Why bold leadership demands disagreement

Junior consultant Maurizio Cuttin argues the case for constructive dissent

In times of uncertainty, the role of governance is not merely to manage decline—it is to reimagine the future. Whether in politics or civic society, leaders face a choice: preserve the status quo or flip the metaphorical chessboard and start again. The latter is uncomfortable, risky, and often unpopular. But it is also sometimes necessary.

At the heart of good governance lies the principle of custodianship: a commitment to stewarding institutions not for personal gain, but for a wider public good. This principle is enshrined in the Nolan Principles of Public Life, particularly selflessness: the idea that holders of public office should act solely in the interest of the public. Yet selflessness is not passive. It demands nerve, especially when the path forward requires challenging or even confronting entrenched norms and inviting disagreement.

Disagreement as a governance enabler

Disagreement is not always a threat to unity; sometimes it is a tool for better governance. Fierce but constructive disagreement, when focused on ideas rather than individuals and egos, toughens decision-making. It enables leaders to test assumptions, refine policies and build team resilience. In a political climate increasingly shaped by online echo chambers and ideological silos – just look at the growing ideological divergence emerging between young men and women’s political leanings as an example – this kind of disagreement is rare.

To clarify, what I am advocating for is disagreement that sidesteps cancelling and deplatforming and values listening in the boardroom.

Okay, so people are finding themselves more entrenched in a cosy community of agreement, but why should public-purpose organisation leaders care? Well, we are witnessing a growing divergence in public thinking, as recent polling shows, voters in the UK (and across much of the democratic world) are hungry for something new and are willing to ‘roll the dice’ on radical alternatives.

This feels like more than dissatisfaction; to me it signals a craving for authenticity and boldness. The danger lies in misreading this moment. Leaders who surround themselves only with agreement risk missing the mark entirely. And this lesson is not confined to politicians—it applies across the public and third sectors. With growing scepticism about why funds are allocated to Project X abroad or Scheme Y at home, leaders must make their case boldly and unapologetically. That means stepping up and delivering a passionate defence of their organisation’s purpose.

Consider how the UK’s overseas aid budget was quietly slashed with limited resistance. Leaders of public-purpose organisations should take note and adopt a leadership model that invites dissenting views internally. Why? Because before every press release, media interview, or stakeholder dialogue, they need to be armed with the most refined and convincing arguments for why their cause matters and why their priorities are justified (and deserving of investment).

In an era where the world feels as unpredictable as a roll of the dice, every public engagement should be treated as existential to the survival – or growth – of an organisation or sector. Having bulletproof answers is no longer optional. The stakes are that high.

Burke’s little platoons

Edmund Burke’s concept of ‘little platoons’, the small, local affiliations that form the foundation of society, offers a timeless insight. These groups, when diverse and engaged, foster civic strength. But today, they are increasingly homogenous. We are self-siloing, choosing comfort over challenge and identity over inquiry. This undermines the pluralism essential to democratic renewal.

Governance, then, must resist this trend. Public-purpose leaders might benefit from seeking out voices that rattle them, perspectives that contradict their own, and teammates who will challenge their assumptions. This is not easy. It requires humility, openness, and a willingness to be proven wrong. But it is the only way to build policies that reflect the complexity of the world they aim to serve.

There comes a time when incrementalism fails. When the structures, strategies, and stories we’ve relied on no longer serve the public interest. In these moments, bold leadership means flipping the chessboard – not out of frustration, but out of necessity. It means starting again, with new rules, new players, and a renewed sense of purpose.

Reimagining (good) governance

To reimagine governance is to embrace authenticity over optics, vision over caution, and disagreement over conformity. It means asking not just what is politically feasible, but what is morally necessary. Far from being ‘sexy’, it is a recognition that the public is not asking for perfection; they are asking for courage.

Custodianship in this context is not about guarding the past. It is about building a better future, even if that means tearing down what no longer works. It is about leading with selflessness and governing with boldness. In many cases, it’s also about being willing to fall on your sword to achieve something that will outlive you. Or in the words of my brilliant GGi colleague, Aidan Rave, ‘at some point you will have to hand over the reins, so what do you want your legacy to be when that moment comes?’.

This is not about revolution; it’s about evolution.

If public purpose organisation leaders simply continue to manage decline, malaise will be their legacy. But by daring to reimagine – with fierce disagreement, principled leadership, and a willingness to start anew – a leader might just chart a course toward something better.

After all, governance thrives on diversity. Research consistently shows that coalitions with broader perspectives make more resilient decisions and are less prone to systemic failure. The bigger and more diverse the coalition, the more bulletproof it becomes. Or, in the more poetic words of Abraham Lincoln: ‘You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.’