Sponsors ask a respected colleague to argue the strongest case against their own proposal in the decision meeting, so the objections are heard, answered, and on record, and approval is harder to reopen.
An example
The head of claims at a commercial auto insurer wanted to buy a software tool that would sort incoming claims by likely severity. Three years earlier the executive committee had approved a similar purchase and then reversed it after objections surfaced late. This time she asked the chief underwriting officer, known for his skepticism about vendor tools, to argue the case against at the decision meeting, and gave him two weeks and access to the vendor's data. He came with four objections: the model was trained on another insurer's claims, adjusters would defer to its scores, it had no record on large losses, and the contract ran five years with no way out. She answered three with changes: a six-month test on the company's own claims, logged adjuster overrides, and an exit clause. The fourth, on large losses, went into the test design. The committee approved the purchase.
Why it works
Proposals approved without serious challenge get reopened when objections surface later, and the sponsor has to fight again. Appointing a respected colleague to argue the strongest case against puts the objections on the table in the decision meeting. Having survived the challenge and been improved by it, the proposal looks stronger, and approval is easier because the deciders have heard the case against and watched it answered. The advocate must be credible and take the role seriously, and the sponsor must be willing to change the plan. A token critic convinces nobody.
The thinking behind it
Irving L. Janis Janis's Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (1982) argued that in cohesive groups the drive for agreement can override realistic appraisal, and proposed remedies, presented as hypotheses to be tested, among them appointing a devil's advocate at each meeting. The evidence for groupthink is mainly qualitative case work and has been challenged. The tactic needs only the practical point: objections raised and answered before approval cannot surface later as surprises.
When it fits
Significant, contested proposals suit it: ones where an approval has been reversed before, where the deciders worry about blind spots, or where the sponsor is confident the plan can survive a real challenge. It needs a respected colleague willing to take the role and enough time for them to prepare properly.
How to use it well
Choose someone the deciders respect and who is genuinely skeptical. Ask them well in advance, and give them the time and information to prepare.
- Tell the deciders ahead of the meeting that you have asked for the case against.
- Let the advocate present without interruption.
- Answer each objection, and change the plan where they are right.
- Record the objections and your answers in the minutes.
Mean it. If the case against turns out to be stronger than yours, the method has done its job, and losing in the meeting costs far less than losing after the money is spent.
What it costs and where it backfires
A strong advocate may persuade the deciders against you. Changes made to answer the objections can make the proposal slower or more expensive. If the advocate is seen as a friend playing a part, the exercise looks staged and backfires. The challenge has to be real. Choosing a weak advocate, or briefing one to pull punches, turns the method into theater, and the deciders will see it.
When it is used on you
Listen to the objections when a rival's proposal arrives with its own devil's advocate, and judge how well they were answered. Raise any objections that were left out. A sponsor who chose the advocate also chose which objections got heard, so the case against may be narrower than it looked.