Into the Storm (25 page)

In recounting the story of the
Midnight Rambler
to one team, I described the Ramblers' decision to sail into the storm as taking “a big risk.” One thoughtful person asked why I had characterized this decision as a big risk. The greater risk, he observed, would have been in turning around and running for safety.

In the case of the Ramblers, his observation was absolutely correct. When everything was taken into account, the safest course was, in fact, to sail into the storm. But for most people in a 35-foot boat facing waves twice that size and hurricane force winds, sailing hundreds of miles into a storm would have felt like an enormous risk.

The Ramblers were able to weigh the odds and—in spite of the perceived danger—choose the option with the lowest risk. The issue is that there can be a tremendous difference between the
psychological risk—
what feels like the greatest threat—and the
statistical risk
based on a rational calculation of probabilities.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there was a significant increase in the number of fatal car crashes when compared with the previous year. It seems clear, and completely understandable, why more people would take to the highway because of their fear of terrorists. Air passenger miles fell, and vehicle miles rose.

A plausible explanation for this change in behavior is that people were responding to
dread risks:
low-probability but high-consequence events.
⁷
Though it's hard to know the precise impact of this response to
dread risk
, estimates are that hundreds of people died on the highway because of their fear of another terrorist attack. This
dread factor
creates anxiety. And the more anxious we get, the less likely we are to correctly assess the odds.

Although a great deal has been done to manage risk, whether sailing or investing, we are still influenced by emotions that are instinctive and automatic. We fear catastrophic, low-probability events. Unfamiliar threats scare us more than familiar ones. And we feel good when we have the illusion of control, even if our decision leads to a more dangerous path.

In his best-selling book
Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking
, Malcolm Gladwell explores the topic of rapid cognition, arguing that decisions made very quickly can be every bit as good as decisions made cautiously and deliberately. He also explores moments when our initial instincts can go wrong and suggests that these errors arise when our feelings of intuition are thwarted.

Our internal computers, Gladwell argues, can become distracted or disabled. But this happens for very specific reasons that can be identified and understood. He believes that snap judgments and first impressions can be educated and controlled.
⁸

Others are less convinced that rapid cognition can be improved and cultivated. Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, for example, argues that intuitive solutions fail when we're faced with difficult problems. He explores the distinction between fast and slow thinking, calling them
System 1
and
System 2
—or, perhaps,
Blinking
and
Thinking
⁹

System 1
is automatic and generates ideas and feelings quickly.
System 2
undertakes the difficult tasks of comparing, choosing, and reasoning. In Kahneman's framework,
System 1
is the “secret author” of many choices and judgments. It's more influential than we realize.

We rely on
System 1
for most of our decisions and impressions, and it generally works. But
System 1
also gives us a lot of incorrect information and causes us to make mistakes. It doesn't always have the right answer, but it's always quick to respond—and it's never at a loss for words.

Kahneman is much less confident than Gladwell about the potential to eliminate the biases and errors inherent in
System 1
ideas. He argues that intuitive thinking will always be prone to overconfidence, but he does believe it's possible to recognize situations in which errors are likely. When we enter these cognitive minefields, we can slow down and ask for reinforcement from
System 2
—the voice of reason.

When teams are faced with decisions at
The Edge
, there is no need to choose between
System 1
, Blinking, and
System 2
, Thinking. Our intuitive
System 1
will always be shouting out ideas and recommendations. It is harder to engage in the more difficult task of activating
System 2
—especially when we are faced with the stress of major decisions with potentially dire consequences.

In
Surviving and Thriving in Uncertainty: Creating the Risk Intelligent Enterprise
, Frederick Funston and Stephen Wagner explore the concept of
risk intelligence
.
¹⁰
And they provide a blueprint for moving beyond conventional risk management by creating a
Risk Intelligent Enterprise
. They argue persuasively that a risk intelligent organization will thrive and make better decisions under conditions of uncertainty and turbulence.

