Devil’s Advocacy —A Detriment In Group Decision Making
We have heard that every high-performance team needs someone called ‘Devil’s Advocate’ to keep things in check and balance the discussion.
Devil’s Advocate is the person on the team who takes an opposing point of view and brings up contrary evidence and perspective. He/she is more of a critique of the idea/solution presented in the meeting. We want a “No” person in every team!.
It’s widely believed that having a Devil’s Advocate during a meeting is essential for success.
Devil’s Advocacy is commonly encouraged in organization meetings in the name of constructive criticism, unraveling blind spots, or critical thinking. Experts said that a Devil’s Advocate improves decision-making as the person playing that role questions the team’s logic, assumptions, internal inconsistencies, and thinking process.
People portray Devil’s Advocacy as a powerful weapon against group thinking and decision by consensus.
Question Defaults — James Clear(Author of Atomic Habits) writes, “Dangerous lesson: If enough people say something enough times, then everyone else starts to believe it.”
Ray Dalio says, “On hearing any information, the first thought in everyone’s mind should be — Is it true?.”
Now, about Devil’s Advocacy — Is it true?
THE QUEST
Adam Grant in his book “Originals” throws a light on the topic —
We already saw that a Devil’s Advocate is a person who is asked to take up an opposing view in the team meetings. When people are designated to dissent, they are just playing a role. There’s a massive difference between a person believing in his idea/stand/opinion and a person simply playing that role.
A Devil’s Advocate cannot simply replicate the authentic behavior of Genuine Dissenters.
- Persuasive Arguments — People playing a role don’t argue forcefully or consistently enough for the minority viewpoint. On the other hand, people who believe in the alternate view come out with multiple ways to persuade people(Use visual, role-playing, prototype, audio, and other things). They present compelling arguments. Believing Dissenters target the emotional mind of listeners through their passionate appeal(The emotional mind takes most of the decisions).
- The Imposter — Studies show that group members are less likely to take Devil’s Advocate seriously as they know that he/she is simply playing an opposing role. People see the person playing the role of Devil’s Advocate as one who expresses ideas that are not his. They subconsciously perceive him as insincere. In several cases, the team members simply paid lip service to Devil’s Advocate.
Dissenting for the sake of dissenting is not useful — Charlan Nemeth
- The Downside of A Contrarian View — The goal of Devil’s Advocate is to find holes, biases, assumptions in the idea(presented) rather than searching for the truth or the best solution. It doesn’t bring the right kind of motivation for team members. Studies show that rather than pointing out the cons of the present idea, arguing for an alternative idea/solution goes a long way in helping the team move forward.
- The Unfortunate Reinforcer — Experiments show that the input of Agent Of Dissents was not enough in changing the minds of people. In some cases, team members saw their opinions as a threat to their identity. They began defending their ideas vigorously. Agent of Dissents’ arguments deepened the confirmation bias and further strengthened the beliefs/ideas of team members.
- The Psychological Safety — Research shows that in some cases, the opinions of the Devil’s Advocate have made people angrier, resulting in unresolvable conflicts. Observations indicate that team members experienced a threat to all fundamental psychological needs, while the dissent agents experienced threats to belonging and self-esteem. Most team members hated the person who played Devil’s Advocate. One person who played the Agent of Dissent role several times quoted, “When I enter the meetings, people give me a stare as if they are saying in their minds, “Here comes the party spoiler.” People perceived dissenters as someone who wanted to show their smartness to everyone in the room.
- The Innovation Killer — Several companies still believe that some version of Devil’s Advocate is critical to fostering innovation. However, role-playing dissenters are innovation killers. They focus on the flaws and worst-case scenarios of the idea rather than building on the positives. Sometimes, their views are anchored in the past. We have to understand that most of the newly formed ideas will be vague, poorly defined, ugly, might seem wrong or not practicable, and may not have all the details. If somebody sees the concept at that stage, they might conclude that the idea is not worth pursuing. Ideas need time to grow. Unfortunately, by poking holes or finding flaws, assigned dissenters kill the concept in the ideation stage itself. They stop people from moving the ideas forward through iteration, prototyping, and testing.
