Most poor decisions are not caused by a lack of intelligence. They are caused by a lack of useful resistance.

Long before modern organisations spoke about critical thinking, one formal role existed for a simple reason: to argue against the case. Not to win the argument, but to test whether the argument deserved to win. The role became known as advocatus diaboli, the devil’s advocate, a formal function in the Catholic Church designed to challenge a case before it was accepted. Its purpose was simple: introduce doubt, surface weakness, and test whether confidence was justified.

That idea still matters more than most teams realise.

Many bad decisions are not the result of poor thinking. They are the result of untested thinking. A strategy moves forward because no one wants to slow momentum. A product launches because no one wants to be the difficult voice in the room. A career decision hardens into certainty because no one, including ourselves, asks the uncomfortable question.

The issue is rarely the absence of intelligence. It is the absence of friction.

Useful disagreement is one of the most undervalued forms of intelligence. Not contrarianism. Not ego. Not opposition for its own sake. Real resistance is different. It does not try to win. It tries to reveal what the plan cannot yet see.

That kind of resistance improves more than meetings. It improves judgment.

The same principle applies beyond teams and boardrooms. We need it in personal decisions too. Before changing direction, accepting a new role, or committing to a story about our future, it helps to ask: what would the strongest argument against this look like? Not to weaken conviction, but to make sure conviction has earned its place.

Most people seek validation too early. They look for support before they have tested the strength of what they believe. But confidence built without challenge is often just optimism wearing certainty.

Summing-up: Better decisions do not come from protecting ideas from disagreement. They come from exposing them to intelligent resistance. The goal is not to invite more conflict. It is to create enough thoughtful friction for better judgment to emerge.