What's true for a larger enterprise is also true for a smaller team dealing with decision making under adversity. What teams can do better than individuals is counteract the tendency to react to the emotions of the moment and make hasty, bad decisions. Every member of the team will
Blink
and generate ideas. But together, the team can collectively weigh the options and
Think
, drawing on the power of
team risk intelligence
.

The process of decision making doesn't have to be protracted. In the case of the
AFR Midnight Rambler
sailors, their decision had to be made quickly—though it wasn't an easy decision to make. Ed Psaltis was concerned about Chris' injury, and he was worried about endangering the crew.

Recalling the moment of decision, Chris Rockell remembers that:

We didn't have time for a sit around, show of hands team meeting or that kind of thing. But Ed did go around the crew over a relatively short time and say, “Look, what do you think? What should we do? Should we go back to Eden, or should we carry on?”
¹¹

By the time the final decision was made, the rationale for sailing into the storm was clear. Arthur Psaltis recalls that the choice “was rationally discussed and there was clear logic in the thought process. That logic was articulated to each member of the crew. There was a buy-in, because it made sense and it was explained.”

The decision of the Ramblers was reminiscent of the process used by Shackleton and the
Endurance
Expedition. When the crew was stranded on Elephant Island, Shackleton realized that their only hope was for a small party to take the one seaworthy boat and sail 800 nautical miles so that they all might be rescued. The alternative was for everyone in the crew to remain on the island and slowly starve to death. But this choice would mean splitting the expedition and leaving a large group of “castaways” behind.

By the time Shackleton and five others sailed for rescue, the options had been so thoroughly discussed that the choice was clear to everyone.

There was complete consensus about a decision that involved risk for both those who would leave and those who would stay behind.

The crew of the
Endurance
had more than a week to contemplate their options and make a decision. The crew of
AFR Midnight Rambler
had only a matter of hours. But in both cases, each member of the team was fully aligned behind the decision, committed fully to making their choice successful.

Sail 60 degrees
was the phrase that Ed Psaltis kept repeating when steering through the huge waves in the Bass Strait. Ed would direct the boat 60 degrees relative to the oncoming waves. Sailing zero degrees would be heading directly into the waves, and sailing 90 degrees would mean having the side of the boat parallel to the oncoming waves.

The danger of sailing directly into the waves is that the boat could be pitchpoled, and thrown backward—catapulted end over end into the trough of the wave. The danger of sailing 90 degrees—or
beam-on
—was that the boat could be easily rolled 360 degrees. This had happened to the Ramblers before, and Ed was intent on avoiding another catastrophic roll.

When I apply this
60 degree
metaphor to teams, I think about tasks that are so daunting that they need to be approached indirectly—but with clear forward motion. This might translate into taking on easier parts of the assignment first to gain traction. It also might mean changing timelines so there is less stress on the team.

Sailing a team into a challenging assignment is not exactly like sailing a boat into rogue waves. But I find the concept helpful when thinking about ways to take on the most difficult tasks. Introducing the metaphor of
sailing 60 degrees
in a team discussion can stimulate new ways of thinking about solving tough problems.

1.  Do you understand the inherent challenges and risks of the game you are playing—the business or sport you are competing in?

2.  Have you made a realistic assessment of the capabilities of your team? Do you know how individual members will respond to challenge and risk?

3.  Do members of your team demonstrate
situational awareness?
Is your team able to track, comprehend, and act on the important events in your internal and external environments?

4.  Do you have a systematic process for discussing potentially risky decisions?

5.  Is your team able to separate the emotional perception of risk from a rational assessment of danger? Can the team
blink
and
think
at the same time?

6.  Is your team aligned and committed to decisions involving risk?

7.  Is your team able to take on big challenges in ways that don't
break the boat?
Are you able to
sail 60 degrees
into the really big waves your team will encounter?

 

 

I
t's hard to imagine a bigger communication challenge than that faced by the Ramblers in hurricane force winds. The noise was horrific. The shriek of the wind, the crash of the waves against the hull, and the screeching static from the radio made verbal exchanges almost impossible.

