Red-teaming
Assign someone to argue against the decision with real authority and real stakes, so the counter-case gets made by someone who benefits from making it well.
- Time cost
- 1–3 days
- Output
- A written counter-proposal and point-by-point responses.
- Steps
- 5
Use when
- A decision is large and the group agrees too easily.
- The person proposing is senior enough that dissent is costly.
- An adversary or a competitor will respond to the decision.
Do not use when
- The role is nominal. A devil’s advocate with no stake produces objections everyone can dismiss.
- The decision is already made and the exercise is for the record.
Inputs required
- A named person or team
- Access to the same information
- A real consequence for the red team’s performance
Procedure
- 01
Name the team before the proposal is final
Appointing a red team after a decision produces a review, not a test.
- 02
Give them the same information
A red team working from less than the proposers have is arguing against a strawman of the proposal.
- 03
Give them a stake
This is the step that decides whether the exercise works. The red team must be rewarded for finding a real flaw, and must not be penalised for finding one.
- 04
Make them build the alternative
Not just criticism. Require a competing recommendation, which forces the objections to be serious enough to build on.
- 05
Force a written response
The proposers answer each objection in writing. Objections that cannot be answered become conditions or tripwires on the decision.
Characteristic failure mode
Worked example
A community group is about to sign a five-year lease.
- 01Two members are asked to argue for not signing and to produce an alternative plan.
- 02They are given the full financials and three weeks.
- 03Their alternative — two shorter leases in sequence — is costed and presented.
Result
The five-year lease is still signed, with a break clause the red team’s analysis showed was worth negotiating for. The alternative lost, and it changed the terms.
Where to go next