CHAPTER 3

Devil’s Advocate

The devil’s advocacy step in the scripting process is based on the premise that all of us can improve how we do things—in this case, communicate—by having others review and provide input for our work. This is a variation on the old saying that two heads are better than one. Sometimes we are just too close to a subject to sense how our words affect others. While drafting allows us to gather all of our thoughts pertaining to the situation, we still need a devil’s advocate to supply frequent reality checks and help us adjust the message. Just as a good miner sifts dust and other unwanted material from the gold, the devil’s advocate works to separate the ambiguous asks, muddled emotions, and weak rationales from effective points and powerful statements.

When I draft a script, I seek out my Abigail Adams, whether it is my wife, Cathi, for personal matters; my law partners Paul Sandler or Larry Gibson for legal challenges; my partner in our negotiation firm, Todd Lenhart, for business deals; or my sports agency partner, Michael Maas, for the Joe Mauer contract and an array of other transactions. In those rare times when I don’t have access to a devil’s advocate, I read the script out loud to myself—acting as my own devil’s advocate.

Chapter 2 reveals how writing out a draft of the script may get to the substance of what you want to say. Yet that first draft may frequently lack the right tone, sound too emotional or defensive, or be phrased in a manner that prevents it from achieving maximum effectiveness. Remember the title character played by Tom Cruise in the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire? In a binge of late-night emotion, he crafts and distributes a “mission statement,” only to think better of it in the morning. His sentiment may have been pure, but he regrets not having reviewed the document—or having someone else look at it—in the sober light of day.

How often does a salesperson harbor the same regret, introducing a proposal, without first seeking reaction from his team members, and watching it fall flat? Perhaps with a devil’s advocate, the idea might have been improved in a way that would have landed rather than lost an account.

In the Mauer negotiations, I served as Michael’s devil’s advocate after he gave me his draft of the counter to the Twins. I might add that in any given situation Michael may act as devil’s advocate for some of my drafts and I some of his; the roles can alternate. In the case of Mauer, I gave Michael back his initial script, marked up as follows:

Bill, we have taken your proposal of a 5-year extension at $18 million a year to Joe. is unacceptable. If he signs an extension, he is making substantial concessions in that he is forgoing the free agency process, though testing the market could possibly lead to a bidding war that would result in one of the largest contracts in baseball. After speaking with Joe, we believe that a contract extension for 9 years at $27 million a year is an offer he would be willing to accept. Joe has a chance to get twice that in the free agent market, and is unwilling to give so much up to do a deal now. We believe Joe is worth more and if he goes to free agency, he could very well receive a contract much larger than we are proposing. While he might consider. He is willing to make this offer at a hometown discount. Since we are doing this for the club, it would be more in the range of several million dollars, and the contract would also require Joe would like trade protection as well as an option out for Joe and a strong package of performance incentives to terminate this extension if the club stops being committed to staying at a competitive level or if the market for players changes significantly and makes this extension inappropriate for a player of Joe’s caliber. unique achievements certainly warrant that.

In revising his draft, I focused on changing the phrasing of sentences to make our claims more factual rather than simply personal opinions. In addition, I sought to explain our actions—and why they supported our request—instead of simply stating what we wanted in a contract. This approach made our demands definitive and our reasons understandable.

Devil’s advocacy can be an ongoing process; more than one redraft may be developed during this second stage. Michael and I talked more about this script for Bill and made further changes. Here are Michael’s edits to the script I returned to him:

Bill, we have taken your proposal of a 5-year extension at $18 million a year to Joe. If he signs an extension, he is making substantial concessions in that he is forgoing the free agency process, though testing the market could possibly lead to a bidding war [Do we mention NY and Boston specifically?] that would result in one of the largest contracts in baseball [Do we name numbers?]. After speaking with Joe, we believe that a contract extension for 9 years at $27 million a year is an offer he would be willing to accept. We believe Joe’s value is greater, is worth more and if he goes to free agency, he could very well receive a contract much larger than we are proposing. He is willing to make this offer at a hometown discount. Since we are doing this for the club, Joe would like trade protection as well as an option to terminate this extension if the club stops being committed to staying at a competitive level or if the market for players changes significantly and makes this extension inappropriate for a player of Joe’s caliber.

In this round, rather than revising, Michael raised questions about possible additions to the script. And our discussions of these questions led to contingency provisions that would later appear in the final script.

As a result of the devil’s advocacy process, this script was far more specific than the original, the language was better suited for negotiations, and we had touched on more points for discussion. Through this stage, Michael and I reached a point at which we were ready to start preparing for delivering the message to Bill Smith and the Twins’ front-office team.

In Lindsay’s case, there was more work to be done in modifying the draft because Lindsay, like most, was not an experienced negotiator. She had a practiced devil’s advocate in me. Generally one can find an effective person to fill the role. The ideal candidate may be a friend, relative, or colleague, as long as it’s someone who will not hesitate to offer critical input. Even better is someone who has experienced a similar challenge. It is important that the devil’s advocate make suggestions and offer criticisms in a manner that does not trigger a defensive reaction. Lindsay needed to make her point more succinctly and with persuasive language rather than aggressive statements or emotional appeals. Once she got over the shock of red ink, Lindsay carefully read and considered my marked-up version, which included my comments (in brackets) as well as suggested deletions (struck out) and additions (in bold):

I want to spend a little time talking about my job and compensation at the company. Since the cuts last year in March, I have given everything I had have to make sure rentals, our large annual event, other development activities and their execution would be beyond successful—I don’t think anyone would question that success.

