Opinions expressed by entrepreneurs’ colleagues are their very own.
In the first article we looked at how inspector Kevin Cyr makes difficult decisions under pressure. As the leader of the SWAT team, he created a clear system of coping with high rate situations.
I talked to the Circus, which consists in a collection of principles guided by uncertainty and avoiding common decision-making traps-which may be used by any business leader.
Maxim 1: separate decisions “if” from the decision “how”
One of the strongest information is the meaning of the distinction between the two questions that leaders often mix: deciding If Actions should be taken in comparison with deciding How This motion should be done.
This illustrates through a tactical scenario in which his team had to scrub a house where a dangerous suspect can hide.
(*3*)When I go through the door of this decision, I’m in the room. I have to behave as if I belonged there.”
Evidence in this case was not decisive, but the situation required a solution. Instead of uncertainty about the presence of a suspect (“if”) affects his tactical approach (“how”), he recognized them as separate decision -making points requiring various analytical frames.
The psychological advantages of this separation are deep. When we mix these questions, we are often caught in a series of everlasting consultation, in which the complexity of implementation becomes a subconscious excuse to delay the directional decision.
By separating them, we create space for a more strategic pondering about the basic problem.
When the Cyr team wonders whether to enter a potentially dangerous place, it deliberately crosses discussions about tactical approaches until the basic decision has been made. This prevents pollution of the operational complexity of a more basic strategic query.
For leaders, this can mean a pure separation of decision to enter a latest market from a specific implementation strategy. Leaders often fluctuate to strategic geographical points because they are intimidated by operational complexity, which should be resolved only after making the first directional decision.
“I will decide that if I try to reduce the risk by weakening the aggressiveness of my action, this is the worst of both worlds,” says Cyr. “People think that this is the best of both worlds, but you risk taking action without taking action that you know will be effective.”
This rule applies to virtually all essential business decisions: restructuring organization, starting latest products, implementation of acquisitions or implementing the predominant technological transformations. First, by establishing the brightness of the query “if” the leaders create the psychological commitment crucial to navigate the inevitable complexity “how”.
Maxim 2: Make your job boring due to risk reduction
It is crucial for someone in his occupation, Cyr believes that emotions in tactical operations generally indicate bad planning and inappropriate risk management.
“People think I have an exciting job. My task is to make my work boring, painfully boring,” he says. “I want to limit as much risk as possible.”
The circus uses a live metaphor as an example this principle: the difference between the transition through a two -story bundle placed on the ground, and one suspended thousand feet in the air above the water infected with sharks. Physical effect is an identical, but the consequences of errors are dramatically different.
“It is more exciting to walk two in 4 waters in the waters infected with sharks. And if you fall and survive, you are called a swimmer. It could seem very satisfying. But you have to ask yourself why you were there first. We carry in two kingdoms. We don’t limit your risk.
His perspective directly questions the cultural worship of crisis management and heroic leadership-leader who saves failure in eleventh hour or a manager who works around the clock to unravel the problem of self-complacency. These scenarios are not leadership triumphs, but the symptoms of inappropriate planning and risk assessment.
For business leaders, this principle translates into non -incorrectly investments in preventive measures, not reactive possibilities. The goal is to not eliminate all risk – this would paralyze the organization – but the transformation of a catastrophic risk into mastery. Effective risk reduction requires a comprehensive approach including:
- Strategic stress testing in relation to numerous failure scenarios
- Building financial and operational buffers except what seems crucial
- Establishing early warning systems to discover emerging problems
- Creating decision frames that remove any unnecessary emotional reactions
- Developing emergency plans that were rigorously practiced
This systematic preparation creates an environment in which decisions may be made with clarity, not panic, even when unexpected challenges appear. As the Circus notes, “almost no decision is able to make or break. Effective leadership is a game of inches. And it’s best that your work is very boring.”
Of course, the irony is that leaders who are leading their work rarely receive recognition precisely because they successfully eliminated dramatic moments that attract attention, despite the fact that their organizations consistently exceed people led by famous crisis managers.
Maxim 3: Recognize when you watch problems without solving them
The subtle trap, which the circus identifies in crisis management, is confusing information on problem solving. This is particularly manifested in situations of commanding incidents in which leaders turn out to be focused on collecting information, because it seems productive and secure.
“I always say that they are watching the problem, they do not solve the problem,” says Cyr. “It’s like a boxer in the ring. You can only dance from the back to ropes so long. After all, you have to be ready to throw a blow and hit, and this is the only way you will win the fight.”
The convenience of collecting information causes the illusion of progress, while delaying the crucial motion. In tactical situations, this could also be fatal; In business contexts, it often means no market possibilities or enabling escalation problems above possible management proportions.
This trend is pronounced in situations with high rates, in which the consequences of the flawed decision seem overwhelming. Leaders subconsciously delay the selection, convincing that they need more information – thus avoiding mental discomfort associated with involvement in the way of motion with uncertain results.
Circus has repeatedly observed this pattern in law enforcement agencies: “We see that many of our training commander of incidents in which they want to collect information because they feel good. He feels like they are doing something. They feel busy. They are satisfying. They learn more. They learn more. But I always say that they are watching the problem, they don’t solve the problem.”
Part of the challenge is that continuous collection of knowledge provides a convenient shield against criticism. If the decision seems to be flawed, the leader may claim that he was still in the means of building situational awareness. However, this security is illusory – in truly consistent situations, indecision often carries a greater risk than imperfect decisions.
To fight this trend, the circus recommends a few approaches:
- Set clear transition points from collecting information to decision phases
- Define in advance what “sufficient information” looks like for specific varieties of decisions
- Create responsibility for decision -making schedules, not only decision -making results
- Separate analytical and decision -making meetings to create shiny psychological boundaries
- Develop confidence in making and documenting “temporary decisions” that may be adapted as latest information appears
Circus particularly emphasizes the importance of adopting discomfort in decision roles:
“Expect only this. Expect this feeling that you is not going to feel confident. If you are looking for individuals who are 100% sure of your decisions, there are no beneficial decisions that require it. It’s only a process. If you only make decisions that are 100% obvious, you may be replaced by a spreadsheet; input data and the decision gets.
For business leaders, this maxim questions the widespread tendency to demand more and more data before making strategic selections. Although the analytical rigor is beneficial, it might turn out to be a substitute for judgment, not a complement to it.
Recognition, when we went from productive evaluation to an unproductive delay, requires self -awareness and organizational discipline.
Image loan due to the courtesy of Kevin Cyr
Commissioning all this
What connects the three maxim of a decision -making circus together is the idea that good decision making goes beyond only analytical tools; Requires mental courage. True leadership shines when we have to make decisions without knowing the details and when we have to act, even with incomplete information. The idea is to decide on courage and not get stuck in indecision.
These rules apply equally, no matter whether you command a tactical unit in the scenario of hostages of life or death, or conduct business by disrupting the market. The context changes, but cognitive and emotional challenges remain extremely coherent.
As the circus reflects: “I don’t think I’m afraid. I think everyone feels fear. I think that what I am better if I am actually better, knowing what to do with this fear.”
For business leaders, the development of this ability to mental courage could also be the most vital competitive advantage in an increasingly complex and uncertain environment. By accepting these maxim, leaders can create cultures in which decisions are made at the right speed, rigor and clarity – even when certainty stays elusive.
Part of the 2-part series about tactical leadership lessons for the corporate world. Click here to read part 1.