Rethinking institutional reform, part 4: Organisational change norms, conformity, and dissent

Conformity rewards silence and punishes insight. In public institutions, clear-eyed dissent is often the first casualty.

Norms, conformity, and dissent in leading organisational change

Conformity masquerading as consensus is one of the most persistent and invisible forces shaping organisational life. It operates through expectation and unspoken agreements about what can be said, what must be ignored, and who is allowed to speak.

This essay, the fourth in the series, examines how norms emerge, how they hinder change, and what kind of leadership is necessary to preserve the space where dissent and clarity can coexist.

A fable

In a fable told by Idries Shah in Tales of the Dervishes, humanity is warned by the mystic Khidr that, on a specific day, all the water in the world will vanish and be replaced by water that drives people mad—unless it has been carefully stored in advance.

Only one man takes the warning seriously; he stores away a supply of untainted water and retreats into isolation. When that day arrives, rivers dry up and wells run dry. Soon, the waters return, but he discovers that those who drink the new water begin to speak, act, and think in ways the man no longer recognises. They are oblivious to any change, but when he speaks to them, they see him as disturbed.

At first, he resists. He continues to drink his stored water and clings to its clarity. However, the loneliness becomes unbearable. Eventually, he drinks the new water, joins the others, and forgets everything. His friends and family, noticing his behaviour now aligns with theirs, conclude he has been cured.

This fable is a story about conformity, perception, and the cost of seeing things differently. And in the lives of our organisations, it’s all too familiar.

The normalcy of norms

Shah’s parable reminds us that what we consider ‘normal’ is not absolute; it is socially defined. Once the majority changes its thinking, those who see things differently appear to be dissidents.

This idea is particularly relevant for public institutions grounded in norms of hierarchy and compliance.

In government departments, policy shops, delivery functions, and senior leadership teams, what is considered rational behaviour can quickly shift from being based on evidence to being driven by conformity. 

The norms of Robodebt were set and reinforced by leadership. Legality was sidelined, and questioning the scheme’s operation was professionally risky. Efficiency was prioritised over harm, and the focus on catching ‘welfare cheats’ justified toughness over fairness. Organisational norms, pressure to conform, and silencing dissent allowed a policy that was legally flawed, ethically questionable, and socially damaging to persist.

When leadership group norms shift, those who resist the prevailing mood are seen not as insightful but as out of touch or disloyal.

Over time, cultures evolve where unspoken rules govern behaviour, avoid hard truths, prioritise harmony over honesty, and don’t question the way things have always been done. Meetings turn into performances. Problems are rebranded as ‘complex challenges’, effectively delaying solutions.

And yet, when someone points this out, as Collen Taylor did in the case of Robodebt, they are ostracised. Not because they are wrong, but because they do not conform.

Literature is filled with characters who, like the man in Shah’s tale, see more clearly than others and share a similar fate. Tiresias, the blind prophet in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, told Oedipus the truth and was verbally attacked for speaking it. Simon in Lord of the Flies saw that the real beast lived within the boys themselves and was killed before he could explain.

Shah’s fable warns against conformity at the expense of insight; however, organisational life is seldom straightforward. Organisations are structured to resist change and are understandably cautious about the associated dangers of change. 

Why we conform

The pull towards conformity is cultural and psychological.

In the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrated that people will knowingly provide incorrect answers to simple questions to conform to a group. Later, Irving Janis coined the term “groupthink” to describe how highly cohesive groups can make poor decisions when dissent is suppressed.

Public service, with its tendency to risk aversion, career incentives, and political pressures, is particularly vulnerable to these dynamics. Organisational norms can arise that lead people to keep their heads down, not because they lack insight, but because they have learned that survival depends on conforming to these norms.

The hidden price of not conforming is isolation, withdrawal, and eventually giving in due to exhaustion. It’s simpler to give up on truth.

Václav Havel described this as the power of the powerless: those who see things clearly but must choose whether to speak out against the system or to survive within it. Donald Schön cautioned that institutions resist change not because of ignorance, but because they tend to protect their identity by silencing dissonant voices.

It is a decision that many will recognise.

What does this mean for leaders?

First, effective leadership isn’t about conforming to mainstream thinking; instead, it relies on questioning and encouraging others to do the same.

Second, leaders need to foster environments that encourage dissent. This involves valuing honesty over harmony and recognising that innovation rarely looks like comfortable progress; it frequently begins as heresy.

Third, psychological safety is not just a passing trend in wellness. The most effective teams aren’t characterised by unanimous agreement but instead by members who feel secure enough to express their opinions, ask questions, and admit when they’re unsure. 

Finally, leaders create a space for dissonance. The crowd isn't always wise, and not everything old is obsolete.

Seeing differently

The fable of the changed water serves as a cautionary tale about the influence of socially constructed norms. It raises an uncomfortable question: when the dominant culture shifts, how can we tell the difference between someone who sees clearly and someone who simply conforms?

Change and leadership are not just technical endeavours; they are social and cultural actions. They reflect shared assumptions about what is accepted, rational, and right.

Shah’s fable reminds us about the power of norms, the cost of dissent, and that conformity masquerading as consensus is not change.