Executives Need an Antagonist: How to Facilitate a Culture of Productive Debate

Recently I enjoyed a working dinner with a brilliant entrepreneur. He has a young but growing business, is enjoying successes in the press and has no problem attracting great talent. He is not encountering most of the startup issues normally experienced during this phase. Instead he is facing a challenge normally reserved for more mature companies.

He asked me “how can I tell if my team is giving me the best feedback possible or simply acquiescing because they fear my reaction?”

If this difficulty exists today, it will undoubtedly compound each day ahead. Worse yet, there is little this founder can do to mitigate this specific risk without direct attention. As the company continues to chalk up wins, he will earn more and more credibility in the eyes of the market, his board and the company’s employees. If it hasn’t already happened, there will be a day when he will be unintentionally surrounded by bobble-heads acquiescing to all recommendations coming from the C-Suite. The senior advisers will be afraid to publicly debate in the event that their POV is seen as dissension. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of a rockstar entrepreneur in the height of his meteoric rise!

People will naturally disagree with aspects of the strategy or elements of execution but may not feel empowered to dissent publicly with the prodigy. Eventually the company will make a misstep (as all do) and there will be some subtle disdain on behalf of the management team toward the founder. This error (and most errors) is avoidable with prior internal debate, but without a contrarian view, nobody surfaces risks.

Why does this problem manifest and what can be done to avoid the adoption of bad ideas? What tools can be used to encourage debate without fear of retribution? How can this be facilitated without undermining founders or other executives?

Appoint an Antagonist:

One exercise I’ve used successfully within group settings is to appoint an antagonist in the beginning of every meeting. This person’s role is to play the devil’s advocate in every single case - whether they agree or disagree with the premise. This doesn’t mean they will act as a guest on Jerry Springer but they will be forced to construct a well articulated argument in opposition of every major concept. The second role is an antagonist supporter who is required to build an argument accompanying the antagonist. This accomplishes three things:

1. Surfaces an opposing point of view to mitigate the pile on of agreement.

2. Motivates others to “support” the opposition without fear of retribution.

3. Fosters a culture of welcomed debate

This structure can prove very effective, but be careful of your wishes. If you are not prepared to entertain constructive (and lively) debate, you are not ready to appoint an antagonist. Unfortunately if you are not ready for such debate, you are probably not ready to scale an organization either.