Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor decisions

Abstract

Executive Overview People frequently believe that conflict is to be avoided in organizations. They think that meetings and decisions should reflect agreement and consensus. This article suggests that fostering disagreement in a structured setting may actually lead to better decisions. Two techniques for programming conflict into the decision-making process are suggested—the devil's advocate decision program (DADP) and the dialectic method (DM). In particular, evidence indicates that larger firms operating in uncertain environments benefit from encouraging structured conflict in decision-making. This article challenges managers to consider either the devil's advocate or dialectic methods to program conflict into important organizational decisions.