9 Ways to Unleash the Power of Constructive Debate and Deliberation: An Overview

When Quaker Oats Company acquired the Snapple Beverage Corporation for $1.7 billion in 1994, analysts warned that Quaker was overpaying by as much as $1 billion. Quaker leadership countered that the hefty price was justified by immense synergies.

Quaker believed Snapple's drinks would fill out the Quaker Oats product line and freshen its brand. Quaker had made Gatorade into a hit and reasoned it could similarly use its assets and expertise to improve Snapple's distribution and market share. But distributors said, essentially, "Thanks, but no thanks." Meanwhile, other companies saw Snapple's success and began to compete aggressively with copycat drinks. Snapple's quirky appeal to distributors and customers waned, and Quaker's anticipated synergies never materialized.

Just 27 months after buying it, Quaker sold Snapple for a mere $300 million. In addition to writing off $1.4 billion in value, Quaker suffered $160 million in operating losses during the integration. William Smithburg, Quaker's longtime CEO, stepped down later that year. Reflecting on the debacle, Smithburg later admitted,

"There was so much excitement about bringing in a new brand, a brand with legs. We should have had a couple of people arguing the 'no' side of the equation."

Quaker's $1.5+ billion failure, which Paul Carroll and I explored in greater detail in our book, Billion Dollar Lessons: What You Can Learn from the Most Inexcusable Business Failures of the Last 25 Years, is a prime example of the one of the seven ways to fail big I described in an earlier article. And, William Smithburg's reflection on how he might have avoided that failure is a through line across many of the failures we studied:

Premature consensus often precedes poor decisions; encouraging dissent and deliberation, therefore, becomes essential for sound decision-making.

Alfred P. Sloan, the storied architect of General Motors, understood the value of dissent decades earlier. In one instance, Sloan halted a meeting with his top executives, questioning their unanimous agreement and suggesting a delay for further consideration to cultivate disagreement and a deeper understanding of the decision at hand.

Peter Drucker, in his work “The Effective Executive,” emphasized this truth:

Decisions of the kind the executive has to make are not made well by acclamation. They are made well only if based on conflicting views, the dialogue between different points of view, the choice between different judgments. The first rule of decision-making is that one does not make a decision unless there is a disagreement.

Drucker argued that airing disagreement safeguards decision-makers from special interests and preconceived notions within the organization. More importantly, only disagreement can provoke imagination and alternatives.

So, the question isn’t whether dissent and deliberation can improve decisions. The question is how to introduce it in a way that organizations can tolerate. Every organization needs to find ways to encourage constructive dissent and foster robust deliberation.

In this article, I'll lay out nine mechanisms for introducing acceptable levels of useful disagreement. These methods aim to cultivate dialogue and critical thinking throughout the strategic planning and execution process. I'll explore them in more detail in subsequent articles.

1. First, decide how to decide. Establish decision criteria for strategic initiatives upfront, allowing for a balanced evaluation of all options. That way, stress testing and other mechanisms are not seen as attacks on a particular strategy, but rather process safeguards to be fairly applied to all potential strategic alternatives. There are numerous stress-testing frameworks, one I have found particularly effective is George Day's Real-Win-Worth framework.
2. Empower the Devil’s Advocate. Encourage individuals to challenge prevailing views to refine decisions. The question is how to let them do so in a way that organizations can tolerate, and they can survive. I'll offer a range of informal to formal models for leaders to foster devil’s advocates, including how to publicly encourage them and privately protect them.
3. Smooth management ruts. Break away from entrenched group dynamics to ensure a diversity of perspectives. For example, do your management discussions tend to follow unspoken but rigid protocols, with most participants paying careful attention to the boundaries set by the leader? Such process ruts perpetuate mental ruts. I'll lay out ways to cast aside familiar roles and protocols when critical issues arise to ensure all perspectives can emerge.
4. Find history that fits. Use historical insights judiciously to inform strategic choices. While “been there, done that” is among the most frustrating responses that CEOs can hear to their strategic initiatives, it is important to understand where the organization has been. It speaks volumes about where the organization will—and won’t—go. I'll offer suggestions for how strategic development can be better served with a richer use of history, both internal history and lessons to be learned from others, with safeguards ensure to that the history fits, is fully considered, but not abused.
5. Stare into the abyss. ?Take a hard look at ways that something truly significant could go wrong. The "worst-case scenarios" companies tend to explore are more bruising than deadly. This safeguard legitimizes conversations about the real worst-case scenarios and the true probability of such calamities. They allow the organization to decide if the risk is really tolerable and make strategic adjustments as necessary.
6. Make personal bets.? Even though executives clearly take the issues seriously when they are making corporate commitments of billions of dollars, there’s something about betting your own money that makes you think twice. This process safeguard reframes forecasts as personal bets to force those involved to be very clear about the odds and timing.
7. Set up tripwires. Implement indicators that trigger reevaluation of strategies when conditions change. This might involve nothing more than a list of critical success factors that are continuously monitored to ensure that changes in key forecasts or market conditions do not overtake previous calculations or violate critical assumptions upon which success depends. Formalizing tripwires enables evidence gathering, periodic reassessment, and adaptation to become a natural part of management conversations.
8. Create escalation pathways.? Ensure systems that allow concerns to be raised to decision-makers without fear of reprisal. This is needed because the tendency for employees to remain silent, even in matters of criminal activity, is well-documented. Vital information and divergent viewpoints about strategic moves must have a way to reach decision makers, even when that information doesn’t fit into normal communication channels or, more critically, when the regular channels might otherwise squash that information.
9. Hold second chance meetings.? Before finalizing decisions, hold sessions to address any unresolved issues or objections. The purpose is not to rehash all decisions but rather for everyone to attend to any unsettled objections—especially those challenging his or her own favorite arguments. Such meetings should also explore the riskiest scenarios and most dreaded outcomes, to ensure that decisions are made with negative potential consequences fully explored. I'll explore a range of approaches to second-chance meetings.

Done right, as Peter Drucker astutely observed, constructive conflict and deliberation not only enhance decision-making but also significantly boost the likelihood of success. This is echoed in Clay Christensen's observation: "More often than not, failure in innovation is rooted in not having asked an important question, rather than having arrived at an incorrect answer."

Business is inherently competitive, marked by both winners and losers; there is no panacea for success. However, actively fostering an environment where constructive conflict is welcomed and deliberation is encouraged can shift the strategic balance in your favor. It’s about asking the right questions before making decisions. Embracing a culture of critical engagement and strengthens decisive action in the marketplace, providing organizations a better chance of thriving amidst competition.

This article builds on "Billions-Dollar Lessons: What You Can Learn from the Most Inexcusable Business Failures of the Last 25 Years" coauthored with Paul Carroll .

Other articles to enjoy: