint Staff J-5. He holds a BA from Hampden-Sydney College, an MA from the University of Texas at El Paso, and an MA from Johns Hopkins University.

 

 

Disruption Is the Key to Delivering the Army of 20xx article cover

 

Lt. Gen. Milford H. Beagle Jr. asserts that transformation is largely a mindset and behavior change among leadership teams that sets up organizations to thrive in a disruptive world. Read “Disruption Is the Key to Delivering the Army of 20XX,” Military Review Online Exclusive, at https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2024-ole/disruption-is-the-key/.

 

Back to Top

Professional Military Writing Special Edition