Should arguments become repetitive the facilitator ends the debate and there is a break to socialise and reconnect on a personal level. The review group are looking for further unmentioned assumptions that may be central to the theory behind the problem. A facilitator maintains goodwill and prevents the competitiveness becoming destructive. The Review group is presented plans from the proposal and counter-proposal groups.Įither side outlining data and assumptions they consider important and probing weaknesses of the other side’s plan. The counter-proposal groups should endeavour to develop a counter-plan, looking at each assumption, breaking them down, to invent a plausible counter-assumption, and using it to surface new data, re-interpret old data, and devise a counter-plan. The proposal group should develop a plan, compiling a short list of key assumptions underlying the plan this is given to the counter-proposal group. Review group set-up, which contains the senior manager, involved.Formation of proposal and counter-proposal groups.The evaluation may be enclosed in a report, or a live confrontation conference may be set up between the administrator and the critic, with key decision makers as observers.įinally, the decision makers can then accept, modify or re-develop the proposal. (See also Idea Advocate )Īn administrator advocates a plan, which is then studied by an appointed individual who takes on the role of an adverse critic, examining the proposal looking for inconsistencies, inaccuracies and irrelevancies. Firstly the devil’s advocate approach is useful in exposing underlying assumptions, but has a tendancy emphasise the negative, whereas dialectical inquiry has a more balanced approach. The dialectical approach (Mason and Mitroff, 1981) uses creative conflict to help identify and challenge assumptions to create new perceptions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |