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.