The problem is that over the past year and a half I have put my own personal and financial well-being at risk by going far, far beyond the call of duty in my commitment to the company. By the sheer nature of my responsibilities at the company it means that My job requires that my work hours continually change and that I must work many weekends and evenings. And because of my reduced compensation, I have had to work different odd jobs to bridge the salary/needs gap. I work seven days a week in odd jobs to manage the cuts made to my hours and salary By observations of family and friends I am told that I work entirely too much and that it is unhealthy to not be fairly adequately compensated for all the time I give my job here. [Are you working hours at the company in excess of those you are compensated for???] You should also know that when I am not in the office, I am still always taking calls, being responsive to event needs, and keeping balls moving through my personal cell phone and my home office. It is part of my core being to give all I have to give without thinking of much in return. As I grow professionally and personally I am recognizing that it is only right to be fairly compensated . . .

It is unreasonable to expect of me to I cannot be expected to work as a salesperson and events manager to my fullest capacity in balance on part-time hours on a 20% pay cut. with high impact on a part-time schedule and a 20% pay cut. [Is the 20% based on gross or rate??] It was negligent to a degree to expect me to do this . . . and not recognize a burnout point. In order to perform my role with the company well I must be incredibly responsive and available beyond the normal workday or workweek.

[What follows is confusing. Is this your call to action or further elaboration? Should it be edited down to a sentence and included as an example of the grievance above??? Needs clarification . . . rewrite in light of question . . .] I have done this through sheer faith, the ability to work very hard, and courage of conviction to the company without industry-standard commission compensation of 2%–5% on sales at the very least or even a full-time base salary . . .

[Similar comment to immediately preceding paragraph: Can we condense the two into a simple call to action that maps out your ask—perhaps a bit higher than you are willing to accept—and also restates the reason relating to the reality of your job and your personal needs??] In the past I have never been an hour counter—I do whatever it takes to get the job done. I am now sacrificing my own integrity of thinking and I start counting hours because I am feeling taken advantage of and not being fairly recognized for the hard work, talent, and dedication I bring to the company. I am so far beyond spread thin it is beginning to rattle at my emotional levels of feeling resentment and anger toward the company—feelings I never want to have but they are growing. I don’t know how I can properly carry out sales, staffing, and administrative functions while continuing to have a real personal life and making financial ends meet at the end of the month. This is not even taking into account new initiatives I am involved in . . .

In addition, I have my son’s future to worry about. At my present rate of pay, I greatly fear we will not be able to afford college and have him live up to his full potential. The amount of support the school has provided him falls short of what we need.

Restoring full-time hours with appropriate salary and commission will allow me to tap into and grow these areas of income and contribute to the financial well-being of the company even greater than I currently do while being fairly compensated and allow me to meet my financial responsibilities.

Lindsay had been heartfelt in her draft, but when I put it to the test of devil’s advocacy, it was in need of a number of things. She exhibited a fear that created a sense of defensiveness. At the same time, she seemed in attack mode. Either might affect her ability to deliver her message when the time came. I advised her to soften and shorten her arguments either through rephrasing or deleting. As I read through her original script, I was uncertain of her intent in some areas. Instead of putting words in her mouth, I asked that she explain exactly what she wanted to convey to her employer. I asked her to clarify her logic in her own voice.

Lindsay, like most, had been entangled in her emotions when she wrote her first draft. While she appreciated my input, she did not relinquish her emotions easily. We spent some time not only validating some of her feelings, but also redirecting her thought process. As I sat across from her, I saw her eyes glisten and heard her voice quiver now and then. I continued to reassure her that we were engaged in a process to help her achieve her employment goals and to support her son’s education.

With time and encouragement, she seemed to relax and became more clear-eyed as she gradually understood what scripting was really about. For Lindsay to achieve her goals, it was not necessary to attempt to shame the boss for his treatment of her. Instead, our objective was to explain logically and professionally to her employer her request for full-hour and compensation reinstatement.

Going through this scripting process greatly lessens the amount of miscommunication that will arise during an actual meeting. Since the intended audience may have a very different vantage point, this stage allows someone else (the devil’s advocate) to consider that perspective in shaping the ultimate demand. The script above was only the first in a rewriting process that would eventually conclude with Lindsay’s finished product (set out in the next chapter), which I supported. Once Lindsay had drafted a final script, she was ready to practice her delivery to her employer, just as Michael and I were for our meeting with Bill Smith.

Keep in Mind:

• Having a devil’s advocate helps you take your initial thoughts and modify them to most effectively communicate to the other party.

• Devil’s advocacy can be an ongoing process; more than one redraft may be developed before the final script.

• Your devil’s advocate should ask you questions about your draft, seek clarifications, and then offer suggestions for deletions and additions.

• If possible, keep your devil’s advocate involved until both of you are satisfied with the script.