Real dissent beats assigned dissent every time

Imagine a task force faced with two funding options. They ask Paul to play devil’s advocate out of duty—but Paul reads his lines halfheartedly, so the group skims his objections and stays locked into the original plan. Then Sarah, who genuinely prefers the other option, joins. Her real misgivings spark a serious debate; group members dig deeper, compare the facts, and surface a fatal flaw in their first choice. Researchers call this the devil’s-advocate conundrum: assigned dissenters rarely dislodge false consensus, but real critics shake the ground under everyone’s assumptions. When dissent is authentic, teams seek extra evidence, question the data, and forge more robust decisions. In fact, Nobel laureate Herbert Simon showed that groups with sincere naysayers generate more options, debate more deeply, and solve problems more creatively.

Next time you sense groupthink creeping in, invite someone who truly doubts your idea rather than assigning the role arbitrarily. Encourage them to speak openly, and treat their critiques as opportunities to improve. You’ll see that genuine dissent not only exposes blind spots but also inspires bolder, smarter solutions.