Storms are not conducive to good communication. Yet the Ramblers found ways to stay connected and cut through the noise. Teams in more traditional settings may not have hurricanes to deal with, but organizational crises create their own forms of noise. These virtual storms can easily garble, mute, and discourage effective communication.

Team members are often geographically scattered, and demands on time and attention become overwhelming, leaving very few opportunities for casual communication. Communication within the team can also be clouded by political concerns and turf battles. In spite of these obstacles, however, teams need to figure out how to stay connected and cut through the noise.

People are increasingly deluged with messages from social media, and a recent study revealed some fascinating patterns. Researchers comparing Twitter and Facebook, for example, have found significant differences between the two message platforms.

On Twitter, the best time to tweet is midafternoon early in the week. One tongue-in-cheek theory is that “people in their Chipotle-induced stupor are more compelled to click on Tweets arriving after lunch.”
¹
And for businesses that want to drive traffic to their content, it's apparently a waste of time to post messages after 3 p.m. on Friday. On Facebook, however, optimal posting times are slightly different. Traffic spikes a little later than Twitter, and Wednesday at 3 p.m. may be the best time to post on Facebook.

These patterns may change over time, but the research becomes more intriguing when we think of social media as a metaphor. As the researchers point out, “It's easy to see that, just like your neighborhood restaurants, each social network has its own culture and behavior patterns. By understanding the simple characteristics of each social network you can publish your content at exactly the right time to reach the maximum number of people.”
²

Few of us rely on social media to communicate with members of our immediate team, but the central point remains. We are most likely to get our point across and cut through the noise by tailoring our messages to the audience. And it's worth taking the time to understand what works for individuals and for the team as a whole.

While there will be some individual differences, one thing is frequently overlooked: the positive impact of personalizing communication. In the increasingly sterile world of e-mail, blog posts, and Twitter—or the equivalent in your organization—messages seem to blend together. In-boxes fill up with requests, demands, and complaints—or needless CCs and REPLY ALLs. Over time, it all becomes a blur.

In spite of this information blizzard, changes in a few phrases or a sentence can dramatically alter the impact of an e-mail. The same core message, written in slightly different ways, can produce widely differing reactions.
We know what we intend to say, and we think we are saying what we mean
. But the message actually received can be quite different than the message we intended to send. Much can be lost in translation—sometimes with unintended negative consequences.

For important written messages, I ask one or two colleagues to take a look at what I've done and give me their impressions. In one difficult situation, for example, changing “I know you were upset” to “My sense is that you were upset” made a big difference. It softened the message, and it turned out that I hadn't read the situation properly. I overstated what I thought I knew, and the original wording would have been presumptuous.

For busy people who are stressed, this extra effort may seem excessive. But tailoring the message and adding an element of warmth contributes to a feeling of mateship. The messages of one colleague—who somehow manages to reply to my e-mails within ten minutes—almost always leave me with a smile.

He is a very senior executive in a large global organization, yet he finds a way to respond in a personal way. The topic of our discussion may be serious, but a simple “Cya soon” concludes on a warm note. However challenging the situation, I always look forward to seeing him soon.

Although the workplace is moving inexorably toward virtual communication, the most personal way of connecting continues to involve direct contact. I am always struck by the contrast between a face-to-face meeting and an e-mail or phone conversation—especially when there are conflicts or when tough messages need to be delivered.

In those difficult situations, it is fast and convenient to text or leave a voice mail. If meeting in person is out of the question, other video-conferencing options—such as Skype or Face Time—can be used. But there is no substitute for looking a team member in the eye and speaking authentically. These direct conversations may be difficult to arrange and harder to manage. But when tensions are high, the most direct path to resolution almost always involves face-to-face communication.

People above deck in a storm are exposed to the elements—but they know what's going on, and they can see what's coming. People below have a different set of challenges. As Chris Rockell noted:

Being below in the storm was both a bit of a blessing and a curse.

