Red Teaming: The independent application of a range of structured, creative and critical thinking techniques to assist the end user to make a better-informed decision or create a more robust product.
That’s a kinda academic way to say “having (and welcoming) someone whose job it is to critique you”.
I originally wrote about this in February 2017, and a lot has changed for me professionally since then. Do I still think what I wrote is right? A recent Twitter exchange gave me a renewed interest in this idea. How, based on new experience, would I approach this now?
Is a Red Team a name for something that already exists?
Yes and no.
Decisions in emergencies (in a UK context at least) are made by consensus. So there is already a structure whereby people with different experience and responsibilities reach decisions jointly. A variety of aspects and implications will have already been considered and extremes moderated or discounted.
However, ‘decisions by committee’ typically take longer to reach and run the risk of ‘group think’ where the desire for harmony in the group results in dysfunctional decisions.
A Red Team is about doing what you normally do, what you have been trained to do; but then taking an equally qualified objective team and seeing if they have any other perspectives you haven’t considered either about the decision you ahve reached or the way in which you reached it.
What are the barriers to Red Teaming?
There are many, but I think they can be broadly categorised into two groups; culture and resources.
We all like to think that we have the answers, and so accepting that in ambiguous, high risk and complex situations we might always have thought of everything shows self-awareness. Adopting a Red Team approach would signify to me high levels of strategic leadership maturity.
On the resources side, sorry, I think sometimes you have to take a hit. However, this should be balanced against the cost of sub-optimal decisions being made. Arguably that’s much harder to quantify, but having a stab at working out the return on investment would be a better approach than looking at expenditure.
Clearly embedding Red Teams would take time, money and will, but should that be a barrier to doing things better?
A (red) rose by any other name…
I don’t get hung up on what this structure would be called.
I became aware of the concept through a TV drama Newsroom, where it was called a Red Team, and that term has stuck with me as shorthand.
I have mixed feelings about the militarization of civil emergency management. However, there is no escaping that Red Teams have a military connection, where they are used to good effect. Typically, where the military goes, the civil emergency response follows.
The 2010 Ministry of Defence guidance on Red Teaming states it is a “practical response to overcoming the complex problems introduced by our human frailties, helping us to recognise them and correct our thinking and analysis before faulty judgements are cemented in the minds of key decision makers.” I think that’s equally as applicable in a civil context.
Perhaps recognising a militarisation tendency, NATO has opted to call their structure ‘Alternative Analysis’. You could also think about De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats and call it White Hatting, that has a peculiar ring, but might look entertaining in a control room!
What am I doing to implement Red Teaming?
I’m not convinced I’m adding much actual substance to the conversation, other than being an advocate of ‘let’s try it’.
In a lower-key way, I made a recent decision to bring someone in specifically to check my working out on a particularly complex project at work. It was really helpful to have someone force me to reflect on my proposals, and can really see how this could be scaled up.
I’m interested in views of colleagues on how this could be applicable and how some of the barriers could be addressed.