Why every CEO should consider the 10th man rule in strategic decision-making

Understanding the 10th man rule in executive strategy

The origins and intent behind the tenth man rule

In high stakes decision making, the pressure for consensus can be intense. The tenth man rule, sometimes called the tenth person rule, is a structured approach designed to challenge groupthink and encourage critical thinking at the executive level. This rule suggests that if nine people in a group agree on a course of action, it is the responsibility of the tenth person to deliberately adopt a contrarian viewpoint. The goal is not to be adversarial for its own sake, but to ensure that every angle is considered before a decision is made.

In practice, the tenth man acts as a devil advocate, questioning assumptions and highlighting potential risks that might otherwise be overlooked. This process of devil advocacy is especially valuable in environments where the stakes are high and the cost of a poor decision can be significant. By institutionalizing this kind of constructive dissent, organizations can avoid the pitfalls of groupthink and improve their long term strategic outcomes.

• Critical thinking: The tenth man rule embeds critical thinking into the decision making process, ensuring that advocacy for alternative perspectives is not just tolerated but expected.
• Devil advocacy: Assigning a person devil role in meetings can surface hidden challenges and test the resilience of proposed strategies.
• Red team approach: Similar to red team exercises, the tenth man rule leverages the adversarial nature of debate to stress-test decisions before implementation.

For CEOs, adopting the tenth man rule is not about slowing down progress, but about making more robust, well-considered decisions. It is a practical tool for fostering a culture where constructive dissent is valued, and where the making process is strengthened by diverse thinking. To learn more about how visionary aspirations can shape strategic success, explore this guide to crafting visionary aspirations for strategic success.

Spotting groupthink in the c-suite

Recognizing the Signs of Groupthink in Leadership Teams

Groupthink can quietly undermine even the most experienced executive teams. When the stakes are high and time is limited, the pressure to reach consensus can overshadow critical thinking. This is where the tenth man rule becomes essential in the decision making process. The rule encourages the appointment of a devil advocate or a tenth person to challenge prevailing assumptions, but first, leaders must be able to spot groupthink as it emerges. Some common indicators of groupthink in the c-suite include:

• Rapid agreement without thorough debate, especially on high stakes decisions
• Suppression of contrarian viewpoints or reluctance to play the devil advocate
• Overconfidence in the group’s collective judgment, leading to a lack of devil advocacy
• Dismissal of external advice or red team analysis
• Pressure on individuals to conform, even when they have critical insights

The adversarial nature of the tenth man rule is not about creating conflict for its own sake. Instead, it is about ensuring that every decision making process includes robust devil advocacy and critical thinking. When a group fails to encourage constructive dissent, it risks making decisions that are not fully vetted for long term impact. In practice, the challenges tenth person advocacy faces are real. It can be uncomfortable to question the consensus, especially when the group is united. However, fostering a culture where the tenth man or woman is valued for their devil advocacy can lead to stronger, more resilient decisions. For CEOs looking to strengthen their executive decision making, understanding how groupthink operates is the first step. Building a process that welcomes the tenth person’s input, even when it slows things down, is a sign of mature leadership. For more on how to enhance strategic vision and encourage critical thinking at the top, explore this resource on enhancing strategic vision with a remote CEO sparring partner.

Applying the 10th man rule to boardroom discussions

Bringing Devil Advocacy to the Boardroom Table

In high stakes decisions, the adversarial nature of the tenth man rule can be a game changer for the boardroom. The process is simple in concept but powerful in impact: assign one person—often called the tenth person or devil advocate—to challenge the prevailing group consensus. This approach is not about being contrarian for its own sake. Instead, it is about ensuring that critical thinking and constructive dissent are embedded in the decision making process. When a group is aligned, especially in august settings like the c-suite, groupthink can easily take hold. The tenth man rule disrupts this by requiring someone to actively question assumptions, highlight risks, and propose alternative scenarios. This devil advocacy role helps the group avoid blind spots and consider long term implications that might otherwise be missed. Here’s how to apply the rule tenth in practice:

• Designate a devil advocate for each major decision, rotating the role to ensure fresh perspectives.
• Encourage the tenth person to prepare by gathering data, identifying challenges, and presenting a contrarian viewpoint.
• Structure boardroom discussions so that the devil advocate’s input is heard before final decisions are made.
• Document the process, noting how devil advocacy influenced the outcome and what lessons were learned for future decisions.

This method is especially valuable in times of uncertainty or when stakes decisions could have significant long term effects. By formalizing devil advocacy, leaders foster a culture where critical thinking is not only accepted but expected. The result is a more robust decision making process that can withstand scrutiny and adapt to challenges. For a deeper dive into how structured dissent and red team thinking can empower CEOs to drive strategic transformation, explore this resource on empowering strategic transformation in the c-suite. Remember, the goal is not to slow down progress, but to ensure that every decision is resilient, well-considered, and aligned with the company’s long term vision.

