Dr. Earl R. Smith II

admin says:

59 Responses to “How do you deal with professional ‘Devil’s Advocates’?”
1.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm e
Kyle R Maxwell: A former colleague of mine used to keep a question on his whiteboard:
“I understand the problem, but what are you doing to help me solve it?”
Identifying weaknesses or counterpoints is fine, but if we’re trying to fix or plan something then the devil’s advocate should be expected to come up with alternatives or solutions based on the issues noted.
2.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm e
John O’Connor: Two possible straegies I guess
a) Pretend to be on the opposite side to what you are on and the Devils Advocate will side with the position you really believe in,thank him for putting you right and leave it at that
b) Take a devils advocate opinion as an opportubnity to look at aspects you may not have considered
3.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:30 pm e
Chris Baugh: Robert Allen has in interesting animals metaphor in his book, “The One Minute Millionaire.” Comparing personality types to animals:
Hare is speedy
Owl likes the overview
Tortoise wants to be sure it’s safe
Squirrel likes to run around and collect nuts
Put them together:
http://www.oneminutemillionaire.com/tools/hots_meeting.asp
Everyone brainstorms.
Owl picks best ideas.
Turtle and Squirrel identify potential obstacles. (This is where you put your Devil’s Advocate to work!)
Hares brainstorm ways to overcome the obstacles. Some of the ideas are harebrained schemes.
When obstacles are resolved, all plan the launch for rapid Squirrel implementation.
It’s cute but I think it also has some wisdom.
Explain to your Devil’s Advocate that you want to go through a new problem solving process that reduces the risk of failure. (This will appeal to him or her.) Your process has these steps: 1. Collect brainstorming ideas without judgement, to reduce the risk of overlooking a potentially valuable next step. This means no Devil’s Advocacy yet. 2. Define the important criteria, filter out ideas that don’t match the criteria, and look for potential problems to overcome. This is where you hope the Devil’s Advocate will feel free to speak up with their very important contribution! 3. Agreement on the good-enough implementation that people can do for now, focusing on what could go right, yet with a sharp eye out for potential problems that can be solved early – where again, your DA can help you.
The DA is optimistic enough to believe that with enough attention, problems can be averted. That’s important, but avoiding flat tires and staying out of accidents is necessary but not sufficient to provide a comfortable trip!
And then, point out that you want “let’s poke at this for potential holes” to be used within the context of this problem solving approach – not as a reflexive response to everything.
If necessary, agree that you’ll reserve your own optimistic rainbows and pots o’gold for the brainstorming session!
4.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pm e
Jeffrey Parks: I usually welcome this behavior when it forces me to sharpen my reasoning and rationale for a particular program or decision.. and when the questioner has expertise in the field and can recognize a good answer when they hear one.
It can become problematic when the questioner lacks the technical knowledge to ask cogent questions or understand the response. You don’t want to be viewed as “I’m the expert and you’re not”. I’ve faced this kind of questioning in a roomful of non-experts before, and what can be a relatively benign line of questioning quickly becomes a rout.
My strategy for dealing with this scenario is to literally break it down and compartmentalize .. try to reduce the size of briefings to “need to know” or top-heads sized groups.
When pegged by a non-expert in the midst of the general staff meeting, however, I try and acknowledge the question (and the questioner) while requesting the opportunity to answer it in length and detail in some kind of breakout session.
Good luck .. I had just this sort of situation arise recently, and it can feel like the showdown at the OK Corral..
5.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pm e
Teresa Fisher: I actually use these people. I bounce the idea off of them first, get the various views of it that I may have missed. To their own detriment, though, they are rarely included in the actual proposal.
6.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm e
Jeremy Matters: There are two types of criticism: true negativism and constructive critique.
If your devil’s advocate is a just being a general nay-saying nuisance, it might be time for an intervention during your next meeting. People who are counterproductive in order to feed their own egos must be corrected as quickly as possible. This kind of behavior can be very demoralizing.
However, it frequently happens that a person like this is a system-watcher. Some people just have a natural instinct for finding holes and hacks and “arbitrage opportunities.” Imagine how valuable his insights might be to a competitor, and see how they help you.
Try to be objective about the situation and really examine whether the person is a detriment or if you simply need to receive criticism with a little more aplomb. It could be both.
My short answer:
Have you considered an informal lunch? You should buy.
7.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm e
David Lazar: Depending on what is expected to be accomplished being a ‘Devil’s Advocates’ can be a good or bad thing. Often when people are speaking with someone who has a need to understand everything about a specific suggestion/solution, playing ‘Devil’s Advocates’ is an important function. Just because we both agree with a solution does not mean we are correct. Have we really thought it out enough? Did we look at every angle? If you are making a suggestion and the solution does not need to have been implemented yesterday some discussion and in-depth understanding is good.
Here is an example from my life. I happen to be an entrepreneur. I have worked on a project for 6 years. When I meet with potential investors, and they like my idea, they still ask many questions to discredit the idea. What they are looking for it that I have thought every angel out and if there is anything I can’t answer to them, I will find out and get back to them. They may even know some answers but need me to understand them. They did not have to think it out fully so they don’t even know if their answer is correct so they will attack it as much as is necessary. In this case ‘Devil’s Advocates’ is good since I know at the end of the day my idea is good or I find a flaw in it become millions of dollars are spent.
‘Devil’s Advocates’ is a bad thing when it stops emergency measures, decisions that must be made now with the best answer we have right now because in 5 minutes the correct answer will not make any difference. In those cases ‘Devil’s Advocates’ creates a total loss and it pointless.
If you have someone playing ‘Devil’s Advocates’, ask them straight out, what they want to achieve. If they have a good answer continue it if they don’t have a good answer then argue with them about the need to play the game, then at least you have something that you disagree with and you can come to a solution sooner.
8.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm e
Tarek Foda: I came to the fact that this is one of the most interesting behaviors that attend the supreme round table.
