Ways to increase the creative spectrum in decision making. Ways to Increase the Creative Spectrum in Decision Making Negative and Positive Information

I don't have confidence in lawyers. Who is a lawyer, prosecutor, judge? The main apologists of the System, forced to engage in sophistry for the sake of lies and the triumph of cynicism! No, they are not fighting for justice and truth - they are acting in the interests of their employers. They may object: how is it, because there are decent, ideological lawyers who are fighting an unequal battle against corruption and lawlessness of officials? And to add weight to the arguments, they will give an example of the “unmercenary” Navalny with his projects “RosPil”, “RosYama”, etc.

Lawyers rose after the French Revolution, when they formulated a new worldview concept - secularism, which replaced monarchical traditionalism, based on the clericalism of the Catholic Church.

Lawyers have developed new rules of the game, where the general civil law based on public consensus has become the main regulator of all aspects of life.

Society, which was given a sacred and mystical image, was declared the source of power.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was the prophet of the new doctrine. A little later, the Napoleonic Code became the basis for the codification of civil law for all of Europe and became the documentary basis for the triumphant march of liberalism, which swept away in its confident step the traditional system of power and the ideological matrix of the Old World.

Remember the film "The Devil's Advocate", where the whole vicious essence of the legal corporation was revealed and described in relief. What does a lawyer often seek? Excuses for a murderer, rapist, swindler and swindler. And by any means, even the most sophisticated. By deceit and lies, he tries to whitewash his client. For example, in the United States, the entire system is based on a legal platform: lawyers dictate the discourse there.

For this, the possibility of the so-called "legal conflict" has been created, when there are numerous variations in the interpretation and enforcement of the law.

Everything is in the hands of lawyers. This means that in their understanding the law is not universal - it can have one or another designation, implementation. Laws with the ease of a deputy's hand, at the suggestion of their curators, can change in the opposite sense.

One such "craftsman" to twirl the law, the famous "son of a lawyer" Zhirinovsky Vladimir Volfovich, is a vivid example of the cynicism and unscrupulousness of the deputies and legal corps. Some adopt laws in the “name of the people”, while others implement them in the name of the state and decide their destinies. Human laws themselves are a sham. Laws are only from God, everything else is rubbish and dust, which is carried by the wind of history. One of the aphorisms goes like this:

“The less rule of law in a state, the more lawyers it has.”

The system, through these agents of influence, is forced to maintain the illusion of supremacy, the “right” invented by itself. Lawyers should instill this idea in the people: the one who has more rights is right! That is, the strongest is right - he writes the laws and dictates the rules to which everyone must unquestioningly obey.

Playing the role of "devil's advocate" is not a sin

Biased opinions can also be combated with the help of the “consider the opposite point of view” method. How many times have you been in a situation where you were a member of a group that had to choose a course of action or a position? Sometimes in the course of the discussion it becomes clear that all the members of the group headlong rushed their thoughts in one direction, towards a unanimous decision. Before accepting it, one of the group members says something like this: “Wait a minute. Let me play the devil's advocate and speak out for the other side." This person then disputes the decision, which everyone seemed to be perfectly clear about. Indeed, the decision-making process is slowing down. Perhaps the group will take a fresh look at the issue. Sometimes speaking the opposite view aloud helps to identify problems, and the group has to reconsider their original decision or even abandon it altogether.

Sometimes your own judgment can also win if you want to and can play the role of "devil's advocate" to yourself. But you have to be a special "devil". Self-criticism alone is not enough; you will have to consider and imagine the possibility that the opposite of your opinion is true and correct.

This was demonstrated in the study of finding cognitive methods to combat interpretational bias, which we discussed in Chapter 4 (Lord et al., 1984). In one of the experimental groups, the procedure of the study we considered earlier was exactly repeated. Proponents and opponents of the death penalty analyzed two studies, one of which supported and the other refuted the claim that the use of the death penalty helps to reduce crime. As in the original experiment, this information had a curious effect on the subjects - there was a polarization of the subjects' opinions, that is, they were divided into two camps with sharply opposite beliefs. Despite the fact that they analyzed the same data, from which it was difficult to draw definite conclusions, supporters of the death penalty became even more vehement supporters, while opponents began to object even more strongly to its use. People selectively accepted the facts of the study with which they agreed in advance. In the other two groups, the researchers tried to "correct" this bias by giving the subjects specific instructions. Designed to make the subjects open-minded, the instructions asked them to "be as objective and unbiased as possible" and, like judges or juries, "weigh the facts fairly and impartially." In another instruction, which was intended to sway subjects to consider an opposing viewpoint, they were told how a biased interpretation could arise and asked them at each step of the reasoning to ask themselves whether they would give the same high or low rating to a given study if would lead to the opposite conclusion.

Rice. 6.2. Taking Opposite Viewpoints Prevents Polarization After reading the same information that did not allow definite conclusions to be drawn about the impact of the death penalty on crime reduction, supporters and opponents of the death penalty, who had not been specifically instructed to be open-minded when considering the data, became even stronger in their opinion. Polarization of opinions did not occur only in those subjects who were instructed to "consider the opposite point of view." (Source: Lord, Lepper, and Preston, 1984.)

