Constructive Contrarian Guide

A tool to strengthen ideas and decision-making processes within a group by incorporating critical analysis and diverse perspectives.

Adapted from devil's advocacy as a group decision method (Richard A. Cosier and Charles R. Schwenk, 1978 to 1990; the two-subgroup protocol of David M. Schweiger, William R. Sandberg, and James W. Ragan, Academy of Management Journal, 1986, carried to managers as the "intellectual watchdog" by David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto, Harvard Business Review, 2001), with the role and the groupthink rationale from Irving L. Janis (Victims of Groupthink, 1972).

What it is for

The purpose of the Constructive Contrarian Guide thinking tool is to strengthen ideas and decision-making processes within a group by incorporating critical analysis and diverse perspectives. The tool leverages the role of a devil's advocate (someone who deliberately challenges the group's ideas) to ensure that a wide range of opinions are considered, which can lead to more robust, well-rounded, and innovative solutions.

Using this thinking tool involves selecting a respected and experienced member of the team to serve as the devil's advocate. Their task is to rigorously scrutinize proposals, encourage looking at issues from different angles, including those of competitors or dissenting viewpoints, and to foster an environment where critical examination is welcomed and valued. This contrarian role is not to criticize for the sake of opposition but to drive the group to consider potential pitfalls and hidden opportunities in their thinking.

The guide outlines a clear process for the devil's advocate to follow, from questioning the initial assumptions and ideas to challenging the working group to refine their proposals. It encourages a dynamic where feedback, even if perceived as negative, is used constructively to refine and enhance the group's output. This approach not only improves the end results but also contributes to a culture of continuous improvement and adaptive thinking.

Why use it

Having someone in meetings to question and challenge ideas can make good ideas even better. This person, called a devil's advocate, helps consider different opinions and not just the usual or easy ones.

How to use it

Pick someone with a lot of experience and respect in the group for this role. Make sure everyone knows the devil's advocate is there to help by looking at all sides of an idea, even if it seems like they're just being critical. This helps improve ideas and avoid missing important points.

1. Explain the devil's advocate role: (a) challenge ideas to test group thinking; (b) think from competitors' perspectives for strategy.
2. Choose the devil's advocate: (a) one or two people as the devil's advocate; (b) split the team into a working group and a devil's advocate group.
3. Working group outlines solutions, noting all underlying assumptions and ideas.
4. Present this list to the devil's advocate group/individual.
5. Devil's advocate identifies issues and challenges the working group's thinking. Note: challenges must be well-founded.
6. Working group revises their proposals based on the devil's advocate's feedback.
7. Optionally switch roles if time allows and the issue is significant.

Where it fits

No step of the process names this tool. It sits at Validating Impact and Execution, the third step of the Evaluate phase, as a test of the chosen solution before the group commits to carrying it out.

Related tools

The Holistic Perspective Harmonizer and the Perspective Pivot Workshop each take a contrary view as one lens among several; this tool gives the contrary view to a person, as a role. The Collaborative Conversation Navigator is its opposite: dialogue in which no one sets out to challenge.

• Premortem (Klein, Mitchell, Russo, and others)
• Red Teaming (Zenko and Hoffman)
• Six Thinking Hats (de Bono)
• Murder Board