

Your Company Needs A Chief Dissent Officer - ohmmmy
http://www.fastcompany.com/3001956/why-your-company-needs-full-time-idea-killing-chief-dissent-officer

======
Eliezer
The Center for Applied Rationality's in-practice corporate culture, by virtue
of literally every person in the building being an explicit rationalist, has
an even more powerful and valuable property - people know they won't be
punished for changing their minds or admitting they were wrong. Plus you can
say "Value of information!" to justify trying-at-least-once something that
most people think won't work, since nobody's going to stick to it due to the
sunk cost fallacy afterward.

Despite everything I knew in theory about the virtue of being able to change
one's mind, including having written a major blog post Sequence about it, my
ability to do so in practice took a substantial leap after the Center for
Applied Rationality came together, I spent a lot of time coworking with some
of the people, and my monkey brain got to see that other people actually
_were_ implementing that thing I'd written about where people were allowed to
change their minds, and they _were_ getting high-fives and _not_ being
punished for it.

------
briandoll
The fatal flaw both in a "chief culture officer" and a "chief dissent officer"
is the assumption that this is one person's job, who sits on high, vs. being
_everyone's_ job.

A job title with "culture" in it doth not a culture make.

~~~
stock_toaster
There is of course merit in everyone doing critical thinking, certainly. I
don't think one obviates the other.

I do think having someone who is culturally allowed to put on the breaks
and/or seek clarification about potential bad ideas is also worthwhile, for a
couple of reasons I can see right off the bat:

1\. It may reduce the 'bystander effect'[1].

2\. It may reduce the negative emotional impact of naysaying a popular idea
from inside the group that delivers it (subconscious social pressure impact).

The role could of course be abused and become yet another abusive fiefdom, but
I think that just makes choosing the right person for the role more important.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Taking_respon...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Taking_responsibility)

------
hermannj314
What is the estimated probability that we have good vs bad ideas? What is the
probability that we think ideas are good vs think they are bad? How often do
we misclassify a good idea as bad or a bad idea good? What is the benefit vs.
cost of misclassifications(false positive, false negative) and the value of
true positives/true negatives? How much does the chief dissent officer want to
get paid? What would those probabilities look like with a CDO in place?

I'm glad FastCompany has done the calculations and knows definitely, that
regardless of any of the answers to any of those questions, your industry,
size, or strategic plans - your company needs a chief dissent officer.

~~~
mbellotti
I think they have the right idea but for the wrong reasons. Having a person
whose sole job is to play devil's advocate on every idea can help minimize the
risks of group think. Often truly bad ideas are not a mystery, plenty of
people on the ground level of a company think they are bad ideas but also know
that speaking out will hurt them politically within the company. There is
nothing a company can do to prevent this feeling, it's a natural part of human
behavior. Having someone who does nothing but question and criticize might
give these voices a safe channel from which to express their perspective,
preventing bad ideas from moving forward in good companies.

~~~
smacktoward
I would argue it wouldn't help that much, because the rest of the group would
quickly start ignoring the designated devil's advocate's feedback. "Oh, don't
mind him, he's just saying that because it's his job."

Not that they wouldn't sit there and politely listen, of course (especially if
he's a C-level exec), but unless he had some actual authority over the people
he's advising they're not likely to think about what they hear.

------
danso
When I first saw the OP title, I immediately thought Daniel Kahneman's
"Thinking Fast and Slow" in which he describes the "pre-mortem" process, in
which doubt and dissent are _rewarded_ , rather than seen as joy-kills:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/bias-blindness-
and-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/bias-blindness-and-how-we-
truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman.html)

>> _Klein’s proposal, which he calls the “premortem,” is simple: When the
organization has almost come to an important decision but hasn’t committed
itself, it should gather a group of people knowledgeable about the decision to
listen to a brief speech: “Imagine that we are a year into the future. We
implemented the plan as it now exists. The outcome has been a disaster. Please
take 5 to 10 minutes to write a brief history of that disaster.”_ _As a team
converges on a decision, public doubts about the wisdom of the planned move
are gradually suppressed and eventually come to be treated as evidence of
flawed loyalty. The suppression of doubt contributes to overconfidence in a
group where only supporters of the decision have a voice. The main virtue of
the premortem is that it legitimizes doubts._ _Furthermore, it encourages even
supporters of the decision to search for possible threats not considered
earlier. The premortem isn’t a panacea and doesn’t provide complete protection
against nasty surprises, but it goes some way toward reducing the damage of
plans that are subject to the biases of uncritical optimism._

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Somebody posted here recently about the a55-hole that should be fired, the
senior guy who is negative and disagrees with everyone, the wet blanket.

Then we get this - they should be praised, encouraged. I'm not so sure.
Paralysis by Analysis used to be a popular phrase. Sure some kind of
brainstorming of negatives is good. But we have to assume we'll overcome
obstacles and not be crushed by them.

Back in the day I wanted to rewrite an OS to use a new memory model the i286
supported. I surveyed the code and presented the action list. Project never
got off the ground - too much work.

Another senior Engineer took a different tack - he just started coding in his
office. In 6 months he had recruited others to his effort, gotten funding, and
completed the project. All because he didn't show people the obstacles,
instead he promoted the advantages.

I think optimism is the reason we do anything.

~~~
amalcon
_But we have to assume we'll overcome obstacles and not be crushed by them._

There's a big difference between _not letting knowledge of obstacles deter us_
and _assuming we'll overcome them_. The former is very important, for just the
reasons you state. The latter effectively ensures that we will _not_ overcome
said obstacles, because we won't have effective plans to do so.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That implies great insight into the the problems we'll have. That's usually
very hard to predict - else we'd all execute perfectly.

We have to assume we'll overcome obstacles, or we may as well all go home.

~~~
csallen
I think this whole thing is purely an exercise in _identifying_ obstacles.
Identifying obstacles is a necessary first step in the process of determining
whether or not you can overcome them.

The second step would be analysis. It's pointless to identify obstacles just
so you can assume that you'll overcome them all. Not all obstacles are created
equal. You need to take the time to look at the more major ones in detail, so
you can create a strategy, and then assess that strategy. The end result is
more accurate assumptions.

Of course your best-laid plans may go to waste, and your best-made predictions
may prove inaccurate. But to quote Dwight Eisenhower: "Plans are worthless.
Planning is essential."

------
projectileboy
Interesting and possibly very dangerous idea. The devil's in the details -
namely, _who_ is the CDO, and _what_ do they have the power to do? Steve Jobs
as the CDO could make a powerful company; Carly Fiorina as CDO will drive you
off a cliff.

------
Alex3917
I've thought about offering devil's advocate consulting services for a while.
Not sure how popular this sort of thing would actually be though, because in
general people don't like being told they're wrong even if it benefits them.

------
mef
While this role is most definitely necessary, I've found it's no fun to be
that person, even when others value the dissent.

I've voluntarily taken on this role in the past when I've joined a company or
project where nobody else was shooting down bad ideas or playing devil's
advocate. After a while it feels like you're always on defense while others
are bringing ideas to the table.

But of course those are minor issues when the alternative is every crazy idea
making it past the filter, and someone's got to do it.

------
nico
Since you cannot predict the future, supporting or contradicting
ideas/projects blindly is very dangerous.

In spite of the above, I think there's value to someone who opposes new
ideas/projects, but only in a very directed and specific way: to stay focused.

I've seen many startups get really distracted with side projects and non
important stuff, this is incredibly dangerous to the company, so having some
sort of system to minimize distractions could be something very valuable.

------
stretchwithme
Out in the larger world, when we come across a bad idea, we avoid getting
involved.

Give people choice about what they work on. And who they work with. Bad ideas
will have a more difficult time.

Yes, some people will pick fashionable projects and people to work with. And
they will learn from these experiences.

And you can gradually increase choice as people gain knowledge. Let people
fail small and you get smarter people making better choices later.

------
dredmorbius
Everything old is new again:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate#Origin>

------
ahallerberg
Trying to think of specific examples of this - I guess Steve Jobs is the
obvious/most prominent choice here (although he was already CEO). Any others?