These different instructions affected the subjects in very different ways, as can be seen from Fig. 6.2. Following an instruction designed to reduce bias had no effect on the polarization effect at all. However, the execution of an instruction designed to consider the opposite point of view led to the disappearance of the polarization. The confidence of supporters of the death penalty that its use leads to a decrease in crime has not increased, and their attitudes towards the appropriateness of the death penalty have not become stronger. The subjects who were opposed to the use of the death penalty also did not change their minds.

Why did one instruction work and the other not? It seems that when people are asked to be careful and objective, they are simply motivated to think more carefully about the problem. However, more careful thinking leads precisely to an increase in the internal tendency to consistency that arises with the emergence of an established opinion. Subjects instructed to be open-minded believed they were thinking objectively; but in fact, they simply did not know how the mind of a person who already has an opinion, that is, in this case, their mind, usually works. And really, who among us has ever thought that he himself thinks biased - aren't "they" always biased? Subjects who were asked to consider an opposing viewpoint were similarly unaware of the mind's inherent bias. However, following the instructions, these subjects generated possibilities that they would never have considered if they were thinking in the "normal way". Since these thoughts and ideas came to their mind through instruction, they influenced their thinking and evaluations. The main step was to make the opposite point of view visible and meaningful to people.

Studying fig. 6.2, you might think that the victory over interpretative bias by considering the opposite viewpoint is only partial. Although there was no polarization of the opinions of the subjects, they still did not lean towards more moderate positions. This is true, but after all, Rome was not destroyed in one day. Polarization of opinions is part of the process of "hardening" (hardening) attitudes and opinions, as a result of which they take root in the minds even deeper and become less flexible. With the help of the method of considering the opposite point of view, this process was at least stopped, if not reversed. As a result, attitudes may still be able to be changed if strong evidence is presented in favor of the opposite opinion.

Asking questions can lead people to paradoxical conclusions.

In Chapter 3, we discussed how people can gradually believe in their own words or actions that they have been imperceptibly nudged into by the forces generated by the situation. We have seen, for example, that questionnaire questions can be framed in such a way that they prompt people with answers about themselves, which generate self-attributions that cause people to see themselves in a different light. A similar procedure using leading questions can be applied to change socio-political attitudes. The technique is based on the exploitation of the generally accepted rule of conversation, which prescribes to answer questions, and not to challenge them (Grice, 1975). If properly posed questions are asked, then, following the aforementioned

Rice. 6.3. "Better or worse?" Having expressed her uncertainty in the question, the girl at least will not receive an unequivocally negative answer.

Under this rule, people will be forced to justify positions that are in fact the opposite of their own opinions.

As an example, consider the case of Wilma, who has a rather conservative traditional view of gender roles. One day a friend asked her: “Why do you think women make better bosses than men?” If you follow the rule of conversation, then at least part of Wilma's answer should be devoted to explaining a fact that generally contradicts her opinion: “Actually, I don’t know if this is true at all, but I need to think. Well, women do have a better understanding of other people's needs and feelings, and they're better at maintaining consensus in groups." By giving this answer, Wilma confirms the suggestion in the question that women are actually better at leadership roles. And after that, she's only one short step away from concluding that she isn't all that traditional, or that she may be too conservative. Just a little changed self-perception plus a little - a little self-conviction. A number of studies have found evidence that this insidious procedure can be used effectively to change attitudes (Swann and Ely, 1984; Swann et al., 1988). This is a good way to get a person to consider opinions that are contrary to their attitudes, while not "starting" the cognitive processes that protect attitudes. By constantly applying this method, you can gradually undermine the settings.

However, the described procedure has one drawback. You may remember that clear, well-defined attitudes are less susceptible to change through self-attribution processes. And of course, the method of leading questions will not lead to success if a person is deeply confident in the correctness of his installation. As you remember, Wilma was "pretty conservative." In contrast, Connie is absolutely confident in her conservative views on the role of women, and as a result, she will challenge leading questions that contain a liberal premise. If you ask her why women make the best bosses, she will bluntly state that nothing like this usually happens. If you ask her what she likes most about "sensitive men", she will answer: "They know that I will not agree to date them, therefore they do not ask about it." So, in order to change Connie's views, we have to look for another method? Or is it still possible to “correct” them using the method of leading questions?

The answer is: you can fix it. This is exactly what William Swann and his colleagues did (Swann et al., 1988), and as a result of their socio-psychological "repair of attitudes", the paradoxical technique of "over-attitude" leading question was born. The technique is based on the following reasoning: people who are absolutely confident in their attitudes - such as Connie - refuse to give affirmative answers to questions. any questions that imply a position that differs from their own point of view. Such a person wants you to clearly understand what his views are (Swann, 1983). He disputes even those questions in which his own attitude is “embedded”, but in a more extreme version: for example, if his own attitude has a score of “7” on a nine-point scale, and the message he received has a score of “9”. How does he resist? He argues, speaking against extreme position. In this case, an absolutely confident person can be pushed to self-attribute a more moderate position on the issue than that which he originally attributed to himself. Paradoxically, but he will change his point of view in the direction opposite to that in which he was pushed by the question.

