I don’t know how reliable the stories written below are, but the fact that F.N. Plevako was one of the most famous lawyers in our history is a fact.
Examples of his brilliant performances in court.
1. I took off my shoes!
He defends a man who has been accused of rape by a prostitute and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury he caused. Facts of the case: the plaintiff claims that the defendant lured her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”
The prostitute jumps up and shouts: “It’s not true! I took off my shoes!!!”
There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.
2. “15 years of unfair reproach”
One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his woman by a man. Plevako came to the trial as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:
The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.
- Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to 15 years of unfair reproaches and the irritated nagging of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!
The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause.
The man was acquitted.
3. 20 minutes
Lawyer F.N. Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and stated that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 minutes past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman: “What time is it on your watch, Your Excellency?” The chairman looked and replied:
- At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:
- What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?
The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:
- It’s already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.
He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.
The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:
- The defendant was really 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, the most reliable watch belongs to Mr. Prosecutor. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch.
So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate tradeswoman have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?
The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.
4. Sign.
To the great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the gospel for mass with special accuracy.
The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed: If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!
And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.
I have no confidence in lawyers. Who is a lawyer, prosecutor, judge? The main apologists of the System, forced to engage in sophistry for the sake of lies and the triumph of cynicism! No, they are not fighting for justice and truth - they are acting in the interests of their employers. They may object: how can this be, since there are decent, ideological lawyers who are fighting an unequal battle against corruption and lawlessness of officials? And to add weight to the arguments, they will cite the example of the “unmercenary” Navalny with his projects “RosPil”, “RosYama”, etc.
Lawyers rose up after the Great French Revolution, when they formulated a new ideological concept - secularism, which replaced monarchical traditionalism, based on the clericalism of the Catholic Church.
Lawyers developed new rules of the game, where general civil law, based on public consensus, became the main regulator of all aspects of life.
The source of power was declared to be society, which was given a sacred and mystical image.
The prophet of the new teaching was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A little later, the “Napoleonic Code” became the basis for the codification of civil law for the whole of Europe and became the documentary basis of triumphantly marching liberalism, which in its confident stride swept away the traditional system of power and the ideological matrix of the Old World.
Remember the film "The Devil's Advocate", where the entire vicious essence of a legal corporation was clearly revealed and described. What does a lawyer often achieve? Excuses for a murderer, rapist, swindler and swindler. And in any way, even the most sophisticated. He is trying to whitewash his client with deception and lies. For example, in the USA the entire system is based on a legal platform: lawyers there dictate the discourse.
For this purpose, the possibility of a so-called “legal conflict” has been created, when there are numerous variations in the interpretation and enforcement of the law.
And everything is in the hands of lawyers. This means that in their understanding the law is not universal - it can have one or another designation or implementation. Laws, with the ease of a deputy’s hand, at the suggestion of their curators, can be changed to the opposite meaning.
One such “skillful” tinkerer with the law, the famous “son of a lawyer” Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky, is a vivid example of the cynicism and unprincipledness of the deputy legal corps. Some adopt laws in the “name of the people”, while others implement them in the name of the state and use them to decide their destinies. Human laws in themselves are profanation. Laws are only from God, everything else is rubbish and dust, which is carried away by the winds of history. One of the aphorisms goes like this:
“The less legality there is in a state, the more lawyers there are.”
The system, through these agents of influence, is forced to maintain the illusion of the supremacy of its own self-invented “law.” Lawyers must instill this idea in the people: he who has more rights is right! That is, the strongest is right - he writes laws and dictates rules that everyone must obey unquestioningly.
Playing the role of “devil’s advocate” is not a sin
You can also combat biased opinions using the “consider the opposite point of view” method. How many times have you found yourself in a situation where you were a member of a group that must choose a course of action or position? Sometimes during a discussion it becomes clear that all members of the group are headlong with their thoughts in one direction, towards a unanimous decision. Before accepting it, one of the group members says something like this: “Wait a minute. Let me play the role of “devil’s advocate” and speak out in support of the other side.” This person then challenges a decision that everyone thought was completely obvious. Indeed, the decision-making process slows down. Perhaps the group will take a fresh look at the issue. Sometimes speaking out loud an opposing point of view helps identify problems, and the group is forced to reconsider its original decision or even abandon it altogether.
Sometimes your own judgment can also benefit if you are willing and able to play the role of "devil's advocate" to yourself. But you must be a special "devil". Self-criticism alone is not enough; you will have to consider and imagine the possibility that the opposite opinion of yours is true and correct.
This was demonstrated in the study of cognitive methods for combating interpretation bias discussed in Chapter 4 (Lord et al., 1984). In one of the experimental groups, the research procedure we examined earlier was exactly repeated. Proponents and opponents of the death penalty analyzed two studies, one of which supported and the other refuted the claim that the use of the death penalty reduces crime. As in the original experiment, this information had a curious effect on the subjects - a polarization of the subjects' opinions occurred, that is, they were divided into two camps with sharply opposing beliefs. Despite the fact that they were analyzing the same data, from which it was difficult to draw certain conclusions, supporters of the death penalty became even more ardent supporters, while opponents began to object to its use even more strongly. People selectively accepted the facts of the study with which they agreed in advance. In the other two groups, the researchers tried to “correct” this bias by giving subjects specific instructions. The instructions, intended to make subjects open-minded, asked them to "be as objective and unbiased as possible" and, like judges or juries, to "weigh the facts fairly and impartially." Another instruction, which sought to persuade subjects to consider an opposing point of view, explained to them how a biased interpretation might arise and asked them, at each step of the reasoning, to ask themselves whether they would give the same high or low rating to the study if it would lead to opposite conclusions.
Rice. 6.2. Considering an Opposing View Prevents Polarization After reading identical information that did not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn about the impact of the death penalty on crime reduction, both pro- and anti-death-penalty advocates and opponents who had not been specifically instructed to be open-minded when considering the data were further strengthened in their opinions. Polarization of opinions did not occur only in those subjects who received the instruction to “consider the opposite point of view.” (Source: Lord, Lepper, and Preston, 1984.)
These different instructions had very different effects on the subjects, as can be seen from Fig. 6.2. Following an instruction designed to reduce bias had no effect on the polarization effect at all. However, following an instruction designed to address the opposing viewpoint caused the polarization to disappear. The confidence of supporters of the death penalty that its use leads to a reduction in crime has not increased, and their views on the advisability of using the death penalty have not become stronger. The subjects who were opposed to the death penalty also did not change their opinion.
Why did one instruction work and the other not? It seems that when people are asked to exercise caution and be objective, they are simply motivated to think more carefully about the problem. However, more careful thinking leads precisely to an increase in the internal tendency towards consistency, which arises with the emergence of an established opinion. Subjects instructed to be open-minded believed that they were thinking objectively; but in fact, they simply did not know about how the mind of a person who already has an opinion, that is, in this case, their mind, usually works. Indeed, which of us has ever considered that he himself is a biased thinker - aren’t “they” always biased? Subjects who were asked to consider the opposing point of view were similarly unaware of the mind's inherent bias. However, by following the instructions, these subjects generated possibilities that would never have been considered by them if they had thought in a “normal way.” Since these thoughts and ideas came to their minds thanks to the instructions, they influenced their thinking and assessments. The main step was to make the opposing point of view visible and meaningful to people.
Studying Fig. 6.2, you might think that the victory gained over interpretive bias by considering the opposing point of view is only partial. Although there was no polarization of the opinions of the subjects, they still did not lean towards more moderate positions. This is true, but Rome was not destroyed in one day. Polarization of opinions is part of the hardening process (hardening) attitudes and opinions, as a result of which they take root in the minds even deeper and become less flexible. By using the method of considering the opposing point of view, this process was at least stopped, if not reversed. As a result, the attitude may still be able to be changed if strong evidence is presented in favor of the opposite opinion.
Asking questions can lead people to paradoxical conclusions
In Chapter 3, we discussed how people can gradually believe in their own words or actions, which they have been subtly pushed to do by the forces generated by the situation. We have seen, for example, that it is possible to formulate survey questions so that they prompt people to answers about themselves, which generate self-attributions that cause people to see themselves in a different light. A similar procedure using leading questions can be used to change socio-political attitudes. The technique is based on the exploitation of the generally accepted rule of conversation, which requires answering questions rather than challenging them (Grice, 1975). If you ask properly posed questions, then, following the mentioned
Rice. 6.3. “Better or worse?” By expressing her uncertainty in the question, the girl at least will not receive a clearly negative answer.
By this rule, people will be forced to justify positions that are actually contrary to their own opinions.
As an example, consider the case of Wilma, who holds fairly conservative traditional views on gender roles. One day a friend asked her: “Why do you think women make better bosses than men?” If you follow the rule of conversation, then at least part of Wilma's answer should be devoted to explaining a fact that generally contradicts her opinion: “Actually, I don’t know if this is even true, but I’ll have to think about it. Well, women do have a better understanding of other people's needs and feelings, and are better able to maintain harmony in groups." By giving this answer, Wilma confirms the assumption in the question that women are actually better at leadership roles. And after that, only one small step separates her from the conclusion that she, in general, is not so committed to traditions - or that she may have too extreme conservative views. Just a little change in self-perception, plus a little bit of self-conviction. A number of studies have found evidence that such an insidious procedure can be used effectively to change attitudes (Swann and Ely, 1984; Swann et al., 1988). This is a good way to get a person to consider opinions that contradict their attitudes, without “triggering” the cognitive processes that defend attitudes. By constantly using this method, you can gradually undermine your attitudes.