It creates an environment of “What if”, as it always make you doubt things. It helps in creating backup plans and assists the Management team to manage diversity in a new approach.
Having the Devil’s advocate where you work; is by all means healthy, as long as it is constructive. By this I mean that this person should understand their role in the organization and that whatever they bring to the table is and should be for the benefit of the team.
9.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm e
Matthew Liptak: I see these types as looking at the glass half empty and being very negative about teamwork and anything that doesnt go there way. A pessimist that doesnt think up new ideas or outside the box, more how they can walk around complaining for the sake of complaining.
10.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm e
Tim Reilly: I ask them to list as many issues as they can in 5 minutes, then spend 3 minutes to assign then to one of three categories: critical, questionable, or trivial. I agree to work on the critical issues with them, assign them the task of ferreting out the questionable issues, and ask for group consensus on the trivial.
Typically, this works, as the devil’s advocate is not a fan of taking unnecessary work to research true non-issues.
11.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm e
Gerald Lo: I try to condition my expectations.
What are the very worst things that could happen?
If I take a position or advance an activity, it would be an oversimplification to deny the possibility of a professional and organizational risk involved.
Therefore, an objective infernal advocacy may simply be a rhetorical exercise, a constructive “what-if” professionally challenging me to articulate a sustainable response.
“Did you think of this?” is seldom a bad question; frequently, I may have a suitable response.
Whether the questioner is engaging in a Socratic dialogue or simply a chronic parrot of the logical damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t double bind school of thought, I feel it incumbent on today’s professional to at least be able to respond to the challenge with a cogent and substantive answer.
This ability to articulate “why” and “what if” may come in jolly handy in any case when confronted by colleagues, superiors, the government, town planning boards, the CEO, the Pope, Mike Wallace or your Mommy.
It is up to the individual to determine whether the questioner is in danger of dragging the discussion into paralysis by analysis, in which more time is devoted to debate than to meaningful progress.
It can sometimes be helpful to develop a workable exit strategy, which can range from having anticipated the likely risk discussions (they do tend to follow a pattern in my experience, and are not impossible to study) and preparing a Powerpoint presentation outlining a risk management strategy, to winging it (not always a sustainable plan, from where I sit), to yelling (I personally don’t have the energy for this one all the time, but know some folks who like it) to faking an epileptic fit.
To me, the truth table consists of just four possible questioners: an objective or benevolent questioner who really wants to know what the plan is; an objective questioner who is trying to communicate via this “Devil’s Advocate” question that your little enterprise is, in fact, doomed; a questioner whose limits to personal vision, experience, native cunning, education, temperament may be less than admirable who does not ask with any malicious intent; and the very same who asks with murder in the soul.
Your worst case reduces to two good cases (the ones in which the Devil’s Advocate question is sincere), or the Good Guy who is trying to tell you something (which is not the end of the world, as the communication might be considered a good thing), or the Bad Guy who means harm.
Only if the Bad Guy is smarter and scarier than you, this questioning might constitute cause for alarm.
If you are receiving your salary and not in actual physical or spiritual danger from endless but pointless questioning, I suggest that you rejoice in that they are paying you what they pay you to talk or just listen.
Throwing in a compliment once in a while or ejaculating, “By golly, you’re right; I never thought of that!” can leaven for you an otherwise uninspiring session.
If there may be potentially fatal consequence from the 25% of the time that someone more capable than you means you harm, take comfort that most LinkedIn users do not work in industry sectors where actual assassination is still actively practiced. There is an excellent job search feature here on LinkedIn.
If by chance you end up in those places where life is cheap and there are no Ten Commandments, consider that they might kill you, but they cannot eat you. At least without thoroughly cleaning and cooking you.
12.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm e
Jeremiah A. B. Locanas: Sometimes it can be a good thing to foster discussion/ideas/options… But if it’s used primarily as a self-defense mechanism, then it’s not productive at all.
13.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm e
Robert Fornal: There is a friend that my wife and I have that fits this description perfectly … an attorney; imagine that.
I have learned to enjoy it and to play with the arguments, just to see the response.
14.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pm e
Russ Somers: The dictionary definition you quote gives two sub-sets of devil’s advocates. They must be dealt with in different ways.
The first – argument for the sake of argument – isn’t interested in productivity. I view that response as a hurdle to be overcome as expeditiously as possible. The exact response depends on the person, their position in the organization, etc. I can’t shut down a senior VP quite as quickly as a junior analyst, but in either case it’s important to do so in a respectful manner that doesn’t leave others in the room afraid to voice other, possibly more valuable, critiques.
The second type – to determine the validity of the cause or position – is valuable to me. I’m not smart enough to consistently come up with proposals that have no downside or risk to manage. This type of DA helps anticipate objections from the customers or sales team and identify weaknesses in the proposal or gaps to be filled. My response there is usually “Great point – team, how should we address that concern?”
15.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm e
Serge d’Arnault: An amusing pattern seems to occur.
-The technical people tend to like it as it fits very well in their work environments.
-The sales/GM tends to look at the benefits of such a person within constraints i.e. use this to our advantage.
-The recruiter views it purely as a nuisance as it doesn’t fit in the parameter of a job discription.
I would suggest looking at Jeremy Matters response again and follow that route..
16.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm e
Kadena Tate-Simon: Dr. Earl. Great question!
Some relationships constantly drain your energy, in both obvious and subtle ways. DAs will exhaust you or deter you from your path to living a fulfilled life
What works:
Listen to the points being presented
a. If point is something I overlooked- I ask questions so that I can overcome objections
b. If point is something being discussed so that DA can hear the sound of his/her own voice – I thank them for the contribution and excuse myself
What doesn’t work
Entertaining dialogue with individuals who are not solution oriented.
Negative people are toxic – so try to deal with them in limited doses.