This is the logical basis of the method, but here is how it looks in practice - Connie should be asked something like this: “Why do you share the opinion of some men who think that women are better off walking barefoot and always being pregnant?” or "Why of men Always make better bosses than women? Connie will (hopefully) dismiss these questions, discover that she has expressed almost liberal thoughts in doing so, and eventually change her mind towards a "liberalism" that she previously did not suspect existed in her own thoughts. Now we know the theoretical and practical aspects of the method - what about the results? Two studies have found that paradoxical technique has an intended effect on people who are deeply confident in their attitudes (Swann et al., 1988).

This paradoxical effect occurs because people who are confident in their opinions want others to clearly understand what they think about the matter. They are not the extremists that this question is intended for and are trying very hard to show it. It is also possible that a process that we discussed in Chapter 5, psychological reactance, comes into play. Very confident people might think that if the questioner asks such an extremist question, he assumes that they will "subscribe" to any outdated or stupid opinion, as long as it is "on their side." Therefore, they are motivated to assert their right to an individual and differentiated position.

A smart agent of influence can skillfully combine the paradoxical method, the use of psychological reactance, and the change of the sphere of acceptance and the sphere of rejection with great efficiency. Starting with extremist positions, which are obviously in the sphere of rejection of the persuaded person, one can then consistently make less extreme statements with which the person will not verbally agree. Gradually, the person will begin to disagree with the statements that were originally in his sphere of acceptance, until he rejects the very position that made the point of view suggested to him unacceptable (Varela, 1971).

psy.wikireading.ru

The Devil's Advocate Method

Devil's Advocate is a process in which an alternative is studied from two opposite points, one of which positively perceives the option, the second negatively.

Assign one member of the group to be the devil's advocate—a person who is defending a clearly wrong cause.

Appoint one member of the group to be the devil's advocate - a person who defends a clearly wrong cause or is engaged in chicanery, looking for flaws, inaccuracies, dubious provisions, errors, criticizing the decisions made from various points of view. This helps to quickly make the right, acceptable and comprehensively justified decision for everyone. Note that a person in this role should be organic, not everyone is in the mind and heart.

Before canonizing the deceased, the Catholic Church appointed a devil's advocate, who was supposed to present arguments against why this person could not be canonized as a saint.

A special place in marketing methods is occupied by methods of expert assessments (Dolphin, Brainstorming, Devil's Advocate, etc.), which allow you to quickly get an answer about the possible development processes of a particular event on the market, identify the strengths and weaknesses of an enterprise, evaluate the effectiveness of certain other marketing activities.

As practice shows, the most effective preventive means of combating groupthink can be the introduction of a devil's advocate into the group, whose duties would include constructive criticism of the proposed ideas.

Johnston had no inkling of the possibility of giant market drops in the near future, but he decided to play devil's advocate.

So many fellow analysts have inspired me in one way or another, from Bob Prechter, arguably the best in the consulting business, to Bruce Babcock, my personal devil's advocate. Frank Taucher and Bob Prechter are the only people I know of at the time who have come forward and even paid attorneys' bills for the opportunity to publish newsletters, trying to defend the right to print without registration with the US government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC) in accordance with the first amendment to the constitution.

It is critical that the user review and approve the preliminary and detailed external specifications. If for some reason this cannot be done (for example, in a user-independent project), then a special group should be formed in the development organization itself, which is called upon to play the role of the devil's advocate; its task will be to evaluate the specifications from the user's point of view.

One of the members of the group is given the role of the devil's advocate. The person in this role must actively gather information that conflicts with the proposed course of action and focus on views that do not have support. The Devil's Advocate must give well-founded arguments against the proposed proposal. This approach helps to prevent the group from reaching a premature consensus in defining the problem.

Why equity risk premiums should have anything to do with sovereign bond spread. The simple explanation is that an investor who can earn 11% by investing in a dollar-denominated Brazilian government bond would not settle for the expected return of 105% (in dollar terms) from an investment in a Brazilian stock. However, playing the part of the devil's advocate, the critic could argue that the government bond interest rate from which the default spread is drawn is not, in fact, the expected return, as it is based on the promised cash flows (coupons and principal), arising from holding the bond rather than from expected cash flows. In fact, if we want to figure out the risk premium for a bond, we need to estimate the expected return based on the expected cash flows, taking into account the risk of default. This would result in a significantly lower default spread and equity risk premium.

The main difference between the surgical team and the team of the lead programmer is that the members of the team remain in it throughout the entire work on the project and each of them has his own special role, taking into account his special talents. The team is led by the lead programmer (surgeon), but here he writes all the programs and all the documentation for the team's products. The team also has an assistant who explores alternatives, serves as the lead programmer's devil's advocate, and interacts with the rest of the team. Brooks also suggests that the brigade should have an administrator: a person who deals exclusively with the budget, housing conditions, machine time, personnel issues.

At the stage of concept formation, the leader sets the task. Usually, due to the inertia of thinking, a person tries in his experience and knowledge to find a situation similar to the current one, to attribute this situation to an already known group, and then act according to a known pattern. Thus, the formulation of the problem is often reduced to classification. Therefore, the controller at this stage can either suggest a possible decision-making model, or play the role of a devil's advocate in order to test the strength of one or another model.

Expert focus

The method is one of the forms of joint face-to-face discussion of the problem. Experts comprehensively consider the situation under study, “focus” on it. The main goal is to reveal the structure of this problem, to determine, if possible, all the factors that determine this situation, to establish the relationship between them. The discussion is more businesslike than in the classic version of brainstorming, that is, it takes place without unnecessary "nonsense".

