Authentic dissent improves judgment; assigned devil's…

When This Fires

• When constructing diverse input sets for decisions (Construct a three-perspective input set)
• When tempted to assign a devil's advocate role instead of seeking real disagreement
• When everyone on the team agrees and you need genuine challenge to the consensus
• When stress-testing a strategy or plan before commitment

Common Failure Mode

Assigning devil's advocacy as a substitute for real diversity: "Sarah, can you argue against this for a minute?" Sarah argues perfunctorily, the team addresses her surface objections, and everyone feels the decision has been "stress-tested" when it hasn't. The genuine objections that would surface from someone who actually disagrees never appeared because Sarah was performing a role, not expressing a conviction.

The Protocol

(1) When you need dissent, seek someone who genuinely holds the opposing view — not a supporter playing a role. (2) Ask: "Who in my network would actually disagree with this approach? Not who would be willing to argue against it, but who would genuinely believe the alternative?" (3) Consult that person and listen for objections you hadn't considered — authentic dissenters surface different arguments than advocates because they've been living with the opposing view, not constructing it on the spot. (4) If you can't find a genuine dissenter → the issue may not have a credible opposing view, or your network may be too homogeneous. Consider seeking input from outside your usual circles. (5) Never substitute assigned advocacy for authentic disagreement when genuine dissent is available. The cognitive benefits are not equivalent.