However, the described procedure has one drawback. You may recall that clear, well-formed attitudes are less susceptible to change through self-attribution processes. And of course, the method of leading questions will not lead to success if a person is deeply confident in the correctness of his attitude. As you may recall, Wilma was “pretty conservative.” In contrast, Connie is absolutely confident in her conservative views on the role of women, and as a result, she will challenge leading questions that contain a liberal premise. If you ask her why women make the best bosses, she will directly state that this is not usually the case. If you ask her what she likes most about “sensitive men,” she will answer: “They know I won’t agree to date them, so they don’t ask for it.” So, to change Connie's views, we will have to look for a different method? Or is it still possible to “correct” them using the method of leading questions?
The answer is: it can be corrected. This is exactly what William Swann and his colleagues did (Swann et al., 1988), and as a result of their socio-psychological “attitude repair”, the paradoxical technique of “super-attitude” leading question was born. The technique is based on the following reasoning: people who are absolutely confident in their attitudes - such as Connie - refuse to give affirmative answers to any questions that involve a position different from their own. Such a person wants you to clearly understand what his views are (Swann, 1983). He challenges even those issues in which his own attitude is “embedded,” but in a more extreme version: for example, if his own attitude is rated “7” on a nine-point scale, and the message he receives is rated “9.” How does he resist? He argues while speaking against extreme position. In this case, a completely confident person can be encouraged to self-attribute a more moderate position on a given issue than the one he initially ascribed to himself. Paradoxically, he will change his point of view in the direction opposite to that in which the question pushed him.
This is the logical basis of the method, but here is what it looks like in practice - Connie needs to be asked a question something like this: “Why do you share the opinion of some men who believe that it is better for women to go barefoot and always be pregnant?” or “Why of the men Always Do women make better bosses?” Connie (we hope) will reject these questions, discover that she has expressed almost liberal thoughts, and ultimately change her mind towards the “liberalism” that she had not previously suspected was present in her own thoughts. Now we know the theoretical and practical aspects of the method - but what about the results? Two studies found that the paradoxical technique had the expected effect on people who were highly confident in their attitudes (Swann et al., 1988).
This paradoxical effect occurs because people who are confident in their opinions want others to clearly understand what they think about the matter. They are not the extremists that this issue is intended for, and they are trying very hard to show it. It is also possible that the process we discussed in Chapter 5—psychological reactance—is at work. Very confident people may think that if the questioner asks such an extreme question, then he assumes that they will “subscribe” to any outdated or stupid opinion, as long as it is “on their side.” Therefore, they are motivated to confirm their right to an individual and differentiated position.
A smart agent of influence can skillfully combine the paradoxical method, the use of psychological reactance, and changing the sphere of acceptance and the sphere of rejection with great effectiveness. By starting with extremist positions that are obviously within the realm of rejection by the person being persuaded, one can then successively express less extreme statements with which the person will verbally disagree. Gradually, a person will begin to disagree with statements that were initially within his sphere of acceptance, until he rejects the very position that made the point of view instilled in him unacceptable (Varela, 1971).
psy.wikireading.ru
Devil's Advocate Method
Devil's Advocate is a process in which an alternative is examined from two opposing points, one of which perceives the option positively, the other negatively.
Assign one member of the group to play the role of devil's advocate—the person defending a cause that is clearly wrong.
Assign one member of the group to the role of devil's advocate - a person who defends a clearly wrong cause or engages in chicanery, looking for shortcomings, inaccuracies, dubious provisions, errors, criticizing decisions made from various points of view. This helps to quickly make the right, acceptable and comprehensively informed decision. Let us note that a person in this role must be organic; it is not to everyone’s mind and heart.
Before canonizing the deceased, the Catholic Church appointed a devil's advocate, who had to present arguments against why this person should not be canonized.
A special place in marketing methods is occupied by methods of expert assessments (Dolphin, Brainstorming, Devil's Advocate, etc.), which allow you to quickly get an answer about the possible development processes of a particular event in the market, identify the strengths and weaknesses of an enterprise, and evaluate the effectiveness of certain or other marketing activities.
As practice shows, the most effective preventive means of combating groupthink can be the introduction of a devil's advocate into the group, whose duties would include constructive criticism of proposed ideas.
Johnston had no inkling of the possibility of a giant market crash in the near future, but he decided to play devil's advocate.
So many fellow analysts have inspired me in one way or another, from Bob Prechter, arguably the best in the advisory business, to Bruce Babcock, my personal devil's advocate. Frank Taucher and Bob Prechter are the only people I know of at the time who came forward and even paid attorney bills for the ability to publish newsletters in an attempt to defend the right to print without registering with the US Government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission. CFTC) under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
It is critical to get the user to review and approve the preliminary and detailed external specifications. If for some reason this cannot be done (for example, in a user-independent project), then a special group must be formed within the development organization itself to play the role of devil's advocate; its task will be to evaluate the specifications from the user's point of view.