Commission method

It also consists in a joint discussion of the problem. The main difference from focusing is the desire to find out what the contradiction between the different options for the proposed solutions is, to find the maximum number of “points of agreement” and come to a consensus.

Solution integration method

It is basically similar to the commission method, but more formalized. It consists in developing a joint solution to the problem based on identifying the strengths of individual solutions and combining them. The method is implemented in several stages. At the first stage, the experts are presented with a problem, and they consider and solve it independently of each other. Then, in a pre-prepared form, the experts enter their individual decisions, i.e., the interpretation of the analyzed situation or a forecast of the development of events. At the next stage, the experts jointly discuss the problem and all proposed solutions in order to identify the strengths of each individual solution, which are also recorded in the form. When presenting individual solutions, variations are possible - either each solution is presented by the author and argued in detail, or the anonymity of the decisions is observed in order to avoid pressure from authorities. Once all solutions have been discussed and the strengths of each have been identified, a synthesized solution is produced by combining the advantages of the individual solutions.

business game

The method can be implemented in different forms. The most common form is modeling the analyzed processes and (or) the future development of the predicted phenomenon in different versions and reviewing the data obtained. The development of a procedure for conducting a business game is a rather difficult task, and serious attention should be paid to it. The following elements of the game should be clearly defined and formally described: goals and objectives, roles of participants, plot and regulations. An important stage of any business game is reflection - the analysis of not only the game process itself, but also the results of modeling the phenomenon under study.

"Court" Method (Devil's Advocate Method)

It is one of the varieties of business games. The discussion of the set task is implemented in the form of a trial: a “trial on the problem” is modeled. A "lawyer", "prosecutor", "judge", "jury" and other participants in the "process" are selected. Everyone defends his point of view regarding the analyzed or predicted phenomenon. The final verdict is determined in two stages: the voting of the "juries" and the concretization of the decision by the "judges".

Experts investigate the problem in the same way that doctors examine a patient: they determine the “symptoms” and the causes of the problem, analyze it, make a “diagnosis” and give a forecast of the development of the situation.

"Collective Notebook"

At the beginning of the work, all experts gather together, they are told about the essence of the problem that has arisen and formulate a task. Then each expert works with his notebook for a certain time (it is possible that different experts focus on different sides of the problem). The second stage of the implementation of the examination is that the notebooks are collected, the information is systematized (by the research team or the head of the expert group), and then, in a face-to-face joint discussion of the accumulated and systematized material, the experts come to a solution to the problem.

Delphi method

It is a remote and anonymous survey of the expert group in several rounds with the agreement of the experts' opinions. Questionnaires on the problem under study are offered to experts. The degree of standardized questions can be different (they can be both closed and open, imply both a quantitative and a qualitative answer). Variations are also possible in terms of argumentation and substantiation of expert assessments (may be mandatory or not). As a rule, the Delphi method is implemented in 2-3 rounds, and during repeated polls, experts are invited to get acquainted either with the opinions and arguments of each expert, or with an average rating. During the repeated rounds, experts can change their assessment, taking into account the arguments of their colleagues, or they can remain with the same opinion and express reasonable criticism of other assessments. There are various methods for matching expert assessments (with or without expert qualifications (as weight coefficients), with or without extreme assessments discarded, etc.). The Delphi method has very significant advantages, which sometimes make it indispensable. First, absenteeism and anonymity make it possible to avoid orientation towards authorities, which could arise if experts were brought together and they would have to make their opinion public. Secondly, experts have the opportunity to change their minds without the risk of "losing face". The Delphi method is a method for quickly finding solutions based on their generation in the process of "brainstorming" carried out by a group of specialists and the selection of the best solution based on expert assessments. The Delphi method is used for expert forecasting by organizing a system for collecting and mathematical processing of expert assessments.

The Devil's Advocate, Supply Chain Optimization Anti-Pattern

Customers are thought to be their suppliers' best advocates, but is it smart to be the devil's advocate?

Nickname: supplier from hell

Problem- The company signed a big deal with a supplier of expensive software to optimize the supply chain. Typically, software vendors sell consulting services in addition to the system itself. Thus, the supplier does not provide the required services in full, but the client company continues to increase costs over time, despite the fact that the deadlines for the delivery of works are constantly missed.

Unbelievable but true: according to the statements of software vendors, then the profit from using their system should grow faster than computing power in accordance with Moore's law.

Context: The company's management is desperately looking for options to optimize supply chains. A lot of time has already been spent on their own failed attempts to solve the problem, and therefore the leaders get the feeling that despite their best efforts to find a solution, the whole initiative is stalling. The task facing the company is complex - it involves many variables and constraints. Complex patterns of demand must also be taken into account, and no one can clearly say which statistical approach will solve the problem. Management clearly recognizes that solving a problem requires knowledge and experience that their own employees do not have.