Building a culture that values constructive dissent

Encouraging Contrarian Viewpoints for Better Outcomes

Building a culture that values constructive dissent is not just about tolerating disagreement. It’s about actively encouraging the tenth person in the room to challenge the consensus, especially when stakes are high. In executive decision making, groupthink can quietly undermine even the most experienced leadership teams. The tenth man rule, rooted in devil advocacy and critical thinking, helps to counter this by ensuring that every major decision is tested from all angles. A culture that supports the adversarial nature of devil advocacy does not mean fostering conflict for its own sake. Instead, it’s about creating a safe space where the tenth person, or anyone, can voice concerns without fear of reprisal. This approach strengthens the decision making process, especially in high stakes situations where the long term impact can be significant.

• Normalize the role of the devil advocate in meetings. Assign the tenth man or tenth person to challenge assumptions and highlight potential blind spots.
• Reward critical thinking and constructive dissent, not just consensus. Recognize people who bring up uncomfortable truths or alternative perspectives.
• Establish clear guidelines for devil advocacy, so the process remains focused and respectful, rather than adversarial for its own sake.
• Rotate the role of the devil advocate or red team member to ensure diverse viewpoints and prevent any single person from being labeled as the perpetual contrarian.
• Integrate feedback from the devil advocacy process into final decisions, demonstrating that dissent is valued and can influence outcomes.

When leaders model openness to challenge and actively seek out the contrarian viewpoint, it signals to the group that critical thinking is not only accepted but expected. Over time, this builds resilience against groupthink and strengthens the organization’s ability to navigate complex, high stakes decisions. The rule tenth approach is a practical way to embed this mindset into the fabric of executive teams, ensuring that every decision benefits from robust scrutiny and diverse perspectives.

Balancing decisive leadership with open debate

Finding the Right Balance Between Authority and Dissent

In high stakes decisions, CEOs often face the challenge of steering the group decisively while also encouraging critical thinking. The tenth man rule, which asks at least one person to act as a devil advocate, is designed to prevent groupthink and ensure that the decision making process remains robust. But how can leaders maintain momentum without suppressing constructive dissent? The answer lies in balancing decisive leadership with open debate. Here are some practical considerations:

• Set clear expectations: Make it known that the role of the tenth person, or devil advocate, is not to undermine authority but to strengthen outcomes. This clarity helps the group see devil advocacy as a tool for better decisions, not as an adversarial nature.
• Time-box dissent: Allocate specific time for contrarian viewpoints during meetings. This ensures that critical thinking is valued, but does not derail the process or delay urgent decisions.
• Rotate the advocate: Assign the tenth man role to different people over time. This distributes responsibility and prevents the perception that only certain individuals are always challenging the group.
• Encourage evidence-based challenges: Ask the devil advocate to support their arguments with data or external benchmarks. This keeps the discussion focused on long term value, not just personal opinions.
• Close the loop: After debate, summarize the key points raised by the tenth person and explain how their input influenced the final decision. This reinforces the value of the process and encourages future participation.

When leaders embrace the tenth man rule, they create space for privacy policy and user agreement considerations, as well as other compliance issues, to be raised before decisions are finalized. This approach is especially important in august or december, when annual planning and high stakes decisions often converge. By integrating devil advocacy and red team thinking into the boardroom, CEOs can foster a culture where challenges to the group are not only accepted but expected. This ultimately leads to stronger, more resilient strategies that stand up to scrutiny over time.

Real-world examples of the 10th man rule in action

When dissent shapes high-stakes decisions

In the world of executive strategy, the tenth man rule has proven its value in several high-profile decision making processes. By deliberately assigning a person to challenge consensus, organizations have avoided costly pitfalls and improved their long term outcomes. Here are a few instructive examples where critical thinking and devil advocacy changed the trajectory of high stakes decisions:

• Financial Services: A major global bank faced a period of rapid expansion. The group was leaning toward aggressive growth, but the tenth person in the room raised concerns about regulatory risks and the adversarial nature of new markets. This contrarian viewpoint led to a more measured approach, ultimately protecting the company from compliance issues that later affected competitors. The process highlighted the importance of devil advocate roles in the decision making process, especially when groupthink can cloud judgment.
• Technology Sector: During the development of a new product, a red team was formed to challenge the prevailing optimism. The tenth man rule encouraged team members to scrutinize assumptions and anticipate challenges. This advocacy for constructive dissent revealed privacy policy gaps and user agreement issues that could have undermined the product launch. By embracing devil advocacy, the company strengthened its offering and built greater trust with users.
• Healthcare Industry: In a high stakes merger, leadership used the tenth man rule to ensure that all risks were surfaced. The tenth person was tasked with identifying potential integration failures and cultural mismatches. This critical thinking exercise led to the discovery of overlooked operational challenges, allowing the group to adjust their strategy and avoid costly missteps.

These real-world cases show that the rule tenth approach is not just theoretical. When a company embeds devil advocacy and constructive dissent into its culture, it enhances its ability to navigate complex, high stakes decisions. The process may slow down decision making at times, but the long term benefits—greater resilience, fewer blind spots, and more robust outcomes—are clear. Challenges tenth man advocates raise are not obstacles; they are essential checks that protect the organization’s future.