Loyal vs Disloyal Opposition. - there will always be opposition, it’s just a question of it's loyal or disloyal opposition!
/By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.
One sentence summary: not only will there always be opposition, you want opposition. Done well loyal opposition improves the world, your company and yourself. If you don’t make provision for loyal opposition you will get disloyal opposition.
Summary:
Where did the idea of “Loyal vs Disloyal Opposition” come from?
I did a free online course from Yale called “Moral Foundations of Politics.” I HIGHLY recommend, so epic!
Yale Professor Shapiro purports in a country there will always be opposition, a well functioning democracy has ‘Loyal Opposition’, a poorly functioning country has ‘disloyal opposition’.
I really liked the concept of ‘Loyal vs Disloyal Opposition’ so I decided to try and transplant it for startups.
The words ‘Loyal vs Disloyal’ and ‘Opposition’ can be quite confronting.
For instance you might want to change it to be ‘Helpful vs unhelping different points of view’.
I thought about doing this, but overall I decided to use Professor Shapiro’s “Loyal vs Disloyal Opposition” language. Please read in a positive sum way!
Loyal vs Disloyal Opposition (full details below):
If someone is in opposition, it means they have points of contention. This is likely going to happen a lot, it’s less about whether or not you agree, but how you oppose
Opposition options:
No view
Views that doesn’t improve others view (disloyal opposition)
View that improves others view (loyal opposition)
Foster loyal opposition, foster opposition to be in the open.
You can’t always agree for everything, many times we need to ‘disagree but commit’.
Jingle: Loyal opposition = devine disagreement
How to foster Loyal Opposition (full details below):
Inviting others to try and ‘find holes’ in your ideas
Have fair process.
Legitimate decisions != right decisions.
Legitimate decisions = fair process.
Model vulnerability and fail openly (you are fallible and make mistakes)
Act magnanimously
Try to demonstrate being ‘loyal opposition’ for others.
Cohesion vs Correctness (an orthogonal view on ‘loyal vs disloyal opposition’)
“If you are pointed in the right direction it doesn’t matter how slow you are going you are making progress. If you are pointed in the wrong direction it doesn’t matter how fast you are going you are not making progress.”
It doesn’t matter how cohesive you are if you are pointed in the wrong direction, you’ll be dead at some point. We all have blind spots and ego distortions, IMO no one can know what correctness is by themselves. We all need others to help us figure out the correct way to point (ie loyal opposition).
Also, who says there is a tradeoff between cohesion and correctness?
You need to have mutually positive sum ‘helping each other point in the right direction’ aka correctness.
If you know someone is here to help you you have cohesion. This can mean them telling you are you pointed in the wrong direction.
Cohesion * Correctness = Loyal Opposition.
Disloyal Opposition = No cohesion * Correctness
Disloyal Opposition = No correctness
You need to foster people having a view on what is ‘correct’ and helping each other update their view on correctness. Not doing so is stupidness!
“The only thing you can be right about is being wrong.” The only question is ‘what percentage wrong you are’. To be less wrong foster loyal opposition inside yourself and others!
I'm not worried about being offended. I'm not worried about being told my idea doesn't make sense. I'm worried about not being told my idea doesn't make sense.
In short, I'm much more worried about correctness than I am about cohesion. However you can, and should, have both.
IMO, look for what you can learn, not what you can be offended by. Try to see what you can learn. Learning quite often opens new ideas, which means our views can shift over time. We can learn a lot from different views, we can only learn a limited amount from same views.
For fun:
IMO don't try to look if you can be offended or not by something. Try to see what you can learn.
IMO if you look as hard as you can to try and be offended you'll find something… That quite possibly wasn’t intentional.
Doing this means people become scared of saying anything.
I disagree with so much of the stuff I thought a year ago, I hope to disagree with much of what I think today in a year. I don't think my past views were offensive, I hope that I've learned something.
The only way I’ve found to not offend anyone is to not say or write anything.
What I find offensive is people being unnecessarily offended… having said this, best to try not to unnecessarily offend people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Details:
Facts vs Ideas
This is a breakdown of knowledge I like: there are Facts and Ideas
Fact = there is a right / wrong answer. Eg my coffee cost $4. Eg Duncan is 35.