A great resource that helped me is the book Toxic People: 10 Ways Of Dealing With People Who Make Your Life Miserable: by Lillian Glass
17.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm e
Marcie Schorr Hirsch: As management consultants, our firm encounters “Devil’s Advocates” with some frequency; we’ve also had clients ask about how to deal with them when the “DA” is a co-worker. There are multiple reasons folks may take this stance—a desire for attention, resistance to change, (poorly disguised) anger, etc. Most of these underlying motivations demand an audience to satisfy the DA, so they are especially likely to raise their objections in front of a group. Because we are frequently coming in cold to a situation, we will often not know the source of the behavior, so we just deal with it on a behavioral level, considering the desired outcome and the specifics of the argument.
A good way to begin is by communicating respect for the DA. “Your thoughts on this are intriguing. Thanks for speaking up.” This tends to diminish any one-upsmanship or other negative interpersonal dynamic going on. Depending on our read of how intense the DA;s emotions are, we may add something like, “It sounds like you have some passion around this issue! Let’s use that to help us work it.” The purpose of this sort of comment is to take the passion displayed as resistance and redirect it toward a positive resolution.
Next, we like to engage the objector on “our” turf by reframing the issue to one on which we think we can make headway: “Let’s leverage your thinking: If you were to argue the position opposite of the one you took, how would you make THAT case?” That gives the DA’s energy somewhere to go, gives the DA an audience (which (s)he likes, and allows him/her to think about the issue in a new way, which may or may not convert him/her. But the group will appreciate that the objector has been pressed to articulate the pro position, and the DA being the one to state it makes it even more valid.
After that, we’d look for ways to suggest that the DA has added good value to the conversation. If possible, we’d announce that we appreciate everyone’s thinking on the issue in question, and take the discussion under advisement. We’d allow a “cooling off” period (length depends on situation, of course, but any distance helps) before communicating an answer to the group.
This methodology allows the group to observe the process of resolution so THEY feel validated, doesn’t pander to the DA but does typically diffuse the intensity of the objection.
18.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm e
Jay Hamilton-Roth: My suggestion is to simply ask for what issue is “underneath” the question. Oftentimes, the “Devil’s Advocate” has a deeper need that you need to flush out.
19.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm e
Timothy Fearnside: If the “devil’s advocate” is indeed interested in determining the validty of the cause or position, then my advice would be to consult with that person early in the process, listen to what she/he has to say, and build the concept from there, taking any valid issues or concerns she/he may have into account. What you don’t want to do is consult the devil’s advocate late in the game, after the concept has been fully developed, time and energy has been invested, and/or commitments already entered into. At that point, her/his comments will be viewed negatively by all involved, and anything of value she/he may have to add may be difficult or impossible to implement.
General counsel in virtually any organization would likely tell you war story after war story about business people in their organizations barreling headfirst into one project or another, in rash of unbridled enthusiasm, with nary a whiff of thought about such matters as risk, insurance, legality, program administration, prior contractual commitments, necessary licenses or approvals, registration of trademarks or trade names, etc., etc.
If the lawyer is asked to simply “sign off” at the end of this process, without any prior input or involvement, there are sure to be problems. If, however, she/he is involved early on, issues can likewise be addressed early, without significantly interrupting the business flow (and, often, in a manner which adds considerable value to the project). I imagine the same would be true with respect to other “devil’s advocates,” if indeed they have valuable insight and/or ideas.
Of couse, all good in-house counsel understands that their job is to help their clients find solutions, not erect barriers to progress. So, too, should be the goal of any “devil’s advocate” within the organization. If the individual simply argues for argument’s sake or adds nothing of value to a project, she/he should be dealt with in the same manner as any other employee who is ineffective and/or disruptive.
20.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm e
Vivek Bagal: I tend to like to have at least ONE but no more than TWO REAL DA’s (devil’s advocates) on a fair sized team. There aren’t too many thinkers that can look for holes in their own ideas, so you have to depend on them to ‘argue for the prosecution’, as it were. It is important, however to establish CONTROL over the meeting, team, or environment. If you are the one in charge, then you have to steer the boat.
Based on the question above, you are basically looking at someone who has no real interest in moving forward in the group. If that is the case – the best bet is to address that issue quickly and completely. Usually drawing back to the same ‘devil’ to be the first one to come up with the solution, or at least the start of the solution.
DA’s are dangerous to ignore, primarily because, more often than not, you are looking at a very elementary complaint.. something that escapes everyone else’s attention. These are the kind of things that can bring an plan, a company, or even an empire down.. (think attacking Russia in the fall…. ) So no matter how the argument may seem trivial, address it and mark it off your list.
What doesn’t work is ridicule and ‘blowing off’ the DA. In fact – that is a great way to start dissension among the ranks. That in turn can sour the group, sometimes irrevocably.
21.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm e
Karl Garrison: I agree with folks that say a devil’s advocate can be very helpful if they know what they’re talking about and are honestly trying to help or if this is a deliberate part of a review process, but that’s not the kind you’re talking about.
In a social setting, it’s often somewhat entertaining (just before it becomes annoying) because some folks really enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing and don’t really care what the answer is. It generally doesn’t bother me much there because I can just leave or dismiss what they say since it doesn’t matter.
At work, the good news is, almost all your peers will be frustrated with this guy as well. The bad news is management will often be impressed with them and encourage them to attend more meetings. In fact, I worked a government contract where the government client brought in people and explicitly tasked them to play devil’s advocate. It was fine at first, but quickly got out of hand and the client actually said ‘it’s ok “John”, why don’t we just let them continue?’
One strategy I’ve found effective is to pre-brief them the day before. Walk through your slides, get their comments and (maybe) incorporate a few. When you give the briefing, you can recognize their points by adding in qualifiers (like ‘most of the time’ or ‘in most cases’ or ‘usually’) and visually acknowledge the devil’s advocate with a glance or nod. In general, they’ll only speak up at this point for items they really think are important.
For a particularly obnoxious or unhelpful person, their manager should both recognize the problem and directly talk with them. This behavior will discredit and ultimately damage the devil’s advocate if they are not aware that others think they are an idiot or noone wants to work with them.
