Decisions in organisations provide them with meaning, i.e. one reduces complexity by deciding an alternative and another good alternative is discarded.
If you can observe in an organisation, that constant disputes occur in particular places, you must always reckon with the possibility that the chosen meaning ought to be reviewed. After all, it could be possible that an individual, a team or whole departments attempt to preserve an alternative option by having constant disputes. Often, the problem is that the decision-maker has, for personal or tactical motives, allocated the adopted alternative A to those who are stubbornly against it. Of course, such cases exist. Many people do not like to ‘lose’. If, however, you don’t make the effort to check whether the dispute lies in the not-wanting-to-lose, or whether the reasons for alternative B are very weighty, or were not sufficiently represented in the decision-making process, then damage threatens.
Organisations are dependent upon the fact that occurrences on the outside reappear as decision alternatives on the inside. An organisation can no longer react to something, which is not permitted to be spoken about.
For this reason, people who do not shy away from exposing the uncomfortable, the undesired, the prematurely discarded, or the things appearing on the horizon, are absolutely important for organisations. Too much harmony is risky.