In one of my earlier posts, I introduced the concept of “situational awareness” – a concept critical to pilots, and anyone else who needs to maintain focus and concentration in the midst of “chaos”.
As alluded to in the post, when problems start to develop such that one’s situational awareness is compromised, one is left “defenseless” for a certain time period until situational awareness is restored. While there are many times when situational awareness is restored, there are times when regaining situational awareness is impossible.
Due to its military applicability, this period of ambiguity is commonly known as “the fog of war”.
In Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink“, he calls special attention to a military leader by the name of Paul Van Riper. Given his extensive military leadership experience, he was asked to participate in a highly complex military strategy scenario to determine its viability in the “real world”. Upon receiving his “objective” and gaining an understanding of this new “leadership strategy”, he decided to forgo the instructions provided him and instead lead as he had done in past combat situations. Leading his team in this manner allowed him to stay focused on the objective without getting bogged down in unnecessary “tiered” and complex leadership strategies. Interestingly enough, the high-tech strategic principles employed by his adversary found themselves lacking situational awareness and ultimately within a “fog of war” of their own creation.
This concept, in my view, has applicability outside the military realm as well.
In the workplace, the likelihood that such a “fog” will exist depends upon leadership capability, organizational structure and communication pathways. As with the military equivalent, and taking a cue from the associated Wikipedia entry, this “fog” can exist at multiple levels:
- Strategic
- Management
- Operational
- Tactical
One major cause for the “fog of war” condition is a breakdown that spans these four levels of authority. It’s similar to the “operator game” where disconnects in communication increase as the number of connection points increases (i.e. the original meaning gets lost in translation).
While communication breakdowns are natural and perhaps unavoidable in the larger sense, as you increase the frequency and magnitude of “direction setting”, resources “on the ground” will begin to lose a sense for their own judgment and will eventually become incapable of action if and when these directional communications cease. Thus, one way to combat this problem is to do as Paul Van Riper did – provide general direction and guidance, but leave the “real” decision-making to those held accountable for doing the work.
This problem also finds its way in interpersonal relationships. A good example of when the “fog of war” can introduce itself is within the “pursuer / distancer” pattern.
In most normal circumstances, a relationship typically starts on a level playing field. However, as each partner gains more knowledge of the other, each partner may end up playing either the “pursuer” or “distancer” role. The pursuer is someone who wants to talk often about the relationship and will want to spend more time together, while the”distancer” will want to talk about practical issues and spend more time individually. As this cycle continues and escalates, the pursuing partner will eventually be seen in a negative light – i.e. as someone who accuses and complains. Not surprisingly, the distancing partner will also be seen in negative light – i.e. she/he does not “care” about the relationship and is generally aloof. In many circumstances, these beliefs are rarely valid – i.e. both parties usually have a joint interest in the relationship as a whole. However, the “fog of war” ultimately causes a lack of situational awareness and the relationship suffers unnecessarily. If both partners regain situational awareness, breaking free from this “fog” is possible (at least in the short-term until more sufficient dialogue takes place).
How does one maintain enough situational awareness to avoid the “fog of war” or to at least “regain” awareness more rapidly?
At a basic level, I think the key to avoiding the “fog of war” (or minimizing one’s stay) is for all parties to understand it in principle. Having awareness that such a “fog” is possible will empower each participant and will enable them to slow things down and take inventory of what is really happening.
At a more advanced level, this collective awareness is ultimately realized through a “shared mental model”. In essence, such a model provides the team (or partners) with a common set of discrete operating principles that enable them to maintain focus and to realize when the other has lost situational awareness. It boils down to understanding 1) the task and team goals, 2) their individual tasks and 3) team member goals and responsibilities. Via this shared mental model, there is a greater likelihood that at least one team member will maintain situational awareness. This very possibility is the key to preventing others from entering the “fog of war” and to quickly pull them out of an existing “fog”.
References: