Monetary policymaking is conducted by committee, and divergent views can and often do exist. While this can be clumsy at times, such governance mechanisms have great strength in preventing institutions from lapsing into groupthink by ensuring that various views are heard in an environment that promotes better decisions and outcomes, and they help to preserve the central bank's independence and accountability.

Open dialogue and diversity of views leads to better policy decisions and is the primary means by which new ideas are gradually incorporated into our monetary policy framework. Thus, I believe diversity of thought is a sign of thoughtful progress. I have often quoted the famous American journalist Walter Lippmann who said, "Where all men think alike, no one thinks very much." I think it is healthy for the American public to know that we debate some of the same issues that those outside the Fed debate. Hiding such debate behind a unanimous vote does nothing to promote true transparency.

Given the extraordinary economic environment and the extraordinary actions taken, we find ourselves operating outside the usual and comfortable policy framework, with less consensus among economists about the right actions to take to promote sustainable growth and price stability. As a result, it is not surprising that debates about policy have been robust, with bright and talented people on every side. Thus, it should not be surprising — indeed, it should be reassuring — that debates within the FOMC are similar to many that are carried out in more public forums.

I stumbled upon a quote by the not-so-well-known French essayist Joseph Joubert from two centuries ago, but since I liked the quote, I thought I’d share it with you even if he isn’t a household name: “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

Debate serves to enhance the Fed’s credibility and transparency as an institution. We should acknowledge the debate as a healthy process that analyzes the costs and benefits of various policy choices and ultimately leads to more informed and well-thought-out decisions. Communicating the thoroughness of those discussions is a vital part of the accountability we owe the public.

I find this game of labeling people hawks and doves as being fun for the media, fun for the people who read the media. I don't find it useful in thinking about myself and the way I interact with the committee at all. I see myself as being somebody who's going to come in there and think about the theory and the evidence and make a judgment based on that.

The bar for dissent from the committee is going to be pretty high for me. But you know, in terms of the dialogue, I try to bring best available theory that I have, best available evidence and go from there.

...

I think that's very important for people to take away how the FOMC operates. Person X might be in there saying, 'Hmm, you know, you've been saying the pluses about this policy, but there are also some minuses we should be keeping in mind.' And that doesn't mean at the end of the day that that person, Person X, is going to vote against that policy. At the same time, if a voting member feels sufficiently strongly the policy is going in the wrong direction, that the committee is taking the wrong steps, they should, at that point, I agree, dissent and communicate those concerns publicly.

I don’t know. You’re injecting your view into a roomful of views and depending on how you argue your viewpoint, and whether it has merit or not, and I think that’s very important. And so if it has merit, yes other people may listen. … The job of the 17 participants on the FOMC is to give an honest view. I honestly believe every one of my colleagues does that. Now, they might do it more forcefully in a certain area because they want to draw the attention of the committee to that area. A “negative feedback loop” – I won’t mention the name of the individual – on the economy or in my case inflationary pressures that are building. So you might emphasize saying more than the rest.

I think every single person on the committee basically is pursuing the truth. It’s the only place in government you can do it. People don’t dislike you for it. When [Richmond Fed President] Jeff Lacker was dissenting last year, we’d sit down at lunch afterward and pat him on the back – “Good try, pal” or “I hadn’t thought about that” or “That’s an interesting viewpoint.” … There’s no enmity. And it’s an honest intellectual debate. I don’t think anybody’s trying to sway anybody else. I think they’re trying to just get what they feel out on the table. And it’s up to the group to decide if it’s valid or not.

…I think the market should look at what the group decides. Even if you have dissents. It’s what was decided as a group and what signals are being sent.

When asked whether dissents have a cumulative effect

Being a dissenter -- it's not like in politics where it's some awful negative thing. All of us are responsible and take very seriously the duties of inflation management.

From press Q&A as reported by Market News International.

Each member of the Committee is, by design, an independent free agent. While the will of the majority always prevails, each member must be prepared respectfully to disagree. As Darryl [Francis] demonstrated, the maverick, the dissenter, the sometimes-lonely voice in the crowd, plays a vital role in the continuing evolution of policy thinking and policy making.