One of the group members plays the role of devil's advocate. The person in this role must actively gather information that is contrary to the proposed course of action and focus on views that do not have support. The devil's advocate must provide clearly substantiated arguments against the proposal being put forward. This approach helps prevent the group from reaching premature consensus in defining the problem.
Why should equity risk premiums have anything to do with sovereign bond spreads? The simple explanation is that an investor who could earn 11% on an investment in a dollar-denominated Brazilian government bond would not accept an expected return of 105% (in dollar terms) on an investment in a Brazilian stock. However, playing devil's advocate, a critic might argue that the interest rate on the government bond from which the default spread is derived is not, in fact, the expected return because it is based on the promised cash flows (coupons and principal). arising from ownership of the bond rather than from expected cash flows. In reality, if we want to figure out the risk premium of a bond, we need to estimate the expected return based on the expected cash flows given the risk of default. This would result in a significantly lower default spread and equity risk premium.
The main difference between a surgical team and a lead programmer's team is that team members remain on the team throughout the entire project, and each of them has a specific role that takes into account his or her particular talents. The team is led by a leading programmer (surgeon), but here he writes all the programs and all the documentation for the team’s products. The team also has an assistant who researches alternatives, serves as the lead programmer's devil's advocate, and interacts with the rest of the team. Brooks also suggests that the team have an administrator: a person who deals exclusively with the budget, living conditions, computer time, and personnel issues.
At the concept formation stage, the manager sets the task. Usually, due to inertia of thinking, a person tries in his experience and knowledge to find a situation similar to the current one, to attribute this situation to an already known group, and then to act according to a known pattern. Thus, the formulation of the problem often comes down to classification. Therefore, the controller at this stage can either suggest a possible decision-making model, or play the role of devil’s advocate in order to test the strength of one or another model.
Expert Focus
The method is one of the forms of joint face-to-face discussion of the problem. Experts comprehensively consider the situation under study and “focus” on it. The main goal is to identify the structure of this problem, determine, if possible, all the factors that determine this situation, and establish the relationships between them. The discussion is more business-like in nature than in the classic version of brainstorming, that is, it takes place without unnecessary “nonsense.”
Commission method
It also involves discussing the problem together. The main difference from focusing is the desire to find out what the contradiction is between different options for proposed solutions, to find the maximum number of “points of agreement” and come to a consensus.
Solution integration method
It is basically similar to the commission method, but is more formalized. It consists of developing a joint solution to a problem based on identifying the strengths of individual solutions and combining them. The method is implemented in several stages. At the first stage, experts are presented with a problem, and they consider and solve it independently of each other. Then, in a pre-prepared form, the experts enter their individual decisions, i.e., an interpretation of the situation being analyzed or a forecast of the development of events. At the next stage, experts jointly discuss the problem and all proposed solutions in order to identify the strengths of each individual solution, which are also recorded in the form. When presenting individual solutions, variations are possible: each solution is presented by the author and argued in detail, or the anonymity of decisions is maintained in order to avoid pressure from authorities. Once all solutions have been discussed and the strengths of each have been identified, a synthesized solution is developed by combining the advantages of the individual solutions.
Business game
The method can be implemented in different forms. The most common form is modeling of the analyzed processes and (or) the future development of the predicted phenomenon in different versions and consideration of the data obtained. Developing a procedure for conducting a business game is a rather complex task, and serious attention should be paid to it. The following elements of the game must be clearly defined and formally described: goals and objectives, roles of participants, plot and regulations. An important stage of any business game is reflection - analysis of not only the game process itself, but also the results of modeling the phenomenon under study.
The "court" method (the "devil's advocate" method)
It is one of the varieties of business games. The discussion of the task at hand is implemented in the form of a trial: a “problem trial” is simulated. The “lawyer”, “prosecutor”, “judge”, “jury” and other participants in the “trial” are selected. Everyone defends their point of view regarding the phenomenon being analyzed or predicted. The final verdict is determined in two stages: voting by the “jury” and concretization of the decision by the “judges”.
Experts examine the problem in the same way that doctors examine a patient: they determine the “symptoms” and causes of the problem, perform an analysis, make a “diagnosis” and give a prognosis for the development of the situation.
"Collective notebook"
At the beginning of the work, all the experts gather together, they are told about the essence of the problem that has arisen and formulate the task. Next, each expert works with his notebook for a certain time (it is possible that different experts focus on different aspects of the problem). The second stage of the implementation of the examination is that notebooks are collected, the information is systematized (by the research team or the head of the expert group) and then, in a face-to-face joint discussion of the accumulated and systematized material, the experts come to a solution to the problem.
Delphi method
It is an absentee and anonymous survey of an expert group in several rounds with the coordination of expert opinions. Experts are offered questionnaires on the problem under study. The degree of standardized questions can be different (they can be either closed or open, imply both quantitative and qualitative answers). Variations are also possible in terms of argumentation and substantiation of expert assessments (may or may not be mandatory). As a rule, the Delphi method is implemented in 2-3 rounds, and during repeated surveys, experts are asked to familiarize themselves with either the opinions and arguments of each expert, or with the average rating. In repeated rounds, experts may change their assessment, taking into account the arguments of their colleagues, or they may remain with their previous opinion and express reasonable criticism of other assessments. There are various methods for harmonizing expert assessments (with or without the qualifications of experts (as weighting coefficients), with or without discarding extreme assessments, etc.). The Delphi method has very significant advantages that sometimes make it indispensable. Firstly, absenteeism and anonymity avoid the focus on authorities, which could arise if experts were brought together and they had to make their opinions public. Secondly, experts have the opportunity to change their opinion without the risk of “losing face.” The Delphi method is a method for quickly finding solutions based on their generation during a brainstorming process conducted by a group of specialists and selecting the best solution based on expert assessments. The Delphic method is used for expert forecasting by organizing a system for collecting and mathematically processing expert assessments.
Devil's Advocate, Supply Chain Optimization Anti-Pattern
Customers are said to be their suppliers' best advocates, but is it wise to be the devil's advocate?
Nickname: supplier from hell
Problem- the company signed a big deal with a supplier of expensive software to optimize supply chain operations. Typically, software providers sell consulting services in addition to the system itself. Thus, the supplier does not provide the required services in full, but the client company continues to increase costs over time, despite the fact that the delivery deadlines are constantly missed.
Unbelievable but true: If software vendors' statements are to be believed, then profits from using their system should grow faster than computing power in accordance with Moore's Law.
Context: Company management is desperately looking for options to optimize supply chains. A lot of time has already been spent on their own unsuccessful attempts to solve the problem, and so managers begin to feel that despite their best efforts to find a solution, the entire initiative is stalled. The challenge facing the company is complex, with many variables and constraints involved. Complex patterns of demand also need to be taken into account, and no one can say with certainty which statistical approach will solve the problem. Management is clearly aware that solving the problem requires knowledge and experience that its own employees do not have.
Proposed solution: When software for managing companies appeared, everyone was excited about the possibilities. Suppliers promised a simple solution to problems: the supplier had to solve all complex issues independently thanks to unique technology and methodology. Thanks to a specific supplier, the company's management finally found a way to delegate the solution to a back-breaking problem to a third party. Employees are happy to accept the system because it gives them certain opportunities and meets their expectations.
results: large sums are spent on the supplier, and the results at best minimally mitigate the negative effects. It is unclear whether supply chains actually perform better as a result of working with a software vendor. The problems of excessively high levels of inventory and shortages of goods can be solved to some extent through the use of a fairly complex system, the setup of which will require several months of work by a whole team of employees. At the same time, the supplier never challenges the client's point of view and tells him what the client wants to hear. Since everything that the supplier says is a kind of echo of the company’s wishes, such a project is not capable of bringing anything new, despite promises of using revolutionary technologies and methods. If the supplier disappears the next day, the company will simply return to where it was before signing the contract with the software supplier, making the entire project a waste of effort and money. Deep down, some managers are aware of the situation, but if the project is publicly considered a failure, they may suffer because they supported the supplier in question in the first place.
Reasons for the popularity of the approach: Suppliers have mastered the art of seduction. Among their representatives there are serious experts with an impressive reputation, usually with experience in very large companies. Some of these representatives may have once even been heads of departments that were larger than the client's company. Among the employees of software suppliers there are also candidates and doctors of science. Much of their technical commentary is impossible to understand, but such people obviously understand the business much better than the client's own experience allows. This “one-size-fits-all” package offered by suppliers is exactly what executives want—an opportunity to relax. Suppliers also constantly use fashionable technical jargon, fresh buzzwords that catch everyone who works in a particular field. Employees who participate in consultations on this issue also succumb to the supplier: he promises to maintain the usual work procedures, improving only visible problem areas.
Reasons for failure: When optimizing supply chains, change is inevitable, no matter how tough, inconvenient and ineffective it may be. For managers, change usually means learning new skills, often complex technical skills, when their entire careers to date have only taught them the people skills needed to manage large teams. The supplier promises a revolutionary solution, but at the same time he reassures management that implementation of the system will be painless. As a result, the supplier simply agrees with everything that the client requires of him, and the situation does not change in any way (even though everything is arranged magnificently on the outside). In other words, the supplier's actions simply reflect the wishes of the management and employees of the client company. Such an “echo”, of course, gives a feeling of comfort, but working with such a supplier brings little benefit, because it does not provide any new information. Additionally, while the idea of “employee empowerment” sounds tempting, supply chain optimization can achieve its best results with a high enough degree of automation (physical or logical) that it puts many lower-level positions in the company at risk. By cautiously avoiding difficult changes, the supplier also prevents significant improvements.
