Dear Bob ... How should my co-workers and I handle our department head, who doesn't seem to understand the idea of the "loyal opposition"? My boss isn't a native cube dweller. He had some early experience as a businessman and a failed entrepreneur. He's brash and intelligent, and has a way with words. If he sees something that doesn't make sense to him, he'll say so the first chance he gets. He'll say exactly wh Dear Bob …How should my co-workers and I handle our department head, who doesn’t seem to understand the idea of the “loyal opposition”?My boss isn’t a native cube dweller. He had some early experience as a businessman and a failed entrepreneur. He’s brash and intelligent, and has a way with words. If he sees something that doesn’t make sense to him, he’ll say so the first chance he gets. He’ll say exactly what’s wrong, and he won’t leave anything out. He doesn’t make an ass of himself, or embarrass other people publicly. You wouldn’t call him insensitive, just opinionated.His problem, and ours, is that the department head has a really low tolerance for dissent.She manages through consensus. Once she makes a decision, you’d better be part of the consensus in favor of that decision. Any opposition is met with an explanation of how strongly she feels about her decision. I’m tempted to say this is a male-female thing, that men do a better job of dealing with disagreement, but there are plenty of women who understand how to deal with conflict. And I suppose there must be some men who can’t handle it either.Anyway, what do you think we should do?– Loyal, but definitely dissenting Dear Dissenting …While the sense I get from you about the department head’s style is that it’s too harsh by half, I’ll say this in her defense: I generally recommend that leaders at all levels establish a guideline about disagreement, which is that it’s what you do before a decision rather than after it. This is, of course, a two-sided bargain. The leader has to encourage open discussion before most decisions are made (whether or not they’re made consultative or through consensus) and in return, everyone involved accepts the result once a decision is made that from that point forward, the subject is how to implement the decision and not discussing whether it was the right decision all over again.The alternative is continual second-guessing, which can paralyze an organization. And consensus decision-making is expensive enough without adding ongoing dissent. The definition is, after all, that everyone agrees to it, even if they don’t completely agree with it. There are those who have the idea that consensus means you go along when you like it and abstain and complain when you don’t. This gets you into dangerous territory – the place where you get your way or you don’t play. Put yourself on the other side of the table and ask yourself if this is a good idea.Every decision worth making has more than one answer that can work. That doesn’t mean the decision can be to choose more than one answer. Eventually you have to pick a path and commit to it.Unless and until, that is, new information comes in that says it’s time to take a fresh look at things. It’s the new information that’s the key – and it can’t take the form of, “Here’s the new information: I still don’t like it.” – Bob ——– Technology Industry