If I’m presenting to a client, it can be quite dangerous to also invite a devil’s advocate to attend from my side. I’ve attended briefings where our own people started questioning our presenter and it really undermined our own credibility. It mildly helped the individual reinforce a trusted relationship with the client, but this was more than offset by the loss of confidence by the client in the larger team. He was let go a few months later because the problem continued.
If the client brings a devil’s advocate (or if he’s senior management), it gets pretty dicey. If you feel the client really appreciates the questions, there’s not much one can do, although gently reminding them of the time and politely asking if you want to continue to take questions or finish the material is often enough of a hint. Alternatively, you can ask to finish the briefing and setup a separate meeting with the devil where you promise to address all his concerns. The advantage work working with their devil is that if you can turn them around, they can often become your biggest advocate and the client will really trust their judgment since they weren’t in cahoots with you from the start.
22.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pm e
Mark Torr: I think that to answer this question you need to know if this person is doing it to just be disruptive (i.e. is against you and any idea you have) or if they are trying to make sure that you have thought about all possibilities including the opposite one to where you are.
If the second one then the best way is to diffuse it before it comes up by showing you have explored all the options and then explaining the rationale behind the one you have selected. Any “Devils Advocate” move then has to deal in assumptions that might be incorrect, and why, or an explanation as to why another idea is better. If you get to this constructuve dialogue then it is my belief that ideas will be more well thought out and exercised causing organizations/departments/teams and individuals to flurish.
If the behavior is destructive then you need to work towards identifying and eradicating the source of that destrucive nature as fixing the symptom still leaves the cause to manifest the symptom again and again.
23.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pm e
J.D. Falk: Sometimes this behavior is borne of nastiness and negativity, as you (and most of the other answerers) are assuming. But sometimes it’s from long experience — especially in technology security & related fields. There simply is no way to put a positive spin on a statement such as “if you do that, we will get hacked and our customer information will be posted on the internet and it will be very very bad for the company.”
It’s up to you to see past the negativity and decide whether or not the person is making a valid point. Often, they are.
Many experienced managers get this wrong.
24.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm e
Rich Kostro: Good question and some interesting answers.
One way that’s worked for me in the past is a modification of an old facilitation technique – you white board all the answers.
Say you’re reviewing a draft presentation with your team and all of you (including the Devil’s Advocate) are in a room together. You should assume the position of a facilitator (meaning you avoid stating your own opinion and focus instead of helping other better express what theirs) and then you write down everyone’s thoughts on a board where everyone can see it. Just like you’re brainstorming.
This has two effects. One, many Devil’s Advocates suffer from a feeling of not being heard. By writing their perspective on the board, along with everyone else’s, you are acknowledging their perspective. This alone is enough to move them from the disruptive to the constructive column. Second, by “facilitating” you have removed yourself from the immediate fight, allowing you to ultimately state the “consensus opinion” when you finally do speak at the end. This is especially powerful when you are in change of the group, because without doing any sort of overt power-play, you’ve expressed your authority as the ultimate decision maker and yet overtly acknowledged everyone’s contribution in helping you get there.
I’ve done this often and it works well. But also keep in mind what everyone else is saying. Devil’s Advocates are good for business… the trick is directing their energy, not silencing them.
25.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pm e
Guido Everaert: Deal with it. When i worked as a consultant on an assignment within IBM, i had a contact who invariably took the position of undermining my proposals. Whenever i failed to find solutions, i knew that there was a weakness in my strategy or recommendation. So it was just a signal i needed to work harder or think sharper. All the rest is waste of time…
26.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pm e
Jerome Jewell: Some of my clients have found a way to convert this behavior into a catalyst for better decision-making and thus, a competitive advantage.
They have created the role of “Designated Devil’s Advocate”, an assignment which rotates across multiple members of the team. The assignment requires that the person consistently refuse to settle for group consensus, by asking the “annoying” questions aimed at uncovering:
- hidden assumptions
- hidden opportunities to see beyond the obvious
- the tendency toward GroupThink or complacency
- prematurely discarded alternatives
- half-baked concensus (”so we can go home before 6:00 pm”)
- lack of thorough analysis
By rotating the assignment, we prevent any individual from being branded a troublemaker with a “bad attitude”. Now everyone can serve as a “troublemaker”(with a good attitude)..
This approach has varying results of course, depending on factors such as the maturity/self-discipline of the participants and the degree of openness within the team.
If the person you’re thinking of is a valued contributor, or a potentially valuable contributor, you might want to consider using this approach. I’ve seen it transform the “difficult” employee into an enthusiastic leader who leads the quest for better questions. It’s not magical, it just produces results, changes perceptions and improves the way teams think.
27.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm e
Sheilah Etheridge: I often play devil’s advocate and I do so to ensure that both sides of an issue are considered. It is quite often the case that people get tunnel vision and they are so gung ho about something that they never consider the other side of the coin. No matter what the topic there are always 2 sides to the situation.
28.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm e
Chris Browne: I often try to engage in this…
If the proposed solution is adequate, then it should be able to withstand my small challenges. If it isn’t, then either it needs to be fixed, or, if it can’t be, it perhaps needs to be discarded.
Buildings and bridges need to be designed with enough redundancy that minor stresses (or the first year’s concrete weakening from the salt laid to clear snow from winter roads) will not destroy them. In contrast, software seems to be so vulnerable that if a bird were to perch on top of a pinnacle, the whole system could topple over.
A serious problem with un-challenged systems is that they may not even document what their limitations are. If I challenge the functionality, it may be AOK for the answer to be “No, we intend not to support that, and we have now documented that we don’t intend to support it.”
This approach is commonly known as the Hegelian dialectic (even though it is more derived from Kant); it takes the approach:
- Start with a thesis, an intellectual proposition;
- Look at the antithesis, the negation of the thesis;
- Solve the conflict between thesis and antithesis by reconciling the truths they have in common.