Positive pattern for a problem: The best way to solve the "supplier hell" problem is to select suppliers more carefully and be especially careful with corporate suppliers who are by nature experts in corporate deception. Then, if the company is already tied to such a supplier, it is necessary to develop a specific approach: hard on the problem, soft on the people. You need to part ways with the supplier and accept the fact that the money spent on the project was wasted. Instead of punishing the people responsible for the project, the company should strive to make the most of the experience and tell all its employees about it so that a similar situation does not happen again.
Example: Fabrikam is a small Spanish brand with its own retail network, which includes about 100 stores. Their market is quite large, but the company is considered a relatively small player. As is the case with many companies in this industry, most of their products are manufactured in China, which means a fairly long lead time. Sales in Spain account for more than 80% of the company's total profits, but Fabrikam has already begun to enter the markets of neighboring countries, primarily Portugal and France. Long lead times coupled with a growing distribution network are putting significant pressure on company supply chains. Fabrikam employees believe that their supply chain is not good enough to reach a European level. For example, all forecasting is done “at home”, and everyone believes that its accuracy is far from ideal. To optimize supply chains, the company conducts experiments (POC) with several suppliers. Little effort is spent on conducting these experiments, and even less on analyzing the technologies used in the research and the results obtained. In addition, several employees who have been with the company for a long time and are valuable to it are still promoting “at-home” solutions. However, without the necessary resources and real deep skills, these endeavors are not profitable.
At a certain point, management decides to organize a trip to Silicon Valley, a kind of technological mecca. The purpose of the trip is to assess your prospects with the help of a number of companies creating various technologies that are considered cutting-edge in the United States and most of which have not yet appeared in Europe. During the trip, the company team meets Brian from Genialys. Prior to Genialys, Brian worked as an Associate Director of Sales for the North American retail division of a huge company. This North American division was larger than Fabrikam. Genialys was founded 1.5 years ago by three senior executives from Delphis, a leading software provider known for the highest prices on the market. Two of the three founders have degrees from Ivy League universities. A few hours later, Brian arranges an online conference with Fabrikam management and the team that arrived in the Valley.
The conference is going great. Genialys' vision aligns with and exceeds Fabrikam's goals. In addition, in the USA, business is done 50 times faster than in old Europe. Genialys has all the necessary tools and a team of employees who can start working in just a few hours. Genialys are ready to make Fabrikam their main client in Europe. The prices at Genialys are simply exorbitant, almost the same as at Delphis. However, Fabrikam management is convinced that Genialys offers them an innovative product in the field of supply chain optimization. After 6 months, the profit will be in the millions of euros per month and will be enough to pay for Genialys services. “If you want the best, be prepared to pay,” Fabrikam managers understand.
A year passes: the project continues. Genialys correctly calculated the project budget - this required entering some data and making a couple of simple calculations. However, all the forecasting that Fabrikam needed so much is “under development.” Genialys experts constantly fly from the west coast of the United States to Europe, but they are already fed up with these business trips. Spanish employees are still trying to understand how the sophisticated statistical methods used by Genialys work on the supply chain problems they face. Millions have been spent on the project, but there are no actual results. Management begins to get nervous, but as the atmosphere heats up, a team of important Genialys employees goes to Fabrikam's head office in Spain and reassures clients that everything is going according to plan.
The results are striking in their absence, but Genialys still gets its money.
Some group members take an active part in the discussion and thereby dominate it. In order to ensure “equal rights” for everyone, nominal groups are created in which each participant contributes to the discussion and decision-making.
To ensure equality of members, the work of the nominal group is strictly structured: each participant presents his ideas on the problem posed and the proposed solution in writing, and the main proposals are written on the board for everyone to see. The discussion does not begin until each participant speaks and presents their ideas. Once group members have heard the full range of opinions, open discussion begins to clarify and evaluate proposals. This part of the nominal group work is unstructured and spontaneous.
5.4. Delphi group model.
According to the Delphi method, the manager’s task is to find out and compare the opinions of experts on the problem under discussion. Specialists express their attitude to the problem in writing, guided by questionnaires, and the group leader summarizes them in a special summary, then the newly drawn conclusions and a new questionnaire on the problem are returned to the participants. Each of them gets the opportunity to get acquainted with the opinions of a colleague, using new information, he adjusts his proposals. The process of distributing questionnaires and collecting results continues until the participants reach a consensus on how to solve the problem.
The advantages include the following features:
A broad view of the problem and its thorough analysis;
More knowledge, facts and alternatives;
During the discussion, the problem statement is clarified and uncertainty about possible courses of action is reduced;
Participation in decision making helps to increase employee satisfaction and stimulates high activity in its implementation.
Flaws:
It takes a lot of time when the solution is programmable and resources are wasted;
Compromise solutions may not satisfy anyone;
Groupthink and group norms discourage the expression of different views and a diversity of opinions;
Lack of decision maker.
5.5. The Devil's Advocate model.
The role of doubting the assumptions and opinions expressed by group members is assumed by the “devil’s advocate,” whose main task is to encourage its participants to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Institutionalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to examine and explain the risks associated with each decision option. This approach is called multiplicative defense, i.e. when several “lawyers” of different options are involved in making a decision. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings.
Using the devil's advocate technique developed by Marvin Goldfried ( Goldfried, Linehan, & Smith, 1978), the therapist presents the patient with an extremely controversial statement, asks him whether he believes this statement; then plays the role of “devil’s advocate”, resisting with all his might the patient’s attempts to refute this statement. The therapist presents a thesis to elicit an antithesis from the patient, and through discussion they reach a synthesis. A highly controversial statement presented by the therapist must refer to a dysfunctional idea expressed by the patient or problematic rules applied by him. This technique is best suited for counteracting new contrasting patterns. This strategy is reminiscent of the use of paradox, where the therapist moves to the dysfunctional pole of the continuum, thereby causing the patient to move to the opposite, functional pole.
The devil's advocate technique is always used during the first few sessions to ensure the patient's commitment to change is sustained. The therapist argues against change and adherence to therapy because change is painful and requires great effort; Ideally, the patient should take a diametrically opposed position and argue for the need for change and treatment. The use of this strategy is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.
The discussion approach, often used in cognitive restructuring, is another example of the discussed devil's advocate strategy. The thesis can be an irrational belief - for example, proposed by Albert Ellis ( Ellis, 1962): “All people should love me, and if even one person does not love me, then my life is meaningless,” or: “If for any reason I offend another person, it will be an irreparable disaster.” The therapist defends the false belief while exploring why the patient does not agree. For example, the therapist may use the last of these statements to tell the patient that he must change his behavior so that it meets the expectations of others and is approved by them, even if the patient's behavior is completely appropriate and justified (for example, the patient refuses to speed when driving, or does not want to participate in fraud). The therapist may counter what the patient suggests by exaggerating his own usual position until the inconsistency of the patient's original beliefs becomes obvious to him.
This technique has certain requirements. First, the therapist must be sensitive to the dysfunctional rules and general universal beliefs that are present. Second, the therapist must create a convincing picture of his own straightforwardness and rather naive expressive style. Thirdly, somewhat unusual, but quite logical answers to each patient’s argument are very helpful. Fourth, the therapist's position must be sufficiently justified to seem "real" to the patient, but at the same time deliberate enough to cause opposition from the patient. A position that simultaneously acknowledges the patient's commitment to a particular idea and denies the meaning of that idea will be ideal. It also requires some ease and ability to change arguments unobtrusively. Finally, the therapist must understand when it is necessary to remain serious and when to turn the argument into a humorous plane.
Extension"
“Prolongation” is the attitude of the therapist towards the patient when he takes the patient more seriously than he takes himself. If the patient says something to make a certain impression, or expresses extreme emotions to bring about minor changes in the environment, the therapist takes everything literally. This technique is the emotive equivalent of the devil's advocate strategy described above.
For example, a patient might make a statement about the impact or consequences of a particular event or problem in their life (“If you don’t agree to more therapy, I will kill myself”). The therapist first takes the patient's statement about the consequences of a problem literally, then reacts to the severity of these consequences ("I will commit suicide") regardless of the actual relationship of these consequences to the event or problem named by the patient (the therapist's refusal to allow an additional psychotherapy session). The therapist says, “We have to do something immediately if the situation is so serious that you really could kill yourself. What about hospitalization? Perhaps you need inpatient treatment. How can you talk about such little things as scheduling therapy sessions when your life is in danger? This danger must be eliminated first. How are you going to commit suicide? The therapist's serious attitude to the patient's statement is not at all what the latter seeks. The patient expects the therapist to take seriously what he presents. problem or event, therefore often exaggerates their importance. The therapist takes them seriously only consequences and “prolongs” them by insisting on considering the consequences until a way to resolve them is found.
When used skillfully, this strategy helps the patient understand that he is exaggerating the severity of the consequences. When this happens (“Okay. Maybe I'm exaggerating. I'm not going to commit suicide”), the therapist must move to another position - taking the problem or event seriously. The patient's refusal to exaggerate the emotional consequences of the problem must be reinforced. When used inappropriately, this strategy can become a cover for the therapist who is unable to adequately perceive the patient's truly serious problems. It is best to use this technique when the patient does not expect the therapist to take him seriously or when the escalation of the crisis or emotional consequences is maintained due to their provoking influence on the environment. This technique can be especially effective if the therapist feels manipulated. This technique is characterized by normalizing both the patient's behavior and the therapist's feelings, eliminating the desire to attack the patient. When used skillfully, this strategy gives very good results.