Suggested solution: When there were programs for managing companies, everyone was inspired by the opportunities that were opening up. The suppliers promised a simple solution to the problems: the supplier had to solve all the complex issues on his own thanks to the unique technology and methodology. Thanks to a particular supplier, the company's management finally found a way to delegate the solution of an overwhelming problem to an outside organization. Employees are happy to accept the system, as it gives them certain opportunities and meets their expectations.

results: large amounts are spent on the supplier, and the results, at best, allow minimally smoothing out negative effects. It is not clear whether supply chains have actually improved as a result of working with a software vendor. The problems of overstocking and shortages of goods can be solved to some extent through the use of a rather complex system, the setting of which will require several months of work by a whole team of employees. At the same time, the supplier never disputes the client's point of view and tells him what the client wants to hear. Since everything the supplier says is a kind of echo of the wishes of the company, such a project is not able to bring anything new, despite the promise of using revolutionary technologies and methods. If the vendor disappears the next day, the company simply returns to where it was before it signed the software vendor, making the entire project a waste of time and money. Deep down in their hearts, some managers are aware of the whole situation, but if the project is publicly declared a failure, they may suffer because they initially supported the specified supplier.

Reasons for the popularity of the approach: Suppliers have mastered the art of seduction. Among their representatives are serious experts with an impressive reputation, usually with experience in very large companies. Some of these representatives may have even once been heads of departments that were larger than the client's company. Among the staff of software vendors are also candidates and doctors of sciences. Most of their technical comments are impossible to understand, but such people obviously understand the business much better than the client's own experience allows. This “all-in-one” set offered by vendors is exactly what executives want – the opportunity to relax. Suppliers also constantly use trendy technical jargon, fresh buzzwords that catch everyone who works in a particular field. Employees who participate in consultations on this issue are also amenable to the supplier: he promises to keep the usual work procedures, improving only visible problem areas.

Causes of failure: when optimizing supply chains, changes are inevitable, no matter how tough, inconvenient and ineffective they may be. For managers, change usually involves learning new skills, often complex technical skills, when in their entire careers to date they have only acquired the people skills needed to manage large teams. The supplier promises a revolutionary solution, but at the same time he reassures the management that the implementation of the system will be painless. As a result, the supplier simply agrees with everything that the client requires of him, and the situation does not change in any way (although outwardly everything is furnished magnificently). In other words, the actions of the supplier simply reflect the desires of the management and employees of the client company. Such an "echo", of course, gives a feeling of comfort, but working with such a supplier is of little benefit, because it does not give out any new information. Also, while the idea of ​​“employee empowerment” sounds tempting, the best results in supply chain optimization can be achieved with a sufficiently high degree of automation (physical or logical) that many lower positions in the company are at risk. By carefully avoiding complex changes, the supplier also does not allow for major improvements.

Positive pattern for the problem: The best way to solve the "purchase hell" problem is to choose your vendors more carefully and be especially careful with corporate vendors who are by nature experts in corporate seduction. Then, if the company is already tied to such a supplier, it is necessary to develop a specific approach: hard on the problem, soft on people. You need to part with the supplier and accept the fact that the money spent on the project was wasted. Instead of punishing the people responsible for the project, the company should strive to make the most of the experience gained, to tell all its employees about it, so that a similar situation does not happen again.

Example: Fabrikam is a small Spanish brand with its own retail network, which includes about 100 stores. Their market is quite large, but the company is considered a relatively small player. As is the case with many companies in this field, most of their products are made in China, which means a fairly long lead time. Sales in Spain account for more than 80% of the company's total profits, but Fabrikam has already begun to enter the markets of neighboring countries, primarily Portugal and France. Long lead times, combined with a growing network of distributors, are putting significant pressure on the company's supply chains. Fabrikam employees believe that their supply chain is not good enough to reach the pan-European level. For example, all forecasting is done "at home", and everyone believes that its accuracy is far from ideal. To optimize supply chains, the company conducts experiments (POC) with several suppliers. Very little effort is spent on conducting these experiments, and even less on the analysis of the technologies used in the course of research, as well as the results obtained. In addition, several employees who have been with the company for a long time and are of value to it are still promoting "home" solutions. However, without the necessary resources and real deep skills, these endeavors do not bring benefits.

At a certain point, management decides to organize a trip to Silicon Valley, a kind of technological Mecca. The purpose of the trip is to evaluate their prospects with the help of a number of companies creating various technologies that are considered cutting-edge in the US and most of which have not yet appeared in Europe. During the trip, the company team meets Brian from Genialys. Prior to Genialys, Brian worked as an Associate Director of Sales for the North American retail division of a huge company. This North American division was larger than Fabrikam. Genialys was founded 1.5 years ago by three top executives from Delphis, a leading software vendor known for the highest prices in the market. Two of the three founders have degrees from Ivy League universities. A few hours later, Brian hosts an online conference with Fabrikam management and a team that has arrived in the Valley.

The conference is going great. The vision of Genialys is fully in line with Fabrikam's goals and even exceeds them. In addition, in the US, business is done 50 times faster than in old Europe. Genialys has all the necessary tools and a team of employees who can be up and running in just a few hours. Genialys is ready to make Fabrikam its main customer in Europe. Prices in Genialys are simply sky-high, almost the same as in Delphis. However, Fabrikam's management is convinced that Genialys offers them an innovative product in the field of supply chain optimization. After 6 months, the profit will amount to millions of euros per month and will completely allow paying for Genialys services. “If you want the best, be prepared to pay,” Fabrikam executives understand.

A year passes and the project continues. Genialys got the project budget right - it required some input and a couple of simple calculations. However, all the forecasting that Fabrikam needed so badly is "under development." Genialys experts constantly fly from the US West Coast to Europe, but they are already fed up with these business trips. Spanish employees are still trying to figure out how the sophisticated statistical methods used by Genialys work on the supply chain challenges they face. Millions have been spent on the project, but there are no actual results. The management gets nervous, but when the atmosphere heats up, a team of important Genialys employees goes to the Fabrikam headquarters in Spain and reassures the customers that everything is going according to plan.

The results are striking in their absence, but Genialys still gets his money.

Devil's Advocate is a process in which an alternative is studied from two opposite points, one of which positively perceives the option, the second negatively.

Assign one member of the group to be the devil's advocate - a person who is defending a clearly wrong cause.

Appoint one member of the group to be the devil's advocate - a person who defends a clearly wrong cause or engages in chicanery, looking for flaws, inaccuracies, dubious provisions, mistakes, criticizing decisions made from various points of view. This helps to quickly make the right, acceptable and comprehensively justified decision for everyone. Note that a person in this role should be organic, not everyone is in the mind and heart.

Before canonizing the deceased, the Catholic Church appointed a devil's advocate, who was supposed to present arguments against why this person could not be canonized as a saint.

A special place in marketing methods is occupied by methods of expert assessments (Dolphin, Brainstorming, Devil's Advocate, etc.), which allow you to quickly get an answer about the possible development processes of a particular event on the market, identify the strengths and weaknesses of an enterprise, evaluate the effectiveness of certain other marketing activities.

As practice shows, the most effective preventive means of combating groupthink can be the introduction of a devil's advocate into the group, whose duties would include constructive criticism of the proposed ideas.

Johnston had no inkling of the possibility of giant market drops in the near future, but he decided to play devil's advocate.

So many fellow analysts have inspired me in one way or another, from Bob Prechter, arguably the best in the consulting business, to Bruce Babcock, my personal devil's advocate. Frank Taucher and Bob Prechter are the only people I know of at the time who have come forward and even paid attorneys' bills for the opportunity to publish newsletters, trying to defend the right to print without registration with the US government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC) in accordance with the first amendment to the constitution.

It is critical that the user review and approve the preliminary and detailed external specifications. If for some reason this cannot be done (for example, in a user-independent project), then a special group should be formed in the development organization itself, which is called upon to play the role of the devil's advocate; its task will be to evaluate the specifications from the user's point of view.

One of the members of the group is given the role of the devil's advocate. The person in this role must actively gather information that conflicts with the proposed course of action and focus on views that do not have support. The Devil's Advocate must give well-founded arguments against the proposed proposal. This approach helps to prevent the group from reaching a premature consensus in defining the problem.

Why equity risk premiums should have anything to do with sovereign bond spread. The simple explanation is that an investor who can earn 11% by investing in a dollar-denominated Brazilian government bond would not settle for the expected return of 105% (in dollar terms) from an investment in a Brazilian stock. However, playing the part of the devil's advocate, the critic could argue that the government bond interest rate from which the default spread is drawn is not, in fact, the expected return, as it is based on the promised cash flows (coupons and principal), arising from holding the bond rather than from expected cash flows. In fact, if we want to figure out the risk premium for a bond, we need to estimate the expected return based on the expected cash flows, taking into account the risk of default. This would result in a significantly lower default spread and equity risk premium.

The main difference between the surgical team and the team of the lead programmer is that the members of the team remain in it throughout the entire work on the project and each of them has his own special role, taking into account his special talents. The team is led by the lead programmer (surgeon), but here he writes all the programs and all the documentation for the team's products. The team also has an assistant who explores alternatives, serves as the lead programmer's devil's advocate, and interacts with the rest of the team. Brooks also suggests that the brigade should have an administrator: a person who deals exclusively with the budget, housing conditions, machine time, personnel issues.

At the stage of concept formation, the leader sets the task. Usually, due to the inertia of thinking, a person tries in his experience and knowledge to find a situation similar to the current one, to attribute this situation to an already known group, and then act according to a known pattern. Thus, the formulation of the problem is often reduced to classification. Therefore, the controller at this stage can either suggest a possible decision-making model, or play the role of a devil's advocate in order to test the strength of one or another model.

I don’t know how reliable the stories written below are, but the fact that F.N. Plevako was one of the most famous lawyers in our history is a fact.
Examples of his brilliant performances in court.
1. I took off my shoes!
He defends a man whom a prostitute has accused of rape and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury. Facts of the case: the plaintiff alleges that the defendant lured her into a hotel room and raped her there. The man also declares that everything was in good agreement. The last word for Plevako.
"Gentlemen of the jury," he says. "If you award my client a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes."
The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "That's not true! I took off my shoes!"
Laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.
2. "15 years of unfair reproach"
Once, Plevako got a case about the murder of his woman by one man. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers and cribs. And so, when the turn came to the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Here in the hall swept the discontented rumble of the long-awaited long-awaited spectacle of the people. And Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Here already the hall exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable public. And from the podium again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Something incredible has begun. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, urging the people to calm down.
- Well, gentlemen, you could not stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. And what was it like for this unfortunate peasant to listen for 15 years to unfair reproaches and irritated itching of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!
The hall froze, then burst into admiring applause.
The man was acquitted.
3. 20 minutes
The lawyer F.N. Plevako defended the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than it was supposed to, on the eve of some religious holiday. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was there, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. After 10 minutes, Plevako, without hurrying, entered the hall, calmly sat down at the place of protection and opened the briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman: - And how much is on your watch, Your Excellency? The chairman looked and replied:
- At my fifteen minutes past eleven. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:
- And on your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?
The prosecutor, obviously wishing to cause trouble for the defense counsel, replied with a sly smile:
- It's already twenty-five past ten on my watch.
He could not know what kind of trap Plevako set up for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.
The trial ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked that the defendant be found guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:
- The defendant was indeed 20 minutes late. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and does not know much about watches. We are literate and intelligent people. How are you doing with your watch? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, the chairman has 15 minutes, and the prosecutor's clock has 25 minutes. Of course, the most faithful watch belongs to Mr. Prosecutor. So my watch was 20 minutes behind, which is why I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch very accurate, because I have gold, Moser.
So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor's clock, opened the session 15 minutes late, and the defense counsel appeared 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate saleswoman have better hours and better understand the time than the prosecutor and I?
The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.
4. Sign.
The great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with the frequent use of the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in the provincial district court, he agreed with the bell-ringer of the local church that he would begin the evangelization for mass with special precision.
The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed: If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about that!
And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a verdict of not guilty.

Several methods have been developed to help managers (primarily for interactive and nominal groups). The role of the doubter in the assumptions and opinions expressed by the members of the group takes on "Devil's Advocate", the main task of which is to encourage its participants to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Legalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to study and explain the risks associated with each solution 20 .

This approach is similar to another approach called multiplicative protection , when several “lawyers” of various options participate in the decision-making. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings.

Method brainstorming It is used, as a rule, in interactive groups, whose members spontaneously generate ideas aimed at solving problems. The main goal of brainstorming is to create the most favorable environment for creative solutions. Participation in brainstorming encourages employees to express any, the most incredible and obviously impossible solutions. Critical comments about them are not allowed. Managers must speak their minds out loud; The discussion proceeds at a leisurely pace. The newer and more unexpected the idea, the better. The purpose of brainstorming is to increase the freedom and flexibility of thinking. As a rule, the “storm” begins: “warm-up”, when the basic concepts are discussed; then comes the free stage of generating ideas; the process ends with an evaluation of feasible proposals.

The devil's advocate is a method used in the decision-making process when one of the participants in the discussion encourages the others to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions.

The devil's advocate - a term introduced by British law - is the name of a person who, in a dispute, assumes the obligation to defend a deliberately wrong (from an objective or moral point of view) position so that those present can appreciate all the subtleties of the situation

The devil's advocate (lat. advocatus diaboli) is the unofficial title of the position of the institute of canonization of the Catholic Church. Officially, this position was called the strengthener of faith (lat. promotor fidei). It was introduced in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V and officially abolished in 1983 by John Paul II.

Before canonizing the deceased, the Catholic Church appointed a devil's advocate, who was supposed to present arguments against why this person could not be canonized as a saint.

The function of the devil's advocate was to collect all possible arguments that could interfere with the canonization or beatification of the righteous, which could take place only if the faith strengthener did not find arguments of sufficient importance to cancel the procedure. Prior to 1983, no act of canonization or beatification could be recognized as legal if the act was not attended by the devil's advocate.

"Devil's Advocate". There are many approaches to making decisions in a group in a variety of ways. The first of these and the most common in Western management practice is the method of making managerial decisions, called the "Devil's Advocate". It should be noted that this method has not been widely used in domestic management practice, despite the fact that it fully meets the specifics of domestic management and can be successfully used in organizations of almost any type.

The role of the doubter in the assumptions and opinions expressed by the members of the group is assumed by the "devil's advocate", whose main task is to encourage its members to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Legalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to study and explain the risks associated with each solution. This approach is called multiplicative defense, i.e. when several “lawyers” of different options participate in the decision. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings. It is known that the former US President George W. Bush resorted to this method. The procedure for passing a series of laws on environmental protection in 1999, when a multi-stage debate was held in the White House to help the President, entered the textbooks. From time to time, when George Bush asked cross-cutting questions to the representatives of the parties, the discussions threatened to turn into hand-to-hand fights. But as a result of the debate, a decision was made based on convincing arguments and awareness of the possible consequences.

Devil's Advocate is a process in which an alternative is studied from two opposite points, one of which positively perceives the option, the second negatively.

Bibliography.

1. O.S. Vikhansky. "Strategic management". Ed. Economist 2009
2. V.V. Lukashevich. "Fundamentals of Management in Trade". M., Economics,
2007
3. V.R. Vesnin. "Management for all" M. Lawyer. 2007
4. Robert N. Hoyt. "Fundamentals of financial management. M. "Delo LTD.,
2005
5. A.Ya.Kibanov, D.K.Zakharov "Organization of personnel management at
enterprise" M., GAU, 2010

When using the "devil's advocate" technique developed by Marvin Goldfried ( Goldfried, Linehan, & Smith, 1978), the therapist presents the patient with an extremely controversial statement, asks him if he believes in this statement; then plays the role of the "devil's advocate", with all his strength resisting the patient's attempts to refute this statement. The therapist presents the thesis in order to get the antithesis from the patient, in the process of discussion they achieve a synthesis. The highly controversial statement presented by the therapist must refer to a dysfunctional view expressed by the patient or problematic rules applied by the patient. This technique is best suited to counteract new contrasting patterns. This strategy resembles the use of a paradox, where the therapist moves to the dysfunctional pole of the continuum, thereby forcing the patient to move to the opposite, functional pole.

The Devil's Advocate technique is always used during the first few sessions to build a patient's commitment to change. The therapist makes arguments against change and adherence to therapy because change is painful and requires a lot of effort; ideally, the patient should take a diametrically opposed position and advocate the need for change and treatment. The use of this strategy is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.

The discussion approach often used in cognitive restructuring is another example of the devil's advocate strategy under discussion. The thesis can be an irrational belief - for example, proposed by Albert Ellis ( Ellis, 1962): “All people should love me, and if at least one person does not love me, then my life is meaningless,” or: “If for any reason I offend another person, it will be an irreparable disaster.” The therapist defends the misconception while figuring out why the patient disagrees. For example, the therapist might use the last of these statements to tell the patient that they must change their behavior so that they meet the expectations of others and are approved by them, even if the patient's behavior is quite appropriate and justified (for example, the patient refuses to speed while driving, or does not want to participate in fraud). The therapist may counter what the patient is suggesting by exaggerating his own usual position, until the failure of the patient's original beliefs becomes apparent to him.

This technique has certain requirements. First, the therapist must be receptive to the dysfunctional rules and general universal beliefs that are present. Second, the therapist must create a convincing picture of his own directness and rather naive expressive style. Thirdly, somewhat unusual, but quite logical answers to each argument of the patient are very helpful. Fourth, the therapist's position must be justified enough to seem "real" to the patient, yet ostentatious enough to elicit opposition from the patient. An attitude that simultaneously acknowledges the patient's commitment to a particular idea and denies the meaning of that idea would be ideal. It also requires some ease and the ability to unobtrusively change arguments. Finally, the therapist must understand when to be serious and when to turn the argument into a humorous one.

Extension»

"Prolongation" refers to the attitude of the therapist towards the patient, when he takes the patient more seriously than he takes himself. If the patient says something to make a certain impression, or expresses extreme emotion to bring about minor changes in the environment, the therapist takes everything literally. This technique is the emotive equivalent of the devil's advocate strategy described above.

For example, a patient may make a statement about the impact or consequences of a certain event or problem in their life (“If you do not agree to an additional psychotherapy session, I will kill myself”). The therapist first takes the patient's statement about the consequences of the problem literally, then reacts to the severity of these consequences ("I will kill myself"), regardless of the actual relationship of these consequences to the event or problem named by the patient (refusal of the therapist to allow an additional psychotherapeutic session). The therapist says: “We must do something immediately if the situation is so serious and you really can kill yourself. How about hospitalization? You may need inpatient treatment. How can you talk about such trifles as the schedule of psychotherapy sessions when your life is in danger? First you need to eliminate this danger. How are you going to kill yourself?" The therapist's serious attitude to the patient's statement is not at all what the latter seeks. The patient expects from the therapist a serious attitude to the presentation presented to him. problem or event, therefore, often exaggerates their importance. The therapist only takes them seriously consequences and "extends" them by insisting on considering the consequences until a way is found to resolve them.

When used skillfully, this strategy helps the patient to understand that he is exaggerating the severity of the consequences. When this happens (“Well, okay. Maybe I'm exaggerating. I'm not going to commit suicide”), the therapist must definitely move to another position - taking the problem or event seriously. Refusal to exaggerate the emotional consequences of the problem on the part of the patient must be reinforced. If misused, this strategy can become a cover for a therapist who is unable to adequately perceive the patient's really serious problems. This technique is best used when the patient does not expect the therapist to take himself seriously, or when the escalation of the crisis or emotional consequences is maintained due to their provocative influence on the environment. The use of this technique can be especially effective if the therapist feels manipulated. This technique is characterized by normalizing both the patient's behavior and the therapist's feelings, eliminating the desire to attack the patient. With skillful use, this strategy gives very good results.

The term "extension" to describe this technique is borrowed from aikido, the Japanese martial arts system. The fighter allows the opponent's movement to reach its natural end, then extends the final moment of the movement a little further than usual; in this case, the enemy loses his balance and becomes vulnerable. "Extension" is always preceded by "fusion", which in aikido means the movement of the fighter in the same direction as the energy flow of the opponent ( Saposnek, 1980). For example, the patient says to the therapist: “If you don’t do what I want, therapy will not help me” (opponent strike). The therapist replies, “If therapy cannot help you (fusion), we must do something (natural end of movement). Maybe I'm not the right fit for you and you need a different therapist? This is very serious” (“extension”). All aspects of the Devil's Advocate strategy described above (focusing on exaggerated consequences; feigned naivety; offbeat but logical responses; therapist reactions that look "real" enough but are sharp enough to help the patient understand the inadequacy of their own position; lightness and subtle modification of the therapist's position) are equally important in this situation.