We make myriad decisions every day. Most are trivial with small-scale short-term impact. However, occasionally we face enormously challenging choices which can impact a life, a career, a corporation, a population. The first chapter of “Beyond Measure“, Margaret Heffernan’s TED book, talks about “Creative Conflict“. In it she discusses how a “just culture” surfaces all the information, intelligence, and insight required to make the best decisions. This diverse-thinking “just culture” emerges from alternative perspectives; a healthy mix of male & female input; the breadth of inexperienced and the seasoned established professionals; from the old and the young and varied racial backgrounds. It is one of the reasons many corporates put so much emphasis on diversity programmes.
Unfortunately our biases mean this environment, characterised by healthy tension, isn’t natural. We mostly gravitate towards those who reinforce our thinking because it takes least effort and avoids conflict. In Heffernan’s words; “Great teams need windows on the world, but biases mean that we mostly get mirrors.”
While I’ve always been uncomfortable with the terminology, one way to increase diverse thinking is to embrace the input of a “Devil’s Advocate“. The expression originates from the Vatican’s canonisation process that declares someone a saint within the Catholic Church. The role of “Promoter of the Faith” (promoter fidei in Latin) was appointed to argue against a proposed canonisation or the step immediately prior, being “beatification”. Popularly known as the “Devil’s Advocate“, the lawyer was appointed to take a sceptical view about the candidate’s saintliness, questioning the motives and validating the miracles that had been performed.
When streamlining the process in 1983, Pope John Paul II abandoned the role, although modern media ensures that opposing, controversial views make the headlines. An example of this is Christopher Hitchens, when Mother Teresa was being beatified in 2002. Prior to their downfalls, Robert Maxwell and Charles Keating made significant donations to Mother Teresa’s humble work with the poor, sick, orphaned and dying. Hitchens made allegations of impropriety and inappropriate relationships. There was no evidence Mother Teresa was even aware and I’m just glad some of their cheated wealth went to good causes!
The phrase has been adopted within the standard English language and while not often an intentional or allocated role in a discussion, many of us will have heard somebody pipe-up in a meeting that they are being the “Devil’s Advocate”. A variance often used in the defence / cyber industry is that of ‘Red Teams’. These comprise personnel who use a structured, iterative process to continually challenge plans, operations, concepts, organisations and capabilities. The United States armed forces have used these much more frequently in recent years to mitigate the shortcomings that led to the 9/11 attacks.
What are the risks or potential pitfalls of appointing or encouraging somebody to play the role of a Devil’s Advocate?
Firstly, recall the origin of the title; the role was to question claims and take a sceptical view. I’m not sure this helps in creating a diverse debate but instead just criticises what is being proposed. So, taking the definition literally, a Devil’s Advocate most likely won’t build the just culture that encourages creative conflict.
Secondly, all too often the title is assumed to legitimise the reinforcement of the status quo, taking sides in the debate and adding nothing new to the considerations. This risks shutting down the discussion rather than expanding it, adding nothing to the diversity of the argument.
Thirdly and most dangerously, it can be adopted to legitimise the expression of an extreme, even bigoted perspective which adds little to a healthy, balanced consideration. You know the scenario; during a debate, a prejudiced, extreme view is shared and when people look aghast, the perpetrator claims “I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate” i.e. it’s not really me, I wouldn’t normally say anything like that.
I’m ashamed to say I have been guilty of the last which is perhaps why I dislike the title!
The Devil himself was very good when asking Jesus questions – tempting him with food when he’d been fasting for forty days in the desert (for me, four hours of hunger and I’m confronted by my humanity!). And these were followed-up with the egotistical and materialistic challenges too. Maybe sometimes we should check whether we’re really trying to be the “Devil’s Advocate” or just the devil?
Assuming it’s the former and the intention is to facilitate Heffernan’s “Creative Conflict”, how can it be done well?
As a prerequisite and as always is the case, the quality of the questioning will be directly proportional to the diligence of the listening. Hearing and appreciating the dynamics of the conversation and discerning others’ motives will make the offering of any alternative insight far more powerful. In this state of active listening, if it becomes obvious that everybody is in unanimous alignment, then it’s probably time to introduce diverse thoughts and suggestions, probably adding an explanation that this is intentional.
These alternative perspectives should be framed in a positive way, much more aligned with the original title of “Promoter of the Faith” than the colloquial Devil’s Advocate. Rather than cataloguing all the problems with what is being proposed, suggest the benefits of the alternative. To remain a welcome contributor, it’s important not to slip into strongly negative language, becoming a “carping critic”. For example, when suggesting the railway, rather than “I hate flying; driving is uncomfortable, takes too long and I can’t get on with my work; we should take the train” why not phrase it “Flying is quick and means I can work; driving gives me a great view of the countryside; how about the train which gives the best of both?”.
If the conversation splits into two opposing perspectives, it is best to avoid aligning with any particular group but rather look for what’s missing in both and frame this in a positive way as above. It might even express the best of both camps and lead to a harmonious way forward.
Finally, if there are already many very divergent views, rather than labouring to find yet another one, why not help facilitate others’ expressions by managing the flow of discussion, echoing, reframing and summarising what is being said?
Maybe this way we can embrace conflict and diversity, shatter the self-reinforcing mirrors and throw-open Heffernan’s windows on the world? The view’s amazing!