The Devil’s Advocate
Rather than support and grow the ideas of their team members, the Devil’s Advocate assumes the most negative possible perspective to quash fledgling concepts, often doing so with those oft-heard words, “Let me just play Devil’s Advocate for a minute…” This person represents a subtle yet toxic danger to your organization’s cause, greatly diminishing the chance for innovation with their negativity and naysaying.
For more than a decade I sudied the impact of positive vs. negative people working in a team at two high tech labs, CFAR (Center for Advanced Research) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Cambridge, Mass. The results can be found at the site http://losada.socialpsychology.org where you can download “Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourinshing” published in American Psychologist as well as “The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams” published in American Behavioral Scientist.
I always thought that there was too much unnecessary negativity going on in organizations. I also knew that an excess of positivity wasn’t good. The question was, what is the right ratio of positivity to negativity for creative performance? After 10 years on research observing hundreds of business teams, the answer turned out to be what is now known as the “Losada line” (see Wikipedia): the ratio has to be at least 2.9 to 1. The next question was, is there an upper limit for positivity? The answer turned out to be, yes, there is an upper limit and it is 11.6 (see “Losada zone” in Wikipedia). The results of this research were corroborated for individuals and marriages. When individuals, marriages, teams, and organizations have a P/N ratio within a minimum of 2.9 and a maximum of 11.6 they can reach a state of “flourishing” where human functioning achieves an optimal level of creativity, innovation and well-being. Below 2.9 and above 11.6 people tend to “languish,” they are not capable of expressing all of their creative potential and their lives lead to a sense of emptiness that is quite pervasive in our society (not more than 20% of the adult US population can be classified as flourishing.)
Excess negativity leads to dynamics that limit what is possible for us and. sadly, is highle detrimental to our health because it raises the level of cortisol and other hormones that, in excess, can lead to heart diseases, brain strokes, and shorter life spans. By being negative, we create literally an internal hell for ourselves and others. There is a place for appropriate negative, though, and that is when the role of Devil’s Advocate is necessary. If not, we can exceed the 11.6 limit which also, in the long run, leads to languishing. This type of languishing is different from the firsts, when there is an excess of negativity. Excess positivity leads to stale energy, energy that doesn’t renew itself. Excess negativity leads to lack of energy.
When the dynamics of low performace teams are plotted we can observe a so-called “point attractor;” i.e., all energy is sucked into a point, that literally acts as a black hole. We have all experienced this negative energy when we engage with people that are too cynical and sarcastic. It is hard to escape from their negative gravitational pull. High performce teams, on the contrary, show dynamics that are expansive and non-repetitive (see “complexor’” in Wikipedia). We love to be with these people, they have an enthusiasm that is contagious and uplifting. We feel more alive in their presence.
The big challenge for all of us, human beings, is to reach a state of flourishing. Otherwise, life is not worth living.
The Devil’s advocate can be incredibly subtle. I recall a meeting once in which my group was proposing a major reallocation of assets. Before the meeting no one questioned the importance of the effort. The Devil’s advocate in this case offered the opinion, “My team doesn’t disagree with this approach, IF IT’S THAT IMPORTANT.” At every opportunity, he emphasized the theme… “IF IT’S THAT IMPORTANT…” By decision time, support had eroded. In the end, the decision was that, indeed it WAS that important… But it was a close thing, and nearly derailed us from a huge opportunity.
Internal Conflict of a Person Who Prefers to Avoid Conflict
In April, I was asked by some members of a non-profit organization, that was becoming highly ineffectual and devolving toward obsolescence, to become a board member. (An election was held but as is the case with many non-profit organizations, Board members are acclaimed into their position.)
It soon became obvious to me that insufficient discussion was taking place before decisions were finalized. Either nobody was seeing the negative side of situations or they were reluctant to express them because of fear of hurting the feelings of others. Compounding the situation was a President whose determination to keep monthly meeting times to a minimum, was cutting off discussion before all points could be raised. During the period of time in between meetings, the method for making decisions was to have the person, who was most interested in a particular decision, polling the other Board members and taking the majority vote of those “who could be reached” (frequently resulting in skewing of opinions and a decision by minority).
By June, I was playing Devil’s Advocate for the board decisions that I felt/believed had financial implications or possible ramifications that needed to be explored.
It is now late-October, and there appears to be general agreement that the quality of our decisions have improved, but nobody else is playing the Devil’s Advocate. At least two of the seven members occasionally attempt to get decisions made by keeping me out of the loop. I dislike immensely the role I find myself having to play. I am the kind of person who avoids conflict whenever possible. (”Make Love, not war.”) If anything, I tend to be positive and upbeat.
Using the “Losada Line” measurement, with this group I’m probably sitting at the low end (~3) whereas in other groups I am closer to the high end (~10).
The question I ask myself now is: “How much longer do I go on playing this role?” When do I give up on this particular group and simply quit?
Being a Devil’s Advocate is not easy. I’m being a pain in the butt for others but I’m a bigger pain in the heart for myself.
This is a tough spot to be in. I’ve been there many times myself, and have been labeled as ‘being negative’ as well. Easier said than done, but is there a way to turn the issue around to make it a positive innovation? I know where I work, a well-thought proposal would be very innovative!
In response to Roy’s experience: perhaps now that this book provides language and options for roles, a heart-saving suggestion (in your low Losada group) is to explicitly designate the DA role to someone else and explicitly designate other roles to yourself and to others OR explicitly designate time for everyone to play that role together (the latter is similar De Bono’s techniques with his six hats; there’s a time for everyone to wear the “black hat” and capture the consensus). Sounds as if you have general agreement that decision quality has improved so that’s a place to build from.
I was surprised to learn that the term Devil’s Advocate derives from doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as an official canon lawyer whose role was to argue the case against the canonization of an individual for sainthood. The Wikipedia.org article is worth a look. Pope John Paul II abolished the position in 1983, consequently setting the stage for canonization of 500 or so saints during his tenure, compared to 98 for all other pontiffs for the rest of the 20th century. So what’s the lesson here? When the Catholic Church gets around to deciding that an idea’s time has passed, chances are it’s long outlived its usefulness? Or, if you’re seeking innovation, would you want to model your process after 300 years of church tradition?
It’s ironic that the DA has by far the most posts on this site.
At the risk of being labelled one, I humbly submit that perhaps the DA in the room, as Mr. Leaman’s situation suggests, is often misunderstood. The contrarian view in a discussion of the merits of an idea should not immediately be seen as being negative; rather it should be acknowledged as another perspective that a complete unfolding of the idea must address. Often such views suffer from deficiencies of presentation style, not substance. It might be the difference between saying “yeah, but…” versus “yeah, and..” A subtle but difficult adjustment to make in presenting thoughts that seem to check as opposed to advance ideas. Speaking just for myself, I like being warned that there may be a trip wire in my path, even if the person warning me doesn’t know exactly where it is and may not have a suggestion for removing it. At least it becomes visible and the rest of the team can work out how to deal with it. After all, the real devil when it comes to implementing innovative ideas is in the details.
I have at one point in time been each of the 10 faces for myself and for others. The devil’s advocate is by no means the devil. The devil is the negative person that quashes fledging ideas and offers no valuable ideas or advice. The devil’s advocate requires everyone to look at the issue or concept from a different perspective. If the devil’s advocate is more of the advocate than the devil, then this persona can push your concept or issue to a new level or prepare you for the naysayers in the market. I become my own devil’s advocate and challenge myself to overcome the issues that are brought up. By doing this I have a few tricks up my sleeve when I need them.