Sanders Says - Question and Answer about the Devil's Advocate

April 25, 2011

Question and Answer about the Devil's Advocate

From time to time, I write about something that really stirs people up. In 2010, I wrote a blog post called "The Problem With Devil's Advocates" and it got a lot of engagement. It was also expanded on as a concept in Today We Are Rich (move the conversation forward). Since then, I've talked to several people that needed additional clarifications on the subject, since it's a habit that many leaders create to 'add value.' Here (with the author's permission) is one of those Q/A sessions.

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Sanders,

Enjoyed your interview with Robert Pagliarini-- great stuff, thank you! I do have a question. You expressed disdain for the playing of "devil's advocate". In my organization and teams, I often assume this role, particularly when discussing a possible idea or new direction with my business partner. It's certainly not bullying (not my personality), but I see it as a way to make sure we understand and consider the risks and costs of the proposed idea or strategy, so that we are going in with our eyes open. I am sure I am misunderstanding your point somehow, but it sounded to me almost like you were saying we should just "focus on the positive" and ignore any alternative viewpoints, evidence to the contrary, or possibility of failure or harm coming to us as a result of our decision. You mentioned, "You don't come up with breakthrough solutions playing devil's advocate". I suppose that's true, though, would you agree that playing devil's advocate can be a way to "vet" an idea? If you'd be willing to provide some clarification, I'd sure appreciate it. I know your time is very valuable. Thank you. Ryan Levesque eBookIt.com

ANSWER: Hello Ryan -

Nothing is absolute, and at certain companies, their are leaders who manage 'group think' - but it is a strategic assignment. You may be the exception to the rule. My issue is that Devil's Advocate is misunderstood. In the book, I explain it was invented by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago to prevent a 'bad guy' from being canonized. Attorneys were assigned to do it, only once, and in many cases it was career suicide.

In our culture, far too many people (wracked with jealousy or devoid of creativity) evoke the D.A. Approach as a linguistic form of 'catch up.' They aren't doing it, as you do, to protect the organization. In any collaboration (tech labs to comedy), this rampant approach is a killer to the critical 'yes-and' approach to disruptive innovation.

If you read the book, and I hope you do, I make it very clear that the banker OR the resource giving leader MUST play the Devil's Advocate on the part of the enterprise. But the junior leaders need to focus on problem solving, innovation and encouraging other to bring ideas to work and spin them up into breakthrough strategies.

Got a question about Today We Are Rich? Email me at tim (at) timsanders.com