Appoint an explicit devil’s advocate role

Give one person the formal job of arguing against the plan — making dissent structural, not personal.

Why it works

Groupthink and social pressure suppress dissent even when people have genuine doubts, because raising concerns feels disloyal or obstructive. Formalizing the dissenting role removes the social cost: the devil’s advocate is doing their assigned job, not being difficult. This makes it safe to surface doubts that would otherwise stay private, because the role, not the person, carries the challenge.

How to do it

1. At the start of any significant planning or decision session, name one person the devil’s advocate.
2. Give them explicit license — and responsibility — to argue the strongest possible case against the plan.
3. Rotate the role across team members over time, so dissent is normalized as a function rather than attached to one "critic".
4. After the session, thank the devil’s advocate explicitly — the team needs to see the role rewarded, not resented.

Evidence

Research on dissent in groups shows that even a single member consistently arguing an alternative position significantly improves group decision quality, primarily by increasing cognitive diversity of the exploration — even when the dissenter is wrong. (observational)

Effects on decision quality are demonstrated in lab settings; the transfer to organizational decisions, and whether the formal role is as effective as genuine minority opinion, is less well established.

Sources

• Nemeth et al. (2001), the liberating role of conflict in group creativity, European Journal of Social Psychology

Common mistake

Appointing a devil’s advocate but treating their challenges as theater to be politely absorbed rather than taken seriously, which preserves the form but not the function.