Decision-making training in Lausanne · canton of Vaud"Is anyone willing to play devil's advocate?" Why simulated disagreement doesn't replace genuine disagreement
Near the end of a meeting, a manager asks: "Would anyone like to play devil's advocate?" A colleague obliges, formulates two objections, and then the group validates the initial proposal. The procedure creates the impression that the decision has been properly examined. The precise question then becomes: does role-assigned contradiction produce the same level of scrutiny as genuinely defended opposition?
1. What the literature establishes
Charles Schwenk (1990, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) conducted a meta-analysis bringing together studies comparing structured critique—devil's advocate and dialectical inquiry—with consensus-seeking approaches. On average, procedures introducing explicit criticism were associated with better decisions than direct pursuit of agreement. The result supports the idea that a group benefits from organizing contradiction rather than waiting for it to emerge. Schwenk, 199090051-A)
2. Staged disagreement is not experienced disagreement
Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown and John Rogers (2001, European Journal of Social Psychology) compared an assigned devil's advocate with a person expressing authentic opposition. Sincere disagreement stimulated more divergent thinking and new considerations than staged disagreement. One explanation put forward concerns credibility: when everyone knows the objection is a role, they can treat it as an exercise without genuinely revising their position. Nemeth, Brown & Rogers, 2001
3. Premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that devil's advocate is useless. This is not what these works taken together suggest: organized critique is often better than no critique at all. The nuance concerns what can be expected from it. A role assigned at the end of a meeting risks functioning as a ritual that reassures the group, whereas real objections, put forward by people who believe in them, sometimes remain unspoken.
4. The limitations of the data
Much of this research is based on groups constituted for the experiment, often students, working on simulated cases without lasting hierarchical stakes. In an organization, expressing genuine disagreement carries costs: relationships with superiors, reputation, fear of being perceived as obstructive. The results indicate a plausible direction; they do not provide a validated procedure for every executive committee. (our executive and employee training programmes)
5. What this changes in conducting a meeting
A defensible practice consists of first collecting real objections, in writing and before discussion, and only then designating a dissenter for hypotheses that no one has contested. This separates two functions: surfacing existing disagreements and testing what appears obvious. The role of devil's advocate becomes a complement, not a substitute for sincere expression.
6. A practical implication, testable in Lausanne
An executive team in Lausanne can test this sequence on its next three major decisions: each person notes individually their main reservation before the meeting, reservations are read without attribution, then a designated dissenter attacks the points that remained unchallenged. Afterwards, comparing the number of new objections with those from typical meetings provides a simple indicator, without claiming to demonstrate causality. An SHR training course in [decision-making in Lausanne](/formation-prise-de-decision-lausanne) can serve as a framework for implementing this discipline. To go further: explore the Decision-making training in Lausanne in the canton of Vaud, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Decision-making in Lausanne
- decision-making
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne