"I'm just playing devil's advocate" and other lies we tell
When agreeing becomes performing...
I wrote a post on LinkedIn this week about not everyone wanting to be a manager. Simple point. Lots of people agreed, shared their perspective and left comments on their own experiences which created some brilliant conversations. All is good.
Then someone commented. Started with agreement. Then added their perspective. Then came back again with another comment. Bullet points this time. “I’m merely pointing out that...”
By the third paragraph I could feel it. This wasn’t a conversation any more. This was someone who couldn’t just agree. They needed to add, to clarify, to have the last word. Ironically enough they were a leadership trainer…
I didn’t respond to the final comment. What’s the point? We agreed on the original thing. But that wasn’t enough.
And it made me think about how often this happens. In meetings. In emails. In Teams threads. Someone makes a good point and instead of just letting it land, someone else feels the need to perform.
You’ve seen this happen. Maybe you’ve even done it yourself.
Someone makes a point. A good point. One you agree with completely.
But instead of just saying “yes, exactly that” you feel the need to add something. Show you really understand it too. Demonstrate you’ve thought about it. Maybe throw in a few bullet points to prove you’re adding value.
“That’s true, though the real issue is...” “Agreed, and what I’ve found is...” “I’m merely pointing out that...” “Let me just play devil’s advocate here...” “I don’t mean to pick holes but...”
It looks like collaboration. It feels like you’re being helpful. But have you ever thought that it’s more about the performance?
What performative leadership looks like
Can’t just agree without adding more perspective
Needs to have the last word
Uses bullet points to show structured thinking
Positions themselves as “just playing devil’s advocate”
Frames criticism as “I don’t mean to pick holes but...”
Makes simple points way more complex
Always finds the exception or the problem
Frames additions as “just clarifying” or “building on this”
The pattern: agreement (or apparent thoughtfulness) plus demonstration of critical thinking plus subtle repositioning as being the smartest person in the room.
The devil’s advocate problem
“Let me play devil’s advocate” has become a free pass to undermine ideas while maintaining plausible deniability.
You’re not being difficult. You’re being thorough. You’re not shooting things down. You’re stress-testing. You’re not positioning yourself as superior. You’re just seeing all sides.
Except most of the time, nobody even asked for a devil’s advocate. The team needs to take action and find agreement, not spend another 20 minutes defending a good idea from someone who’s decided their job is to find holes.
Real critical thinking asks: is there a genuine problem here that will derail this or am I just showing I can spot problems?
Why it matters
Because your team notices. They watch how you respond when someone else is right or has a good idea.
When you can’t just agree, when you always need to add something or find the flaw, you’re teaching them that:
Simple agreement isn’t enough
Everything needs to be made more complicated
Finding problems is more valued than building solutions
Meetings are for performing, not solving
People stop contributing. Because why bother when someone will either use your point as a launching pad for their own or pick it apart to show they’re the critical thinker?
What actual leadership looks like instead
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can say is: “Yes. Exactly that.”
No additions. No bullet points. No “and what I’ve also noticed is...”
And when you spot a genuine problem, you don’t need to announce you’re playing devil’s advocate. You just raise the concern directly and helpfully.
“I’m worried about the timeline on this” is more useful than “Let me play devil’s advocate - what if the timeline’s too tight?”
The first is helpful. The second is performing.
How to spot it in yourself
Before you respond to someone’s point, ask:
Am I adding something genuinely useful or just showing I know things too?
Would silence or simple agreement be more powerful here?
Am I about to say “devil’s advocate” or “I don’t mean to pick holes but”? If so, why do I need that disclaimer?
Is this criticism going to help us take the next step or just prove I can spot problems?
Am I comfortable letting someone else have the clear final word?
If you’re writing bullet points in response to someone else’s good idea, pause.
If you’re about to play devil’s advocate and no one asked for one, pause.
Ask yourself what you’re really doing.
How to handle it when you encounter it
When someone does this to you:
Don’t engage in the performance. Don’t match their bullet points with your own. Don’t defend your idea against a devil’s advocate who appointed themselves. Don’t get pulled into proving you’ve thought it through.
Just let it sit there. The person who keeps adding layers often doesn’t realise they’re doing it.
If it’s a pattern with your boss or a colleague, you can name it directly in private: “I notice when we agree on something, we often end up having a long discussion afterwards. Would it be helpful to just land on agreement and move on?”
Or: “I’ve noticed you often play devil’s advocate in meetings. Is there something specific you’re concerned about, or is that just your way of thinking things through?”
Most people aren’t being deliberately performative. They just think that’s what leadership looks like. Bullet points and last words and always having more to add. Always being the one who spots the flaw.
But real leadership knows when to shut the heck up. When to let someone else be right. When to just say “yes, that’s it” and move on.
And when there’s a genuine problem to raise, real leadership just raises it. No performance required.