If your thinking processes aren’t up to coping with methodologies from the 18th century, then it is surely futile to imagine that the organization is up to considering more modern methodologies…
29.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm e
Leon Kotovich: There are so many good answers already. Techniques I often use with Devil’s Advocates that tend to exhibit destructive reluctance:
1. Disarm. Acknowledge that what they say is important.
2. Make them feel the pain. Turn the tables and ask, “How would the customer appreciate your approach”? In this case, the argument was centered around selecting an approach to build new, complex functionality in a software product.
3. Make it real. Ask, “How quickly could you deliver this functionality using your approach, how would you test it, how would you upgrade existing customers, are there any additional risks”. Diplomatically – yet with enough pressure from the customer’s point of view – have them go through the implementation experience during the discussion.
4. Own your own idea. Suggest, “Well, I think it’s a great idea. Why don’t you take the next 2 days and develop a protoype that embodies all your ideas and present it to the team”.
Two or three days after the meeting, I leave a copy of “Dealing with People You Can’t Stand: How to Bring Out the Best in People at Their Worst”. One of my most difficult Devil’s Advocates became a new person after reading this book.
30.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm e
Dan Ogden: Preparation is the name of the game here.
Let’s say you have a project you’re about to embark on that requires their buy-in — bring the concepts to your DA first. Ask them what problems they foresee, and what would address those problems. Once the comprehensive list of obstacles has been established, figure out which are insurmountable and determine next-best (achievable) courses of action.
After all the theoretical issues have been addressed, soft close your DA with something along the lines of “So, if we address all these issues, then the project would be a winner in your mind?”
Begin your project, keeping the DA informed along the way — when new obstacles arise, ask for guidance on how the DA feels such obstacles would be best overcome.
When the time comes that your DA would normally engage in their hypothetical counterpoints, they’ve already been covered.
Simply, get the DA to tell you what their issues are while there is time to circumvent them, rather than after you have taken action steps.
31.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm e
Melanie Stevens: I often position myself this way in interacting with others either in a group setting or individually. It helps me to determine whether or not someone has truly thought something through, or to what extent they have analyzed the issue. I may not agree with the position I am taking, but if I am in a situation where someone may have considered what I am presenting, thay will hopefully respond and it helps me to eliminate it as a possibility. If it is a group setting, there may be others in the group that have the same question but are hesitant to speak up. It appears that you view this type as somewhat of a nusance, but they may be helping the idea to progress to a more well thought out solution or resolution.
32.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm e
Sergio Coelho: Have you ever heard of The Six Thinking Hats? I have used it successfully in meetings with “complicated” people! I will not explain the method to you but I advise you to check out the link! Here’s a preview:
“The de Bono Hats represent six thinking strategies, as identified by Edward de Bono. He considered human cognition and thought to be of several types, approaches, or orientations. He theorized that of these approaches, most people used only one or two of the approaches and that people developed thinking habits which in turn limited people to those approaches. de Bono believed that if the various approaches could be identified and a system of their use developed which could be taught, that people could be more productive in meetings and in collaborating within groups and teams by deliberately using the approaches.”
33.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm e
Dr. Shaun Jamison: Model an active, open, and diplomatic way of expressing critical thought yourself. That sets the bar for the team.
Clearly communicate expectations. What is the meeting for? If someone is off task, reiterate the purpose of the particular meeting and offer to meet privately. This helps them decide how much time to dedicate to the issue and leaves you open to feedback while proceeding. If the meeting was to gather feedback, then being the devil’s advocate is valued. I had a devil’s advocate whose tone of voice and phrasing implied the assumption that management wasn’t doing its homework. That required some private discussion around asking questions more neutrally. Feedback is welcome, but one should be sensitive to the anxiety of coworkers when raising negative issues.
34.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm e
Walter Groth: There is this type of people who love to be the devil’s advocate. They are just like the movie critics, it’s their way to draw attention to them. You could also call them “energy-suckers” since they are literally sucking the energy of other people. However, that only works if the other people are not aware of that and start to argue with them thus fueling the fire. So don’t argue, just listen to them and then move on. Pretty soon they will run out of energy. It is also helpful to recognize what type of people they are and there are actually four basic types: Intimidators, Interrogators, Aloof, Poor Me. And they all act differently based on very unique patterns.
35.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm e
Adam Saslow: My advice:
Overall, be thankful you have this person, but learn to manage their obsession. They will point out things you might otherwise miss (after all, you’re high on life because you’re running with the best, most fool-proof idea EVER, right? ). I find most Devil’s Advocates are covering the project’s tush, rather than being counter-productive sociopaths . Besides, If you don’t even identify a risk, you can’t hope to manage it with foresight.
HOWEVER – Eventually, one who counter-points EVERYTHING will make you see red. When it’s time to close the topic for the sake of time / sanity, make the person understand. Say, “At this point in time, I (as the project lead, hopefully) am more comfortable going in direction X than to continue to make no decision at all.” Close by reminding that mistakes can be rectified, and you will mitigate the risks identified so far.
As corny as it sounds… “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”
36.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm e
John Dierckx: Since this is part of what I do for a living (consigliere/ a critical confidant and friend) I felt I could answer.
A devil’s advocate should be able to switch positions, that’s where they can be helpful. What you are describing is not a devil’s advocate it is a devil, a negative force of energy.
Someone like that, I would imagine is someone you might wanna have involved in a very specific way. Leave them out of the creative, decision making processes but use them to evaluate specific positions or ideas where you are looking for critical viewpoints to evaluate your ideas, strategies in development etc.
They are a great resource to ensure that you thought of everything and can be valuable in fine tuning processes.
My suggestion would be when you are dealing with teams: keep them out of the teams cause they drain your energy. So my suggestion would be:
utilise them for what they do best, but don’t let them screw up the creatives.
