The Merits of Being a Contrary Joe: Part II

The Merits of Being a Contrary Joe- Part II Devil’s Advocate, Skunk Works and other tools

Two weeks ago, I defined what it means to be a “Contrary Joe.” To summarize: it is being a counter-intuitive thinker or someone that goes against the majority’s prevailing viewpoint.  But there is a danger of fostering an atmosphere of negativity and pessimism.  That is not what I’m talking about.  Rather, the good news is there is a vast body of scientific, yet practical research, that can show us how to create a system with respect, rules, techniques, and procedures that can use the idea of disagreement and dissent (“Contrary Joeism,” as I have labeled it.)

Companies, social service organizations, governments, families, and even churches face an ongoing issue: “Groupthink.”  First identified by Irving Janis’s landmark work in 1982, it is the bane of many group decisions.  According to Investopedia, “Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternative.  Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people.  This desire creates a dynamic within a group whereby creativity and individuality tend to be stifled to avoid conflict.” Most of us have experienced this phenomena.

Well-intentioned efforts to create unity and team coherence before thoroughly airing the issues can be dangerous.  On the other hand, using structured methods of contrary thinking or challenging decisions generally results in better decisions.  Let me describe four of these techniques.

Appointing a ‘Devil’s Advocate‘. Somewhat ironically, the term comes from the canonization process used by the Catholic Church, the “Promoter of the Faith” was known as the Devil’s advocate (advocatus diaboli. The DA was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate.  In other words, to provide thorough testing before awarding this sacred honor.

Today it is used when an individual or group of persons deliberately expresses a contentious opinion to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing argument.  Everyone should view the contrarian person or persons in a neutral way and not take it personally. But one of the most significant hazards, if not skillfully guided by the manager, leader, or consultant, is that people DO take things personally.  Why?  Because all of us are in love with our ideas, which is natural.  On balance, though, using this approach can result in better decisions and, in the end, allow the group to support the final decision. 

In Graham Allison’s landmark book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he describes how Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s persistent challenging of the proposed solutions (none of which seemed good) may have saved us from World War III.  It helped to be the President’s brother- who he wasn’t about to fire.

The Dialectic Inquiry Approach.  According to Dr. Fred  Lunenberg of  Sam Houston State University, “Today, many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committee.  There are benefits of group decision-making over individual decision.  Groups have the potential to generate and evaluate more ideas, and once a decision is made, acceptance will be easier.  One common constraint of effective group decision-making is Groupthink” (as mentioned above.)

The dialectic inquiry was first practiced by Plato, who asked his students to consider both the thesis and the antithesis.  In practice today, the larger decision group is divided into two competing groups.  Each group presents the pros of their position and the weakness of the other group.  Counter-intuitively it may be helpful to assign people who strongly believe in one side of the argument to the other side of to increase their comprehension and effectiveness.

Ultimately this process of considering polar opposites (thesis-antithesis) results in synthesis.  This does not necessarily mean “We’ll just split the difference” and use a compromise down the middle.  It may result in somewhere between the opposites.  However, it could be that one of the “polar” positions is still the best solution.  Perhaps the most significant benefit of the process is that it exposes weaknesses. This allows snags to be fixed before a disaster happens through “not knowing what you don’t know.”

The Skunk Works. TomPeter’s and Robert Waterman’s 1982 book “In Search of Excellence” was probably one of the top five most influential management books of the last 50 years. Tom Peters, in particular, wrote about how many large companies can stifle innovation with their bureaucracy.  Bureaucracy has a negative connotation, but in fact, all companies to survive in the long term have to have rules and procedures that are predictable and consistent.  One of the side effects of this order is it can kill innovation.  Lockheed Aircraft realized this as early as 1943 and through the visionary efforts Kelly Johnson created a small R & D “Skunk Works” unit outside the standard company structure that might “stink up” the regular company operations.  Companies such as 3M (think Post-it Notes), IBM, Apple, and Boeing use it in various forms.  Many times these units are moved out of the normal company’s location.  In a way, it is legalized “lawlessness.” They operate in contrary ways because they can and must to truly innovate.

Ombudsman Programs.  With this method, someone independent of the decision has the power to advocate on behalf of individuals to reach solutions that can arbitrate disagreements.  Most commonly, we think of these programs as a procedure to resolve consumer/company problems through mediation rather than in the courts.

But ombudsman programs can also be used inside an organization.  Most companies want employees and management to follow the chain of command, which makes sense.  But there are circumstances where vested interests can block legitimate concerns, complaints, or even innovative suggestions for change. 

I’ll never forget one of my MBA adjunct professors at the University of Iowa who was the ombudsman at the local Procter and Gamble plant.   He was a skilled industrial psychologist who was given immense freedom.  He was a P & G employee but could not be fired by anyone at the local facility, even the site leader.  Instead, he was responsible to an off-site high-level leader.  Anyone at the company could come and talk with him about any issue that might be sensitive, or that was being blocked.  That included a first-level line worker up to the plant manager.  His purpose was to create an acceptable solution from two often contrarian positions.

I have presented just a few toolbox practices that can be used to take contrarian thinking to improve the quality of your decisions.  When you think about it, some of these techniques can be used even in small companies, churches, or families.  Ironically “Contrary Joeism” will likely lead to a more powerful consensus.