The term "extension" to describe this technique is borrowed from Aikido, the Japanese martial arts system. The fighter allows the opponent's movement to reach its natural conclusion, then extends the final moment of the movement a little further than normal; in this case, the enemy loses his balance and becomes vulnerable. "Extension" is always preceded by "fusion", which in Aikido means the movement of the fighter in the same direction as the energy flow of the opponent ( Saposnek, 1980). For example, the patient tells the therapist: “If you don’t do what I want, therapy won’t help me” (adversary strike). The therapist responds, “If therapy can't help you (fusion), we have to do something (natural movement completion). Maybe I'm not right for you and you need a different therapist? This is very serious” (“extension”). All aspects of the “devil’s advocate” strategy described above (focus on exaggerated consequences; feigned naivety; unusual but logical responses; therapist reactions that seem quite “real”, but at the same time are so pointed that they help the patient understand the inadequacy of his own position; ease and unobtrusive modification of the therapist's position) are equally important in this situation.
Several techniques have been developed to help managers (primarily for interactive and nominal groups). Takes on the role of doubter in the assumptions and opinions expressed by group members "Devil's Advocate", the main task of which is to encourage its participants to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Institutionalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to examine and explain the risks associated with each decision option 20 .
This approach is similar to another, called multiplicative protection , when several “advocates” of different options are involved in making a decision. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings.
Method brainstorming It is used, as a rule, in interactive groups, whose participants spontaneously generate ideas aimed at solving problems. The main goal of brainstorming is to create the most favorable environment for creative solutions. Participation in brainstorming encourages employees to come up with any, the most incredible and obviously impossible solutions. Critical remarks addressed to them are not allowed. Managers must express all their thoughts out loud; The discussion proceeds at a free pace. The newer and more unexpected the idea, the better. The purpose of brainstorming is to increase freedom and flexibility of thinking. As a rule, the “storm” begins: “warm-up”, when basic concepts are discussed; then follows the free stage of generating ideas; The process ends with an assessment of feasible proposals.
The devil's advocate is a method used in the decision-making process when one of the participants in the discussion encourages others to rethink their approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions.
Devil's advocate - a term coined by British law - is the name of a person who, in a dispute, takes upon himself the responsibility of defending a position that is obviously incorrect (from an objective or moral point of view) so that those present can appreciate all the subtleties of the situation
The Devil's Advocate (lat. advocatus diaboli) is the unofficial title of the position of the institution of canonization of the Catholic Church. Officially, this position was called strengthener of faith (lat. promotor fidei). It was introduced in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V and officially abolished in 1983 by John Paul II.
Before canonizing the deceased, the Catholic Church appointed a devil's advocate, who was supposed to present arguments against why this person should not be canonized.
The function of the devil's advocate was to collect all possible arguments that could prevent the canonization or beatification of the righteous, which could only take place if the strengthener of the faith did not find arguments of sufficient importance to cancel the procedure. Until 1983, no act of canonization or beatification could be considered legal unless a devil's advocate was present during the act.
"Devil's Advocate". There are many approaches that allow group decisions to be made in different ways. The first of these and the most common in Western management practice is the method of making management decisions called “Devil's Advocate”. It should be noted that this method is not widely used in domestic management practice, despite the fact that it fully meets the specifics of domestic management and can be successfully used in organizations of almost any type.
The role of doubting the assumptions and opinions expressed by group members is assumed by the “devil’s advocate,” whose main task is to encourage its participants to rethink approaches to the problem, to abandon premature consensus or unreasonable assumptions. Institutionalized devil's advocates force managers and other employees to examine and explain the risks associated with each decision option. This approach is called multiplicative defense, i.e. when several “lawyers” of different options are involved in making a decision. Minority opinions and unpopular points of view should be defended by the most influential employees, who, in fact, speak at group meetings. It is known that former US President George W. Bush resorted to exactly this method. The passage of a series of environmental laws in 1999, which involved multi-stage debates in the White House to assist the President, has become the stuff of textbooks. From time to time, when George Bush asked representatives of the parties cross-questions, discussions threatened to turn into hand-to-hand combat. But as a result of the debate, a decision was made based on convincing arguments and awareness of the possible consequences.
Devil's Advocate is a process in which an alternative is examined from two opposing points, one of which perceives the option positively, the other negatively.
Bibliography.
1. O.S. Vikhansky. "Strategic Management". Ed. Economist 2009
2. V.V. Lukashevich. "Fundamentals of management in trade." M., Economics,
2007
3. V.R.Vesnin. "Management for everyone" M. Lawyer. 2007
4. Robert N. Hoyt. "Fundamentals of financial management. M." Delo LTD.,
2005
5. A.Ya.Kibanov, D.K.Zakharov “Organization of personnel management in
enterprise" M., State Agrarian University, 2010.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