37.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:16 pm e
Steve Broadhead: I find these people are good for bouncing ideas off of before you send the idea up to the boss. If your bored or having a slow day you can also get them going, just to put a smile on your own face.
38.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:18 pm e
Steven Podvoll: I definitely like to have such people around me as a reality check. I will likely challenge them to provide data-based, rational arguments. I will definitely challenge them to propose alternatives to the cause or position. If they manage to sway me, I take their advice, If I still don’t concur, I thank them anyway. My answer presumes reasonably diplomatic behavior on the part of the “devil’s advocates” with whom I collaborate. On the other hand, should their behavior suggest anything other than a collaborative attitude, I would address such strongly and, if situations allow, in private. Those who exhibit chronically poor attitudes should be dismissed if at all possible.
39.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:19 pm e
Brent Alexander: When dealing with professional ‘Devils Advocates’ depends a lot on the situation and the rank of your position. If you are not the decision maker, it is your job to play ‘devil’s advocate’ and if you are in a position you must rely on ‘devil advocates’. When a decision impacts other’s and involves financial matters, dealing with ‘devil advocates’ would be different that being involved with a situation that only effects your situation.
If I have the authority to make the final call, then I often use all information available. However my final decision is often based simply on my gut feeling, right or wrong.
I feel ignoring or criticizing ‘devil’s advocates’ causes friction. “Devil’s Advocates’ often offer up opinions and facts that generally are worth thinking about.
40.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:22 pm e
Michael Schiebel: I treat them like everyone else. I determine what their strengths and weaknesses are and play to them to get the best value. In a business setting this is best for the company.
This means I may use the individual in private to “fact check” my assumptions. It is better to have to defend your argument and find any gaps in your thinking before you take your ideas public.
If I have to present an idea to an audience and the individual is present I set it up so the individual starts the presentation. Hard to argue with the idea if your the one speaking.
If I am presenting and I discover one of these individuals in the crowd I set up a hypothetical example where I hint in the opposite direction to my upcoming point. The individual will then state my point for me. This allows me to thank them for the great idea and use there statement as a foil to bring my presentation back on track. This allows me to validate the individual instead of confront and still achieve my desired outcome.
I guess you can think of my approach as verbal Aikido. I guide and use their arguments to make and support my points instead of confronting them.
I believe that everyone should foster at least one pocket devil’s advocate to help keep you on your toes – and honest.
41.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm e
Jim Norris: You may have noticed that the devil’s advocate (as if the devil needed any more of those!) usually sits at the opposite end of the table from the leader. The person to the leader’s right is usually the most supportive – sometimes even to the point of being a yes-person. Try switching the seats and move the D.A. to the leader’s right. Although the switch probably won’t make the DA a kiss-up, it might help them be a little less negative.
42.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:25 pm e
James Fetzner: First I want to take a stab at the assumptions that seem to be underpinning the question. The words you used, “deal with them” , assumes that it is a negative attribute and a possible level of frustration. I would encourage you to think of it as “different”, not a good/bad or positive/negative thing, since you are dealing with less of a behavior and more of a personality trait.
With the “different” hat on I would encourage you to utilize that personality for its strengths. Naturally, how that is used would depend on the contexts but I will assume that we are talking from a group and/or meeting context.
Strategy/Planning meetings – A great tactic in these types of meetings is to establish a “Devil’s Advocate” role since it is in these meetings that group think becomes a problem. You have a natural made leader for this position. Establish that role for them as Devil’s Advocate for a few of the meetings. Then rotate the role to other people and point out that person’s strength in seeing the opposing view and how this can be extremely valuable as a part of your corporate culture. How it will keep you nimble, less likely to miss important pieces, etc. etc.
Creative meetings – after establishing the role of the “Devil’s Advocate” for other meetings, establish that there is no “Devil’s Advocate” for this creative meeting because the purpose of this is to generate ideas, not to validate them. This is an improvisation environment, a confirming and safe environment, so you can throw ideas out there without having to worry about defending them. This should allow the natural Devil’s Advocate, and everyone to see the value, and the appropriate context where that can be used. This will become baked into your culture, and I believe it is a distinct competitive advantage.
43.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm e
Brent Alexander: When dealing with professional ‘Devils Advocates’ depends a lot on the situation and the rank of your position. If you are not the decision maker, it is your job to play ‘devil’s advocate’ and if you are in a position you must rely on ‘devil advocates’. When a decision impacts other’s and involves financial matters, dealing with ‘devil advocates’ would be different that being involved with a situation that only effects your situation.
If I have the authority to make the final call, then I often use all information available. However my final decision is often based simply on my gut feeling, right or wrong.
I feel ignoring or criticizing ‘devil’s advocates’ causes friction. “Devil’s Advocates’ often offer up opinions and facts that generally are worth thinking about.
If you are not the decision maker, it is your job to play ‘devil’s advocate’ and if you are in a position to make a decision you must rely on ‘devil advocates’.
44.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pm e
Jay Hamilton-Roth: In my experience, Type As simply want to be heard. Listen to them. Contrast this with “Type Bs”, who must be asked for input. They likewise want to be heard, but don’t want to lead.
45.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pm e
Kevin Jackson: With the type of person you describe, it is likely that (s)he is pathologically disposed to such behavior. I have found the only way to deal with these people is to allow them to “insert foot in mouth”. They tend to speak before thinking, because they are in such a rush to get credit for engendering an idea. Usually their behavior is based on a lack of self-esteem, because if you are good at what you do, you know that good ideas will come routinely. As for devil’s advocates, I find these people in regular life, as well. For example, you begin relating a story of something that happened in your travels, and the devil’s advocate in this case will either attempt to ruin your story with some mundane and irrelevant anecdote, or he will attempt to “trump” your story, with his being more grandiose, though likely not believable. The next morning, he then goes to work to do the same thing with a different audience.