Don Daake, MBA, Ph.D. is a Professor Emeritus at Olivet specializes in strategic planning and marketing research.  He holds a B.S. from Kansas State University; an MBA from the University of Iowa and a Ph.D. in Strategy from the Florida State University.   

The Merits of Being A “Contrary Joe”

The Merits of Being a “Contrary Joe” Part I

To be Published in the Kankakee Daily Journal July 12, 2023

Editor’s note: In Part 1, Dr. Daake will define the issue.  In Part 2, he will propose some practical solutions and techniques for turning what could be destructive disagreement into a force for better decision making.

“When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure.” Peter Marshall (Former US Senate Chaplain.)

I don’t remember exactly what age I was, when my mother, when I was being a bit cranky, negative, or just plain stubborn, would say to me “You are being a ‘Contrary Joe.’”  It probably started at about age 5 or 6.  From time to time, indeed I acted like a Contrary Joe. Of course, this was not a compliment but a reminder that I needed to shape up.

Fast forward a few years.  In my twenties, I found myself in situations where challenging “taken-for-granted” values or behaviors became a part of who I was.  Throughout college, we were encouraged to become critical thinkers and challenge unexamined “truth.”  I had just graduated magna cum laude from Kansas State University with my all-knowing history degree (unencumbered by life experience and taught by ivory tower professors.) As a new improved Contrary Joe, I had all the answers, knew a better way, and loved to challenge the status quo. 

In those days, it was no longer about challenging my parents because I, like millions of others, had experienced the observation of Mark Twain. “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around.  But when I was 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”  Rather, I challenged ideas from my church, government, employer, and “society” in general.  There may be something worse than an ordinary Contrary Joe, and that is a self-important “educated” one.

As time went by, I got a real-world education–first by working on the assembly line at White tractor for about eight months.  Then as a teaching and research assistant during my MBA at the University of Iowa, I was confronted with my limitations while simultaneously being encouraged to express my views.  But I had to do it constructively, backed up by evidence.  Next, in my jobs as the primary  Market Research Supervisor at Winnebago Industries and my six years as a Continuing Education Director at Eastern Iowa Community College, I had to learn sometimes the hard way– the proper way to channel my natural “talent” of being a Contrary Joe.

Let me express a disclaimer here.  When I recall personal stories or situations, I realize it is from my viewpoint, and there is always another side.  Still, I try to be fair in my version of the events.  I will always remember a lesson I learned one time when I directly challenged my boss in a meeting.  He was the best boss I ever had, and we were encouraged to air our differences of opinion.  I may have been right about the issue but I did it at the wrong place and time.  In my defense however, managers have to be careful and clear in defining the rules of engagement and remain consistent.

In a job many years later, another boss of mine, who once had defined the rules of engagement as true open uninhibited discussion as long as it was done with respect, slowly drifted towards virtually no open discussion.  Our once open, productive meetings where we hammered out good decisions were reduced to more or less reading our reports with no time or desire for discussion.  Most of the team members seemed stymied by this change and kept their mouths shut.

One of my colleagues and I, who both had served in multiple relatively high positions elsewhere, decided we would not be inhibited.  During a discussion of a challenging and ongoing issue, I had the gall to bring up the concern one more time.  The response I got was, “We’ve heard that all before.” Not only was I shut down, but I was “held after school” for a lecture about how I was hurting morale with my attitude.  I was smart enough to not say what I was thinking.  “Well, you’re hearing all this again because we have done nothing to solve the underlying fundamental problem.”

As time passed, there was a noticeable decline in morale. Some of my colleagues went into their shells, lowering performance and standards, and some of the highest performers even left.  In my opinion, the organization has never fully recovered.

Open, honest communication is challenging and fraught with landmines.  Many managers and leaders with the best intentions of free communication policies realize the danger of sessions turning into gripe sessions, which, in turn can also lower morale.

During my Ph.D. program and to this day, one of my major research interests is decision-making.  The bad news is that many well-intention efforts at open communications and improved decision-making implode.  The good news is there is a vast scientific body of research that can show us how to create a system with respect, rules, techniques, and procedures that can use the idea of disagreement and dissent (“Contrary Joeism,” as I have labeled it.)  Many rock-solid, proven techniques we know work need to be more widely adapted.  There are a variety of reasons why there is this gap between best practices to actual practices. 

Next time I will briefly identify these reasons and give four specific techniques (of the many available) that have proven enormously effective.  Devil’s Advocate, Dialectic Inquiry, “Skunk Works,” and Ombudsmen will be included.  A caution, though, unless the commitment to open discussion and communication comes from the top down, it is futile.  But I’m confident that most managers and leaders (but not all) are committed to the best for their companies and organizations.

Don Daake, MBA, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus at Olivet, specializes in strategic planning and marketing research.  His research interests include decision-making, positive psychology, and tacit knowledge.  He has created strategic plans with large and small organizations in Florida and Kankakee County.  He has numerous national peer-reviewed journal articles and several published book chapters.  While at Florida State, he was Program Director of the State of Florida’s multiple-year $500,000 Hurricane Shelter Management Training Program.