12 Devil’s Advocacy

Devil’s advocacy, a technique closely related to hypothesis testing, is believed to have originated in the Roman Catholic Church as a means of critically examining a deceased person’s qualifications for sainthood. Learned churchmen took the devil’s position simply for argument’s sake to challenge the rationale presented in the nomination for sainthood, the idea being that through this process the truth, perforce, would out. Similarly today, we commonly hear people say, in questioning a proposition, “Let me be the devil’s advocate,” meaning they wish to challenge the proposition, not because they disbelieve it but simply to test its validity. Devil’s advocacy does this by seeking, with either the same or other evidence, to prove the opposite of whatever the challenged view holds.

The power of devil’s advocacy lies in our compulsion to focus. Focusing tends to make us favor a particular outcome or solution early on in the analytic process, often at the very beginning, long before we can objectively analyze the evidence and reach a conclusion. Devil’s advocacy is analytically useful because it by design focuses on a contrary or opposite viewpoint and in doing so activates all of the instinctive behaviors associated with focusing: viewing the problem one-dimensionally through the lens of biases connected with that viewpoint; eschewing alternative solutions; valuing evidence that supports that viewpoint; devaluing and discarding evidence that does not. Devil’s advocacy thus engages the very same mental tactics employed by the primary advocate but applies them in opposition, thereby promoting objectivity. What’s more, the devil’s advocate goes a step further by seeking out and obtaining new evidence, evidence about which the prime advocate has no knowledge or curiosity or that was disbelieved and discredited. This further step is the secret weapon of devil’s advocacy, the extra dimension that makes it a formidable analytic technique.

One of the intriguing things about devil’s advocacy is that at no time does either the prime or the devil’s advocate have to be concerned with negative, contradictory evidence. The fact is, as Figure 12-1 reveals, the “Pro” evidence supporting the devil’s advocate’s position is the “Con” evidence opposing the prime position, and vice versa. Within these assigned roles, each advocate develops the strongest supporting case. The person comparing the cases must still examine the contrary evidence and the limits of both arguments.

And there is another curiosity about devil’s advocacy. Take the issue of abortion. There are essentially two sides: pro-choice and pro-life. Which of these two positions is the devil’s advocate’s? Well … neither, and both. It depends on which side one is on, doesn’t it? This fact should give all of us incentive, when we take a prideful stance on some issue, to carefully examine the opposing side’s supporting arguments and evidence.

A dramatic example of doing just that occurred a number of years ago when the United Auto Workers union was threatening a major strike against General Motors. The two sides had flailed away at each other in lengthy deliberations without reaching agreement. Desperately seeking to avert a costly strike, General Motors enlisted the aid of expert negotiators from Harvard University. The Harvard experts presented General Motors’ chief negotiator with a stack of documents containing arguments and evidence supporting the union’s position. They directed the negotiator to read through the material for a day or so and then brief General Motors’ management on the union’s position. He did just that, and an agreement with the union was quickly reached. How? By becoming versed in the union’s position, General Motors management achieved a more objective view of the arguments and evidence for both sides, which perception led to insights to a solution.

The tremendous potential of devil’s advocacy to undermine and show weaknesses in the primary view is, regrettably, underutilized. People instinctively resist devil’s advocacy precisely because it is designed to attack and undermine the primary view. Organizing or even proposing a devil’s-advocate approach is naturally interpreted by the prime advocate as threatening. Yet if one is truly interested in achieving the most beneficial solution to a problem, devil’s advocacy is unquestionably an appropriate analytic technique.

I am a big fan of Tom Clancy’s novels and was delighted to see his hero, in The Sum of All Fears, championing devil’s advocacy in the following exchange between the hero, Jack Ryan, and a colleague:

JACK:	“I want to play on this a little. The [CIA’s analysts of Russian affairs] will chew on it for a couple of days. I want you and me to do our own analysis, but I want a different spin on it.”
COLLEAGUE:	“Meaning what?”
JACK:	“Meaning that you think [a particular scenario] is plausible, and I have my doubts. Therefore, you will look for reasons it might not be true, and I’ll look for reasons that it is.”

Thank you, Tom Clancy.

Take, for example, a hypothetical case in which a large manufacturing company is faced with rapidly declining sales of its principal product. It has essentially two options: continuing production, perhaps with modifications to improve the product, or terminating production. If I, with my knowledge of structuring techniques, were the company CEO, I would establish two competing working groups, one to seek evidence in support of continuing production and against termination, and the other to seek evidence in support of termination and against continuing production. I would charge each group with presenting their findings to me separately. I would then weigh the two views and make my decision on that basis. To assign these inherently conflicting analytic tasks to a single working group would be tantamount to letting a single lawyer both prosecute and defend an accused person.

Another example of how devil’s advocacy could be used is the Walt Disney Company’s aborted plan to build a theme park in northern Virginia. Here again I would have set up two analytic groups, one to show why the local and state jurisdictions would approve the plan, the other to show why they would not.

We can, of course, employ the devil’s-advocate approach with good effect even when we are doing the analysis by ourselves. We simply work one view of the problem and set our conclusions aside for a day or two to let our focus, mind-sets, and biases relax and fade a bit. We then go to work on the other side, trying to prove just the opposite with the same or different evidence.

Keep in mind that, should you try this, you will experience a strong reluctance to analyze the devil’s-advocate view. A little voice in your head will whisper, “Why are you doing this? You’ve already analyzed the problem and have drawn your conclusions. This is a waste of time. And you know the devil’s-advocate view of the problem is wrong!” Your inhibitions against spending time on devil’s-advocate analysis will be powerful and relentless. Working through the opposing case can reveal overlooked evidence and weaknesses in an argument you initially found convincing. Its value depends on taking that case seriously and comparing the results fairly.