Harnessing Conflict in Foreign Policy Making: From Devil's to Multiple Advocacy

A large and alarming body of historical and laboratory evidence suggests that presidential decision making in foreign (and for that matter domestic) policy is plagued by a number of chronic impediments that may undermine the policy-making process and detract from its "quality" (e.g., De Rivera 1968; George 1980; Burke and Greenstein 1989; Vertzberger 1990; Haney 1997; Hess 2001; Parker and Stern 2002). Among these are insufficient diversity of expressed opinions and excessive conformity in advisory groups (Janis 1982; `t Hart 1994; Stem and Sundelius 1997, 124-28; Schaefer and Crichlow 2002). Groups suffering from these problems deprive themselves of the kind of constructive debate that can "arouse discussion and stimulate creative thinking" (Amason and Thompson 1995, 2) in ways that "improve both decision making and acceptance of the decisions made" (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois, 1999, 171-72). As an insightful student of the presidency has recently reminded us, a key challenge for presidents is "is to forge a team and get the most out of it, minimizing the tendency of subordinates to tell their boss what they sense he wants to hear" (Greenstein 2000, 195). In this article, we will examine two institutional compensations intended to make it more likely that adequate degrees of diversity and critical interaction will inform and energize the policy-making process. The first is the so-called devil's advocate--a relatively modest measure designed to counteract pressures toward homogeneity and conformity in small groups and thus enhance deliberations. The second is the much more comprehensive and ambitious system of multiple advocacy, which is designed not only to cope with the problem of conformity but to moderate tendencies toward pathological conflict/competition among advisers such as those associated with more vicious forms of cabinet and bureaucratic politics (George 1972; Allison and Zelikow 1999; Stern and Verbeek 1998,205-55; Garrison 1999). Before examining each of these measures in turn, let us make an observation regarding the composition of the advisory network (Hult 1993, 114-20). As Irving Janis pointed out several decades ago, the knowledge and experience of individual group members are valuable resources for executives. Ceteris paribus, groups that are more diverse will be able to draw on a wider base of knowledge and experience in formulating and coping with policy problems. Longtime Washington hand and commentator David Gergen (2000) argues convincingly in his book Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership from Nixon to Clinton that a strong team should include "people who have known the president a long time to keep the flame alive; veterans of Washington to make sure the flame burns effectively. Youngsters to give the team energy; gray hairs to give it wisdom" (p. 184; see also Abshire 2001, viii-ix). Advisory groups that are overly homogeneous will thus be deprived of cognitive and social resources that might otherwise have informed their decisions. For example, Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeous (1999) argue strongly for diversity. Their advice to executives is "Assemble a heterogeneous team, including diverse ages, genders, functional backgrounds, and . experience. If everyone in the executive meeting looks alike and sounds alike, then the odds are excellent that they think alike too" (p. 191). Therefore, choosing a team that is sufficiently diverse and composed of individuals with integrity is, of course, the first defense against excessive homogeneity and conformity of perspective (Janis 1982, 305; Russo and Schoemaker 1989, 156-57). Let us also note that diversity is potentially associated with costs as well as benefits (`t Hart 1997, 324-26; Kowert 2002), an issue to which we will devote more attention below. Thus, while diversity is clearly a good start in coping with the risk of excessive conformity in policy making, executives may find that additional measures are required and may thus wish to consider making use of devil's advocacy. …