Leaders understand the power of the Devil’s Advocate, someone who plays the role of chief doubter and critic in the discussion of an important decision.
A Devil’s Advocate is not just a naysayer. The Advocate plays an important role by pointing out the downside, potential risks, and likely problems associated with a decision or strategy. Leaders sometimes designate a team member to play this role, although there is usually one colleague who does so without being asked.
Given that leaders and teams often get behind an idea, decision, or strategy with a big momentum forward, and without questioning the downside, it seems unlikely that someone who points out the upside and opportunity at hand would add much value. Right?
Just like a Devil’s Advocate is not just a critic or skeptic, an Angel’s Advocate doesn’t just focus on the positive or cheer the team on. Instead, an Angel’s Advocate asks the “What If?” question and points out the possibilities if the decision and strategy were successful.
Such an Advocate focuses most on what would change as a result of a successful outcome, highlighting the many benefits that are hard to visualize during the decision process.
By having both Advocates engage the team, neither a rosy future nor a dark cloud wins the day by itself. The Advocates don’t cancel each other out as much as they make contrasting arguments.
Hearing all of the viewpoints, positive and negative, allows the team to make the best decision possible. Having two Advocates who work at the extremes makes the discussion more robust and objective.
In the best case, neither Advocate goes to work until the proposal has been well-developed and explored by the team. Introducing views of risks or possibilities too early doesn’t allow the team to fully grasp the proposed decision or strategy and understand how it might change the status quo.
But once the discussion has reached a near conclusion and before a commitment is proposed, allowing the Devil’s Advocate and Angel’s Advocate to enter the fray gives everyone a new perspective about the implications. Only having one type of Advocate has the potential to skew the discussion and decision in an unhealthy way. This is especially true for groups that are risk-averse or who have experienced recent setbacks and might be hesitant to pull the trigger on a new course of action.
In most cases, teams don’t require either Advocate to reach a sound decision. But when a leader decides to designate a Devil’s Advocate to shake up the group with the potential risks, it is smart to designate an Angel’s Advocate, as well. Devils keep the team grounded but Angels let the team fly.
A Daily Dispatch from the Front Lines of Leadership.
