CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSY AND DECISION MAKING

A large pharmaceutical company faced the decision of whether to buy or build a chemical plant (The Wall Street Journal, October 22, 1975). To maximize the likelihood that the best decision was made, the president established two advocacy teams to ensure that each, both the “buy” and the “build” alternatives, received a fair and complete hearing.

The purpose of group decision making is to decide upon well-considered, well-understood, realistic action toward goals every member wishes to achieve. A group decision implies that some agreement prevails among group members as to which of several courses of action is most desirable for achieving the group’s goals.

1. Propose several courses of action that will solve the problem under con­sideration: When the group is making a decision, identify a number of alternative courses of action for the group to follow.

2. Form advocacy teams: To ensure that each course of action receives a fair and complete hearing, assign two group members to be an advocacy team to present the best case possible for the assigned position. Positive interdependence is structured by highlighting the cooperative goal of making the best decision possible (goal interdependence) and noting that a high-quality decision cannot be made without considering the information that is being organized by the other advocacy teams

(resource interdependence). Individual accountability is structured by ensuring that each member participates in preparing and presenting the assigned position. Any information discovered that supports the other alternatives is given to the appropriate advocacy pair.

3. Engage in the constructive controversy procedure:

a. Each advocacy team researches its position and prepares a persua­sive presentation to convince other group members of its validity. The advocacy teams are given the time to research their assigned alternative course of action and find all the supporting evidence available. They organize what is known into a coherent and reasoned position.

b. Each advocacy team presents without interruption the best case possible for its assigned alternative course of action to the entire group. Other advocacy teams listen carefully, taking notes and striv­ing to learn the information provided.

c. There is an open discussion characterized by advocacy, refutation, and rebuttal. The advocacy teams give opposing positions a “trial by fire” by seeking to refute them by challenging the validity of their information and logic. They defend their own position while continuing to attempt to persuade other group members of its valid­ity. For higher-level reasoning and critical thinking to occur, it is necessary to probe and push each other’s conclusions. Members ask for data to support each other’s statements, clarify rationales, and show why their position is the most rational one. Group members refute the claims being made by the opposing teams and rebut the attacks on their own position. They take careful notes on and thor­oughly learn the opposing positions. Members follow the specific rules for constructive controversy. Sometimes a time-out period needs to be provided so that pairs can caucus and prepare new arguments. Members should encourage spirited arguing and playing devil’s advocate. Members are instructed to, “Argue forcefully and persuasively for your position, presenting as many facts as you can to support your point of view. Listen critically to the opposing pair’s position, asking them for the facts that support their viewpoint, and then present counterarguments. Remember that this is a complex issue, and you need to know all sides to make a good decision.”

d. Advocacy teams reverse perspectives and positions by presenting one of the opposing positions as sincerely and forcefully as team members can. Members may be told, “Present an opposing position as if it were yours.

e. All members drop their advocacy and reach a decision by consensus. They may wish to summarize their decision in a group report that details the course of action they have adopted and its supporting rationale. Often, the chosen alternative represents a new perspective or synthesis that is more rational than the two assigned. All group members sign the report, indicating that they agree with the decision and will do their share of the work in implementing it. Members may be instructed to, “Summarize and synthesize the best arguments for all points of view. Reach a decision by consensus. Change your mind only when the facts and the rationale clearly indicate that you should do so. Write a report with the supporting evidence and ratio­nale for your synthesis that your group has agreed on. When you are certain the report is as good as you can make it, sign it.”

f. Group members process how well the group functioned and how their performance may be improved during the next constructive controversy.

4. Implement decision: Once the decision is made, all members commit themselves to implement it regardless of whether they initially favored the alternative adopted.

Controversies are common within decision-making situations. In the mining industry, for example, engineers are accustomed to addressing issues such as land use, air and water pollution, and health and safety. The complexity of the design of production processes, the balancing of environmental and manufac­turing interests, and numerous other factors often create the opportunity for constructive controversy. Most groups waste the benefits of such disputes, but every effective decision-making situation thrives on what constructive contro­versy has to offer. Decisions are by their very nature controversial, as alterna­tive solutions are suggested and considered before agreement is reached. When a decision is made, the constructive controversy ends and participants commit themselves to a common course of action.