...prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth

Since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collusion of adverse opinion that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Quality decisions are a function of the exchange of expertise and then the synthesis of different points of view.

As team members, we must be wary of individuals who hold strong beliefs about issues, because they are apt to examine evidence (both for and against their own particular point of view) in a biased manner. Such team members tend to accept confirming evidence at face value, and subject disconfirming evidence to highly critical evaluation.

...advocacy subgroups present their views, listen to opposing views, and then drop their advocacy in order to arrive at team consensus

• debate
• concurrence-seeking
• controversy

DEBATE:

In the debate format, team members argue for positions that are incompatible. Each team member engaged in the debate becomes an advocate for his or her particular position. Generally, the final decision is then based on the best argument. (See Confrontation)

CONCURRENCE-SEEKING:

In this format, discussion on the problematic issue is inhibited in order to avoid disagreement. The general assumption is that team cohesion is so fragile as to be unable to withstand the tension brought on by any disagreement. (See Avoidance and Accomodation)

CONTROVERSY:

Controversy describes a methodology in which advocacy subgroups present their views, listen to opposing views, and then drop their advocacy in order to arrive at team consensus. It is important to note that advocacy is adopted in order to forge a better solution to the problem. Advocacy positions are not positions that are absolutely forged, never to be altered. (See Cognitive Conflict and Collaboration)