UNEARTH DEVIL’S ADVOCATES
Adam Grant says, “For effective meetings, don’t assign a Devil’s Advocate — unearth one.” It means finding a person within your team who truly believes in the minority viewpoint or an alternative opinion/idea. Otherwise, encourage people to spend considerable time studying and analyzing the opposing perspective. The more time they spend, the more interested they become.
Drive Engagement — When a person truly believes in the idea he is representing — his arguments reveal a sense of authenticity. Authentic ideas clarify and stimulate thoughts.
Authenticity earns respect from disagreeing team members. People start listening to dissenter’s viewpoints. The engagement improves — It tends to be absent in manufactured dissent.
Difference Of Depth — Several people believe that both believing and role-playing dissenters provide the same information. But that is not true. As we saw earlier, believers go deeper into the problem, spend more time, look at several details, and explore various scenarios. They learn a lot and become more thoughtful about the issue.
In many companies, people are encouraged to spend several days writing pages from the perspective of why a specific decision is wrong. Adam Grant writes, “The idea is that if you seriously think that the decision is wrong and go through that whole process, you stimulate your thinking, in a more divergent way. You start recognizing the downside as well as the upside.”
A deeper study also helps you find new ways to express your viewpoint.
Alternatives — Most teams think that a Devil’s Advocate will help them think about alternative solutions. However, Nemeth says, “It’s not true. Devil’s advocates don’t make you think about the alternative decision. Playing Devil’s Advocate does not have the stimulating quality one hopes for.” On the other hand, studies show that opinions/thoughts of believing dissenters can stimulate others’ quality of thinking.”
Psychological Safety — Studies also show that genuine dissenters make team members less angry than assigned dissenters. So, they help in creating a psychologically safer work environment.
12 ANGRY MEN
People often quote Henry Fonda's(Juror 8) character in 12 Angry Men as an example of Devil’s Advocate. However, he plays the role of Believing Dissenter.
Believer — In the opening scenes, juror eight alone votes for “non-guilty.” Other jurors are annoyed and start targeting him. When others ask him the reason, Juror 8 says, “I don’t know whether I believe his story or not. It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send the boy off to die without talking about it first.” The first few scenes indicate that Juror 8 firmly believed in his stand.
Respect, Humble — When Juror 8 voted non-guilty, some of the jurors showed annoyance. Even during the discussion, he faced their sarcastic comments. One of the jurors called him an ignorant man. Yet, he showed respect and humbly listened to their views.
The Meticulous Study —In the movie, it was evident that Juror 8 did an in-depth study of the case. He had thought about several possible scenarios before approaching other jurors.
In the meeting, he demonstrated his view through prototypes, role-playing, and presentation of product samples. He didn’t simply try explaining things through words. His actions/behavior appealed to others’ emotional minds. The research helped him. People began to see him as authentic and started respecting him.
Juror 8 stimulated quality discussions through demonstrations and opened their minds to alternative thoughts.
Strive for Right Solution — Juror 8 didn’t oppose for the sake of contrarian view but desired to find the truth at the end. In other words, he strived for the right solution. He sought answers than opinions. He asked open-ended, non-leading questions that could stimulate discussion.
Create Believing Dissenters —In one of the scenes, juror 7 got tired of all the discussion and changed his vote to not guilty. Another Juror responds angrily, “If you want to vote “not guilty” then do it because you’re convinced the man is not guilty. Not because you’ve had enough.” Juror 8’s acts began to bear fruit.
Juror 8 was a perfect example of Believing Dissenter.
CONCLUSION
For effective meetings, don’t assign a Devil’s Advocate. Find a genuine dissenter and give voice to him.
References:: Originals by Adam Grant, Podcasts by Charlan Nemeth.