The choices are that you can decide to (a) bolster their self-esteem, and Chris Baugh gave an excellent explanation of how to do this, based on Robert Allen’s book. Then there is (b) you can expose the devil’s advocate’s obvious lack of esteem, by playing devil’s advocate against them. Personally I prefer (b). I make them defend their position, asking for facts to back up their supposition. I believe there is certainly room for alternative opinions, including those that drastically disagree with my own. However when it is a persistent, knee-jerk behavior, I find it counter-productive, frankly. I have seen people work ‘around’ such people, babying and placating them, however I have little tolerance for this. In implementing solution (b), I have found these people eventually decide that they are not capable, and move on. If they manage to hang around, then I have found that they become much more informed, prepared, and deliberate before offering up their previous drivvel. In the instances where I have been in charge of such people, I simply have given them “the desk closest to the door”. My business requires people who are willing to learn, or who are professional, and ready to contribute. There is not much room for in between. In the long run, you are doing the devil’s advocate a favor by having them rethink how they interact with people. I don’t mean to come of heartless. I guess I just believe in “tough love”.
46.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:42 pm e
Melanie Stevens: I often position myself this way in interacting with others either in a group setting or individually. It helps me to determine whether or not someone has truly thought something through, or to what extent they have analyzed the issue. I may not agree with the position I am taking, but if I am in a situation where someone may have considered what I am presenting, thay will hopefully respond and it helps me to eliminate it as a possibility. If it is a group setting, there may be others in the group that have the same question but are hesitant to speak up. It appears that you view this type as somewhat of a nusance, but they may be helping the idea to progress to a more well thought out solution or resolution.
Additional thoughts: Many times, I do know the answer to my question or position, but I am trying to evaluate the people that I am interacting with, not just the ideas. The individual that says that they “use” people like this to discover loopholes in their work does so at their peril. To assume that the Devils Advocate is questioning to bolster themselves or that it is done out of ego is unfortunate. A former supervisor did this to me and I was fully aware of it. Depending on how charitable I was feeling at the time, I may or may not have pointed out flaws in her thinking and she probably thought I was giving my “all”. When I engage in this type of behavior, it is not to be a nusance but to protect my superiors. I believe that I have successfully done so on numerous occasions.
47.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am e
John Fuex: Sorry to be blunt, but do you prefer “yes-men”?
Instead of trying to change characteristics of a person that are deeply embedded in who they are, as I suspect this may be. I suggest finding a role for them that turns this characteristic into an asset. These types are Gold in Quality control positions.
Negativity can be a turn-off, but they are a great antidote to group-think.
48.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am e
John Elder: I’ve seen lots of good answers to this question that assume the Devil’s Advocate has good intentions or is a useful resource. I’m going to assume that this is a pathological behavior in a colleague of sufficient seniority that they cannot simply be banned from meetings.
1) Document the behavior and the problems it causes. Document answers given and the repeated, unsatiated questions/opposition.
2) Perhaps the Devil’s Advocate will have an epiphany when confronted with a record of how disruptive their behavior is.
3) If not, executive coaching or a behavioral management (such as emotional intelligence training, communications training, or even anger management) would be an appropriate intervention.
4) In pathological cases, no answer is ever sufficient. Devil’s Advocacy has often become an attention seeking behavior with sufficient rewards that it becomes integrated into the Advocat’s character.
5) In some cases it is sufficient to note the objection and move on, ignoring any further discussion from the Advocate.
49.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:08 am e
Lionel Spearman: I stick with the document facts – leave out personal opinion and request that they do the same
50.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:09 am e
Steve Berry: These guys can be extremely useful – they can sometimes get us to see something we have not previously seen, so I would fully encourage them.
However, from your question, I think that you would like to close them down rather than let them open up. How about …….
“I can find hundreds of people who can tell me a problem. I’m looking for the 1% who are bright enough to fix it”
….. invites their further positive contribution and appeals to their intellect (one key driver of the Devil’s advocate is to be seen as intelligent)
51.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm e
William F DeVault: There is an old saying in management to never give your boss a “dead puppy”. Dead puppies are things that you can’t do anything about. Handing off a problem without even a suggestion for a resolution or a stack of options will just frustrate your boss and make you look weak and bothersome.
I like the Devil’s Advocate (let’s call them the “DA”), I have always tried to have a professional nit-picker on any team of consequence, they are like a plan auditor…they speak through the self-buttressing arguments we rationalize our pet plans with.
Those two subtexts out of the way…
The DA must be conditioned to not just say “This is bad”, but to offer at least an alternative, ideally a series of alternative, and be prepared to outline how they are superior (and inferior) to what they just tore down. Critical thinking is like any skill, it has to be honed.
Mike Tyson was a street tough with great upper body strength, destined for nothing, until Cus D’amato cleaned him up and trained him to be World Heavyweight Champion. That he fell back into his old self-destructive behavioral patterns after D’amato’s death merely illustrates the fate of so many good “appliance people” when their coaches or mentors are no longer in the picture.
The DA must be coached and nurtured to be the BS detector. Empower them, but set expectations. It can be the most important subordinate role in your organization, saving you from disasters, but you must make sure they have the framework to keep the constructive, alternative-espousing thoughts flowing, or they rapidly can become little more than a distraction and a nuisance.
And I do not like dead puppies left on my desk.
52.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:33 am e
Liesl Leary: I would highly recommend reading Tom Kelley’s book on the subject titled “The 10 Faces of Innovation”. In his book, he suggests that team members be specifically assigned roles like the Devil’s advocate in order to drive innovation. It’s a fascinating read, and as you can see from the other responses, the Devil’s advocate is extremely useful.
Links:
http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Faces-Innovation-Strategies-Organization/dp/0385512074/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8313274-7581435?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185010751&sr=8-1
53.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am e
Roberta Eastman: In the sales book Secrets of the Question Based Selling by Thomas Freese they refer to this as mismatching.
They write that people want to add value and it is not a malicious act. They suggest that we all do this is some fashion. Example: I say it’s going to be a sunny weekend and you say you heard it was going to rain. If you simply say I agree or I heard that it was going to rain also it doesn’t feed the need of adding value to the conversation.
