In pursuit of better governance, the board increasingly relies on old argument tactics assigning devil defenders. The idea is simple. Not because some people disagree, but because structured acts of objection can reveal weaknesses in reasoning and improve decision-making.
However, while the intention is good, execution is important.
“It's important that you're not the same person every time,” said Paul Denikola, of the PWC's Governance Insights Centre. “You certainly don't want that person to become known like a chronic opponent.”
Instead, turning roles and linking them to specific strategic debates, such as major pivots and controversial investments, can help normalize disagreements as a sound part of the board's deliberation. “You empower someone and give them a license to look for them,” Denikola said. “At least that's part of the process.”
However, if you use it too much, it can become a kind of crutch. Rich Fields, board advisor for Russell Reynolds Associates, urges the board not to rely too much on formal mechanisms such as assigning opponents. “I don't think most decisions necessarily require someone to be appointed as the Devil's advocate,” he said. “Are there any of us having questions or different perspectives that we haven't heard yet?”
For both Field and Denicola, the ultimate goal is to cultivate a board culture where objections are natural. “The most important thing is to establish this culture,” Fields noted.
Make it work
If the board chooses to implement this strategy, some best practices will help it land well.
Rotate roles: Ensure that various directors play a role over time to spread ownership of healthy skepticism.
This prevents one person from becoming a paradoxical typecast and encourages wider participation in critical thinking. Additionally, directors with a wide range of expertise can challenge proposals from various angles, enriching discussions.
Contextualize Ask: Please let the board know why the role is being used. EG, “This is an important decision and we want to express all possible risks.” Framing the role as a common effort to pressure test ideas can help remove stigma and keep the conversation focused. It reminds everyone that the goal is not obstruction or conflict, but improvement.
Subsequent report: After the meeting, we look back at what emerged from the discussion. Have you discovered what's been overlooked? Was it treated with respect? This step reinforces the value of the objection and encourages learning not only from the outcome but also from the process itself. Leadership can also adjust tone or facilitation if required for future sessions.
Protect your voice: Make sure that the devil's advocates are asked and not alienated as simply playing a role.
Examine their contributions at the moment and ensure follow-up if their concerns raise substantive questions.
If they are out of hand, it can defeat the purpose and cool future expressions of objections.
“You're not going to completely avoid thinking about the group,” Denicola said. “But you can set up a structure that empowers someone to ask, 'What are the risks that we haven't seen here?'