Idea = there is no right / wrong answer. Eg How to make the best coffee? Eg How should Duncan spend the next 35 years of his life?
“Science progresses one death at a time.”
Physics example: there was Newtonian Physics (gravity etc) => Relativity => Quantum Mechanics => String Theory etc.
So even things like ‘Physics’ are ‘Ideas’. Ie can be updated again and again.
Some key ‘Idea’ questions:
What does it mean to live a good life?
What is the common good?
What is a quality friendship?
What is the best way to improve secondary education :) ?
So, an ‘Idea’ can never have a ‘right’ answer, but only ever hopefully better (upgraded) ways of explaining eg physics, eg how to live a good life etc. As such you want people to help you upgrade your Ideas.
Loyal opposition =
1. Engages with you to help upgrade your idea
2. Will talk with others about how to improve your idea when you are not there WITH the goal to help you and the idea (ie in a positive sum fashion)
Disloyal opposition =
1. Doesn’t tell you a possible way to upgrade your idea
2. Talks behind your back about why they don’t like your idea not with the intention to help you or the idea (ie in a negative sum fashion)
As an ‘Idea’ can never not be improved, people should have multiple different views on the idea (ie opposition).
Pluralism = the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles.
We want healthy pluralism AKA people with different views on Ideas that can talk with each other in a positive sum fashion.
You want to have multiple schools of thought that improve each other. “As iron sharpens iron, ideas sharepen ideas and people sharpen people.”
Be it in economics with: Keynesian Economics vs Neo Classical Economics vs Modern Monetary Theory etc
Be it in politics with eg: Parliamentary system (UK, Australia, Germany) vs Presidential System (US, Mexico). The major difference between these two systems is that in a Presidential system, the executive leader, the President, is directly voted upon by the people (Or via a body elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, and no other purpose), and the executive leader of the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, is elected from the legislative branch directly.
Be it for romantic relationships: monogamy vs polygamy
Etc etc.
“Everything works somewhere, nothing works everywhere.”
Direct instructions vs problem based learning
Teacher led learning vs student led learning
Having grades vs no grades
Etc etc
As much diversity of thought (aka pluralism) as possible IMO is totally key to good quality problem solving, aka Idea updating.
Loyal vs Disloyal Opposition:
Loyal opposition =
1. Puts forward different schools of thought for you to consider
2. Helps you see the areas where your way school of thought (model) is hindering more than it is helping
Disloyal opposition =
1. Does not accept there can be multiple schools of thought to approach a problem and is pushing their ideology
2. Does not point out where your school of thought might be lacking.
Blind Spots and Ego Distortions
We all have blind spots and ego distortions for how we see the world. By definition we can’t ourselves see them as they are ‘blind spots’ and ‘ego distortions’. We can only find ‘blind spots’ and ‘ego distortions’ if others point them out to us.
Not only is there always opposition, you want opposition.
Why will there be opposition? Because we all have blind spots and ego distortions meaning you will have a different view to others. Opposition = multiple points of view.
Why do you want opposition? Because we all have blind spots and ego distortions you only find out about them when people point them out to you.
Loyal opposition = will point out blind spots and ego distortions.
Disloyal opposition = lets you walk onto AirForce One with toilet paper attached to our shoe ;)
Whose job is it to foster loyal opposition? Everyone :)
Leadership lens
If leadership fosters disloyal opposition then leadership fosters the downfall of their company / country.
If you don’t have quality Ideas you’ll have bad outcomes.
“The first version of everything is sh1t.” Hemmingway.
Ideas are improved through Loyal Opposition.
If you have disloyal opposition in a company it’ll eventually cause disharmony.
Everyone lens
If you don’t agree with a government policy it is your civil duty to do something about it (eg protest, eg vote them out).
It's not: if you believe in the leader then you must follow the leader.
It’s: if you believe in the leader then you must tell the leader what you think… ideally in a positive sum way!
So, there will always be opposition (different points of view to Ideas). But not just this, you want loyal opposition to help improve Ideas, point out ego distortions and blind spots and fosters healthy pluralism. The only question is whether there is disloyal or loyal opposition.
Thoughts on how to foster loyal opposition:
Devil Undisqualified Decisions - inviting people to try and ‘find holes’ in your ideas.
“You have nothing to fear from the truth… but it doesn’t mean the truth won’t hurt.”
