You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Agreement and Thinking Alike: Ingredients for Poor Decisions
Richard A. Cosier and Charles R. Schwenk
Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 69-74
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4164934
Page Count: 6
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
People frequently believe that conflict is to be avoided in organizations. They think that meetings and decisions should reflect agreement and consensus. This article suggests that fostering disagreement in a structured setting may actually lead to better decisions. Two techniques for programming conflict into the decision-making process are suggested--the devil's advocate decision program (DADP) and the dialectic method (DM). In particular, evidence indicates that larger firms operating in uncertain environments benefit from encouraging structured conflict in decision-making. This article challenges managers to consider either the devil's advocate or dialectic methods to program conflict into important organizational decisions.
The Executive © 1990 Academy of Management