Devil's Advocate: How to Do It
This post was translated by AI from the original Norwegian. Read the original version
In my book "Better Decisions," I discuss the traps we fall into when making group decisions. There are many of them, and one of the measures often mentioned to avoid them is "Devil's Advocate." When I teach courses on group decisions, I recommend it as part of the "Balanced Decision-Making" method.
In short, Devil's Advocate works as follows:
When the group approaches a decision, one or more persons are assigned to step into the role of "Devil's Advocate." The person should challenge the position and arguments underlying the decision the group is leaning toward.
It's a common misconception that "Devil's Advocate" should be a contrarian who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. Instead, the person should be curious and ask questions that foster critical reflection.
Here are seven techniques all devils should have in their toolkit.
1. Ask insightful questions
If someone says, "We should automate customer service," you can ask, "How will this affect customer satisfaction?" or "What are the costs of implementing it, and are they proportional to the expected benefit?"
2. Evaluate proposals from others' perspectives
Are you considering rules for working from home? Take the perspective of different stakeholder groups. How does the issue look from the standpoint of the IT department, the salespeople, and management? Many are affected by the decisions we make, so it's easy to forget important stakeholders. What about the families of the employees?
3. Ask hypothetical questions to clarify problems
If someone proposes cutting the marketing budget, you can ask, "What if competitors increase their marketing budget? Will we then want to increase it again, or do we believe it's best to reduce regardless?"
4. Present alternative explanations or solutions to problems
Sales revenue has declined, but are the salespeople the cause? Could there be other parts of the sales process that explain the decline, or perhaps market fluctuations we haven't noticed?
5. Use "reductio ad absurdum"
If someone says "we should have digital meetings to save costs," you can ask, "Where is the limit for that? Everything becomes cheaper if done digitally instead of physically. Why shouldn't we also digitize the annual internal seminar and the payday gathering?"
6. Identify hidden assumptions
A newspaper once wrote that Ruter (Oslo's public transport company) had spent far more on ticket inspections than they had collected in fines. The story rested on an assumption that catching fare evaders is the only purpose of ticket inspections. But is that true? Obviously not. They're also meant to be a deterrent, and this effect is probably the most important one.
7. Show the downside of the proposal
"Outsourcing accounting services solves some problems, but gives us less control over costs and key operational data. Do we have a good enough overview of these consequences?"