If your idea isn’t a good one, the world will tell you at some point. The sooner you find out the better. So try to foster a culture where in meetings you ask people to try and find holes in ideas.
The Decision Dichotomy -
Model:
1. Good decision * 2. Fair process => Happy outcome
1. Good decision * 2. Unfair / no process => Unhappy outcome
1. Bad decision * 2. Fair process => Happy outcome
Comment:
Fair process is totally key!
Legitimate decisions != right decisions
Legitimate decisions = fair process
What is fair process? See the blog :)
Modelling vulnerability and openly failing (that you are fallible and make mistakes)
People will ‘disagree but commit’ as long as you admit openly when you are wrong and try to examine why you have been wrong to not repeat the mistake.
Once a decision has been made, IMO it’s far more important to look for why it might have been the wrong decision, than why it was right. No matter how many things say it is the right decision, just 1 thing that saying it was wrong likely means that it is wrong.
Confirmation bias = the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Try to lean out of ‘confirmation bias’.
Act magnanimously: never biting / acting hurt towards someone for providing opposition.
“Freedom of speech is the master value because it is the value that allows us to update all other values.” Sam Harris.
It can be natural to have one’s ego hurt if someone is pointing out flaws in an idea you have come up with. However “Learning = Living. Denial = Dying.” TM DA :)
Provide loyal opposition to others
“Be the change you want to see.” Gandhi.
Do as I say… and hopefully do!
Sending around blogs like this.
The blogs are attempting to be cultural epithets.
Searching for truth. Truth is terrible, truth is terrific!
“It's not about if this feedback is right / wrong, but what can be learned from it.”
“It’s not about if this idea is right / wrong, but how it can be useful.”
You openly have a nobel mission for society (heart is in the right place) and demonstrate that your heart is in the right place.
People attach a narrative (why) to what you do. I’ve found it’s good to state explicitly your ‘why’ as much as possible and have people question not just the ‘what’ but also the ‘why’.
External vs internal opposition - just for a bit of fun :)
External Opposition = other people providing opposition
Internal Opposition = you providing opposition to yourself.
Loyal internal opposition
“The work required to have an opinion means you can argue against yourself better than the other side can.” Shane Parrish.
“I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do.” — Charlie Munger
“We all are learning, modifying, or destroying ideas all the time. Rapid destruction of your ideas when the time is right is one of the most valuable qualities you can acquire. You must force yourself to consider arguments on the other side.” — Charlie Munger
“The ability to destroy your ideas rapidly instead of slowly when the occasion is right is one of the most valuable things. You have to work hard on it. Ask yourself what are the arguments on the other side. It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state the arguments for the other side better than your opponents. This is a great mental discipline.” — Charlie Munger
“If your political views align 100% with one political party you are not a clear thinker.”
If your views align 100% with one school of thought you are not a clear thinker.
If you are only using one school of thought you are not a clear thinker.
You need to know what would be needed to change your view on an idea.
As a reminder, IMO all ideas can be upgraded. So you need to be looking to upgrade ideas.
If you don’t know what is needed to change your view then you will likely miss many opportunities to upgrade.
Worse still, you might think ‘there is nothing that could change my view on this idea’. This is being an ideologue.
“Don’t be an ideologue (wedded to an ideology). Be a pragmatist, do what works!”
“The only thing you can be right about is being wrong.” Aka that your idea can be upgraded.
“There are two types of people: those who don’t know and those who know they don’t know.”
IMO once you have a view on an idea you should spend 80% of your time thinking about the idea trying to see how you could be wrong / upgrade the idea.
Eg I believe 2020 Mustang has 2x+ instantly recognisable irrefutable dealmakers which should eventually means 80%+ market share. I now spend 80% of my time trying to see how this could be wrong. I do this by 1. Intuition: looking to see if things are off. 2. Qualitative: speaking to external teachers and schools. 3. Quantitative: if we don’t get 30%+ market share this year I’ll need to reassess if this hypothesis is true.
Disloyal internal opposition
You being your own worst enemy.
You don’t allow yourself to believe your ideas are valuable.
You don’t try to debate the other side of an argument internally.
You feel strongly about an idea and then subconsciously allow yourself to fit that idea into places where it hinders more than it helps. “Everything works somewhere, nothing works everywhere.”
Ok, enough!