~~~
longarm
Ahh yes, he killed the infamous stylus suggestion for the iPad

~~~
qq66
He also killed Apple's wireless mouse development because he claimed that
"nobody wants a wireless mouse." That's why Apple was one of the last to
release a wireless mouse.

He was right most of the time, but not all of the time.

~~~
bitwize
He also trashed the Macintosh project until the Lisa bombed, after which he
loved it and promptly took it over (making it into Lisa 2 in the process).

------
munyukim
The idea of killing bad ideas might save a company from wasted resources and
effort, but one would need to exercise caution or end up discouraging
innovation. One would need to communicate effectively and subtly about the
reasons why an idea is not good enough.

------
jff
CDO: The guy getting all the worst performance reviews, because when he
successfully turns the company away from a bad decision there's no real proof
of it. Yeah, maybe he just saved $20 million from being dumped in a rathole,
but we'll never know.

~~~
Zimahl
As someone who was a non-appointed CDO at a company (only because no one else
had the backbone to say no) my performance reviews were fine. However, it's a
thankless job because it needs to be done and the higher-ups expect _someone_
to do it.

You just better have thick skin if you take on this role. People don't like
having their projects questioned and even if you understand the project _you
just don't understand_.

------
rexreed
In a functional company / organization, isn't this supposed to be the role of
a constructive/ functional board of directors or board of advisors, assuming
that they meet with regularity or are involved in more of the decision-vetting
process?

~~~
johnrgrace
Having been the guy creating the powerpoints to spoonfeed to the board for a
fortune 500 company, I'm going to say in the large public companies the C
level people try and keep the board as far away from constructive input. Being
the guy who has pointed out that something may be deeply flawed let me tell
you this is not a good way to advance your career.

~~~
rexreed
Of course, that is how the majority (if not practically all) of boards work.
I'm just suggesting that it SHOULD be the role of a board to provide
constructive feedback to management, especially when things are not going
well.

As it stands, most boards are simply the representation of investor interests,
quite divorced from company and management interests, which just makes the
problem of getting help when things are not going well even worse. Without a
functional inside team providing constructive criticism or a functional
outside team providing advice and constructive feedback, then it's difficult
for companies of any size to get any realistic feedback at all.

It takes a powerful, charismatic CEO who both the board and employees respect
in order for critical and dissenting views to be delivered without someone's
head getting cut off. (basically, Steve Jobs and a scant few others).

------
ispep
Isn't all management's job to not allow bad ideas out the door?

How would this person's role differ from all other managements (maybe outside
marketing)?

~~~
regularfry
It's management's job to set up an environment where bad ideas get killed.
It's not their job _necessarily_ to kill bad ideas themselves.

------
robot
its the job of the founders and management

~~~
jaynate
+1 and management should create a culture where enthusiastic individuals have
a safe environment to voice and test their ideas. Management across the board
also has to know and drive the business strategy which should involve killing
ideas at times.

I can't imagine a large company with one person, the "CDO" all-knowing enough
to govern all ideas within the company. Even the best entrepreneurs bet on bad
ideas and disregard great ideas at times. Everyone should scrutinize ideas and
collaborate on the decent ones to make them better.

We should aim to create a sustainable engine of innovation fueled by great
people up and down the ranks rather than a role.

------
dsr_
Congress could use this.

~~~
rthomas6
Ron Paul seems to try to fill the role often.

~~~
derleth
Ron Paul would be more effective if he wasn't an ideologue.

Of course, he's really trying to be an effective _fundraiser_ , not an
effective _lawmaker_.