They state when this happens we typically will respond with how to overcome the objection (or for the purpose of your original question state our position against the Devil’s Advocate) and instead of handling the situation in this manner we can minimize the prevention by asking more questions instead of telling.
If our presentation or suggestions are statement based the book indicates that our comments will actually invite mismatched responses. And that statements are easily mismatched, questions are not.
Questions help diffuse the emotional triggers that fuel the need to mismatch. The books states that it is because it’s impossible to disagree with a question.
If we take the above example and asked “is it supposed to be sunny this weekend” I am not sure there could be a disagreement or Devils Advocate position presented.
54.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 am e
Sid Fuchs: Keep them focused on finding a soltuion. Devil’s Advocates have a place, but they need to be managed to ensure their comments do not become dominant in the conversation. You also need to be able to distinguish between those who do it for sport, and those who do it to see all sides of the situation.
55.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 am e
Zen Benefiel: In the case of facilitation, et al.
If the relationship contributes to the process, then I encourage the participation and answers, playing with them to achieve top performance using best practices. There are numerous ways to achieve it. Working toward beneficial results as an agreed function empowers the group.
The professional naysayer is a recurrent challenge, even in my own head at times. The latter allows the relationship to be quite intimate.
When the DA becomes a bottleneck in the flow of the process, sometimes you can play the intuitive… (of course the delivery needs to be joyful and sincere.. that is what generally disarms…body language betrays the real message and mitigates the response) “I sense that you’ve got some issues here, so and so, but I’m not getting that you have a real passion behind the concern. Can you tell me more about that? Or are you just playing the devil’s advocate for the benefit of your own mind? Unless you really have a strong point that benefits the process, would you mind not playing?”
There is also the, “Great point, I know you must have a great counter for it too and I’d love for you to share. I know you wouldn’t have asked the question without having an answer in your pocket.” Pregnant pause…
“How about the rest of you? Do you feel that is a legitimate point? Does it need to be reframed?”
Then there is the, “I’d like to present a challenge, but I need to know if you are up to it?” They’ll eventually say yes. Then challenge them to help you this time by playing from the same side of the table.
Sometimes I’ve been more direct, “Is there a reason you need to continue to play the DA here?’ I need you on the team, not the opponent’s. So flip your view 180 for now.”.. pause.. “What would you do?”
Confrontational questions generally don’t work, unless they are framed in a non-threatening presentation. Sometimes, “Are you just throwing a line in or are you ready to do some serious fishing here?” let them answer and/or continue…”I don’t have time for the devil’s advocate today. What the group needs is for you to be a saint.”
In public, sometimes not dealing with hecklers is the best course. Give them a look, preferrably the ‘oh, I’m so embarassed’ equally inappropriate response, nod your head, and ask the next pertinent question of your audience, board, cohorts, or stakeholders. If there is any consistency in the members of the group, others will already know of the behavior and play along. The creative cooperative action may embarass the DA to silence. If not, then further choices need to be explored.
56.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:29 am e
Eric Sohn: Well, I’ll tell you why I play Devil’s Advocate (and I play it frequently).
Simply put, it’s less threatening than saying that some proposal has holes in it. When I’m the DA, the purpose is to raise issues for discussions.
The fact is, if I have had time to consider the proposition (as opposed to hearing it right then and there), I will raise the issue and an alternative – or couch the issue like this “Playing Devil’s Advocate, have you considered X and whether or not an approach like Y would help resolve it?”
Devil’s Advocate is often used akin to how people say “I think” or “I feel” to be less overbearing in a group.
That being said, some people are just being difficult. If the person only offers objections, there are two other courses of actions I’d suggest:
a) “Gee, Bob, you’re really good at finding holes in our proposals. Can you help us find the solution, since you’re already aware of the problem?”
b) Designate the person publicly as the official Devil’s Advocate, and make calling on him or her part of the process – so, what does the Devil’s Advocate think? Might be a great way to avoid overly quick consensus.
Of course, there’s the radical option – put in a Six Thinking Hats process so he or she can only be negative during the right hats (red and black, if I remember correctly) – and then call on the person during the other hats as well.
57.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pm e
David P. Schofield: Anticipate their response and ask the question in a manner that they actually support my original intention. But forward looking people should not run from the devil’s advocate. More times than not there is a gem in the arguement.
58.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:06 pm e
David Marcotte: First time use as a means of validation. Second time have them come up to the board and write each point down. Then while they’re still at the board write a mitigation statement along with who they think should be consulted and who should execute. If by then they haven’t develop some buy in or are non-productive its a public thing, not a 1:! as intended. That said, never humiliate or talk down, no reward to that but give them the shot to be part of the solution flow. If it is clear they won’t they shift them out of them out.
That said, you have senior execs that fall into this role and you need their support. Do the same as above, but do the whiteboard work yourself, then try to shift towards buy-in or neutrality.
59.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:08 pm e
David Atkinson: In my experience with technical teams it has proven to be very valuable to have “devil’s advocate(s)” involved, or equivalently, individuals that do in fact have viable alternatives but are maybe a little out of the box. In the early stages of a product where it is essential that requirements are fleshed out and well understood, this person will often be the “What about …” contributor. As the project proceeds into design phase, this person will force the team to justify their technical positions. This process often helps find issues with requirements. Now is the time to find requirement or design flaws, not later when expensive rework could be necessary.
The most difficult challenge with effective contrarians, or “devil’s advocates” occurs when it becomes time to make decisions. Sometimes (not frequently) they get far too passionate about their positions and begin to delay or disrupt the team. At this point, the team lead or other outside manager must (re)explain the devil’s advocate role and advise them to join the consensus or accept the leaders decisions. If they can’t, then it is time to move them to another early stage project.
Devil’s advocates are also especially useful during integrated test and verification. Their “How do you know this is correct …” type of position sometimes helps identify critical gaps in testing.