Expanding the innovation role typology to include the devil's advocate addresses Kanter's (1988) criticism that past innovation role research has a managerial or pro-innovation bias.
Moreover, an examination of the role of the devil's advocate has a great deal of heuristic value for future communication research about organizational innovation.
There are a variety of possible directions for future scholarly research about the role of the devil's advocate in the process of innovation.
Rather than one person playing a solitary devil's advocate, another option is to form a board committee to play the role.
Second, the chairperson may wish to assign one or more directors to play the role of devil's advocate in important decisions in which there is apparent unanimity among the board.
The devil's advocate should avoid becoming a carping critic but should play the role of a process consultant interested only in improving the decision by identifying questionable assumptions.