When it's decision-making time, is there someone on your team who always plays devil's advocate?
And how do you view that person? Does he frustrate you? Or are you happy for an opposing view to drive alternative thinking or to facilitate deeper conversation?
Either way, there's a rule that outlines what that person is doing or should be doing; it's the 10th man rule.
The 10th man rule comes from Israel, where all (government/military) decisions are put before a panel of 10 people. When nine of the ten people completely agree that a particular decision is the way to go, it's the job of the 10th man to question the decision, to disagree, to take an opposing view so as to avoid the pitfalls of groupthink.
Honestly, I can't disagree with this approach. It reminds me of this General George S. Patton quote:
And that reminds me of my approach to hiring. When I hire people, I look forward to having each person bring something of value, something different - different experiences, different perspectives. I want each person on my team to challenge the current approach, the current way of thinking, the traditional way of doing things.
I've also left a couple employers early in my CX career because the approach was: "We've always done things this way. We've done things this way for 40 years. We're going to continue doing them that way." Ugh. So frustrating. Let the record show: I hate that thinking!
And it also reminds me of situations where there have been employees who have stayed with companies for 15 or 20 or more years, who get comfortable with the way things are. Tenure is not a bad thing. But complacency is. Thinking we know everything there is to know is a bad thing, too.
How do we fix that? I can think of a couple ways:
You don't actually have to have 10 people in a room making a decision. If you have fewer, call one person out to be the naysayer, the devil's advocate.
Have you used this, or a similar, approach before?
The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein