To me, "devil's advocacy" has a negative connotation, for reasons mentioned in the "Challenges" section. The "advocates" themselves can be just as prone to gro

To me, "devil's advocacy" has a negative connotation, for reasons mentioned in the "Challenges" section. The "advocates" themselves can be just as prone to groupthink as anybody else. All of the mistakes made by a group can be made by a single person -- especially if that person is a member of a group outside the organization. All of the failure modes of reasoning apply, especially if the person is motivated by their "advocacy" position to zealously defend their idea. When that happens, you get stuck trying to please the advocate rather than actually solving the problem. This can be handled within an organization, where the members themselves have faith in each other to be working for the common good. But I often hear from self-appointed "devil's advocates", who sometimes seem quite aware that they are wasting your time, and insisting that you are guilty of groupthink when you dismiss them. To me, the accusation of "groupthink" has become a euphemism for "No matter what happens I'm right and everybody else is wrong. Everybody else is being irrational, which I never am. I play the devil's advocate, but I never need to listen to a devil's advocate myself." That's not to say that "groupthink" doesn't actually happen. Quite the opposite: I tend to view the accusation of groupthink as a confession. And when it genuinely happens it's hard to see around. Adding a devil's advocate often fails to solve the problem, and can even make it worse. In other words, there is no easy answer to making the right decisions. No procedure can solve the fundamental human problems.