You're certainly warmer than the people up top. But you can't see what's coming. The only way you have any idea about what's ahead is when the guys up top are warning the helmsman that a big wave is on its way. I could hear those cries as well. And it gave me a signal that it was time to hold on and make sure I didn't fall off the bunk.
³

As Chris described the experience of being trapped below deck, I couldn't help but think of the parallels I have seen in organizational settings. There are team members in a position to know what's coming—the good and the bad. They are the first to get notice about impending changes and problematic issues. And they may or may not remember what it's like for team members who are metaphorically down below.

With the noise of the storm, the Ramblers had to yell, “Big Wave!” And they also banged on the side of the cabin to alert the crew down below to brace for the next onslaught. That unmistakable warning made all the difference. It kept the crew connected and helped ensure that their teammates had enough time to brace and hang on.

Warning others about big waves is important for team members in any organization. And those on deck who have greater visibility need to constantly be aware of their mates down below.

Although people on deck had the advantage of seeing the big waves that were coming, they didn't have the full picture. People below had other sources of information—information that was vitally important to the people on deck steering the boat.

Michael Bencsik recalls:

The information that people had below deck was quite critical—particularly when we found out through the radio about the things that were happening around us. People below needed to relay what they knew to the people who were on deck so they understood the weather conditions ahead of us, and what was happening with other boats like the
Sword of Orion
. Even if the news wasn't positive, at least the people on deck had the full picture.
⁴

So the Ramblers down below had important information that those on deck needed to do their jobs. And, just as people on deck needed to bang on the cabin to warn about big waves, people below had to take the initiative as well. They passed along essential news about the weather, the fate of other boats, and other information that only they could hear.

In some cases, the metaphor of crew above and below deck corresponds to levels of organizational hierarchy. People in less visible positions may be reluctant to intrude on those above. But every member of the team sees a part of the picture. It is the responsibility of each team member to take the initiative and to stay connected with their mates in other parts of the boat.

The Sydney to Hobart Race has well-established procedures for scheduled check-ins—or
skeds
, as they are called. Each boat is authorized to report only its latitude and longitude, and transmissions are broadcast in alphabetical order. This information gives the coordinating vessel information about the safety and location of each racer, but other data that might give anyone a competitive edge is off limits.

During the 1998 storm, Rob Kothe—the owner of
Sword of Orion—
realized that the conditions he was encountering were extraordinary. At the 2 p.m. sked on the second day of the race, Kothe took the unusual step of requesting permission to report on the weather. And Lew Carter, who was coordinating the skeds from the radio relay vessel, authorized the departure from protocol saying,
“Sword of Orion
, I would appreciate that for ourselves and all the fleet.”

Kothe then broadcast his alarming message:
Sword of Orion
was experiencing wind gusts of 78 knots. This warning helped alert other boats to the severity of the situation. And it framed Carter's message to the rest of the fleet, as he requested “that all skippers, before proceeding into the Bass Strait…give utmost consideration to what you're doing and talk with members of the crew.”

For the benefit of others, Rob Kothe decided to break protocol and cut through the noise of the storm. But he was not the only skipper who made that choice. Earlier that day,
Doctel Rager
reported severe weather ahead with gusts over 70 knots. And shortly after that, three other boats—
Secret Men's Business, Wild One
, and
She's Apples II
—also broadcast warnings.

There are times when normal communications procedures and channels are simply insufficient to ensure that important messages get through. If the information is important and the noise of the storm is high, team members need to do things differently—think creatively, even break protocol so that others are alerted to critical information.

1.  Have you taken the time to think about the most effective way to reach individual members of your team? Have you considered their preferred communication styles and patterns?

2.  How effective are your communication methods for the full team? Are messages sent in ways that keep people connected and encourage collaboration?

3.  Does your team draw on a combination of techniques to ensure clear communication?

4.  Are face-to-face meetings and conversations used to deal with important topics or emotional situations?

5.  Do people on deck—in positions with greater visibility—reach out to warn those below about oncoming problems and issues?

6.  Do people below deck take the initiative to communicate with people topside?

7.  Are team members willing to break protocol, or devise creative or unusual methods, to ensure that their messages get through?