The Boundaries Extended: An Experiment Comparing Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and Consensus using the Executive Game

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted using undergraduate business seniors and experienced managers, designed to test the effects of Dialectical Inquiry (DI), Devil’s Advocacy (DA), and Consensus(C) upon planning posturing and group attitudinal variables. The Executive Game of Henshaw and Jackson (1984) was used. Results supported DI as providing better long-term posturing than both DA and C. Contrary to earlier experiments, there was higher participant satisfaction with DI than with either DA or C.