On empathy as a strategic trait
When Secretary McNamara met with his most senior (living) opposite number from Vietnam, it was the 1990s and more importantly, it was the first time that the two sides met. The first question both asked was, to my understanding: “Why did you start the war?”
The US could not afford for Vietnam to join the communist block. Vietnam would not allow a foreign power, be it the US, Russia, or anyone else, to conquer it, and could care less about Soviet Russia itself.
Both could have had what they wanted from the get-go. The war could potentially have been avoided. They were simply too foreign to each other relate, and maybe ask: What motivates them?
They couldn’t empathize, and couldn’t believe there is a way of holding meaningful discussions with the other side.
You can hear McNamara describe this story when discussing empathy, in the documentary The Fog of War.
Much the same, as I became aware of this, the more I discovered myself drawing conclusions and building plans based on second-hand knowledge and understanding. I set out to change that. There is no alternative to holding a conversation.
History is full of battles fought and lost due to ignored, insufficient, incorrect, or non-existent intelligence. More important for this case though, history is also full of examples of reaching the wrong conclusions based on intelligence.
When analyzing a situation, I often think on it from multiple perspectives. One of them is empathy.
Not only do I want to know what I think of what someone does, I want to try and understand why they’d do so regardless of my opinion. It’s something to be practiced. It allows for communication to occur even in the most difficult of situations when it is believed impossible.
We need to acknowledge that we will draw conclusions on any situation regardless of what they are based on. Without real data, our information will be incorrect, we will form the wrong opinion, as our conclusion will in fact be biased. Thus, whatever plan we create to deal with whichever situation, is less likely to succeed.
Practiced empathy in decision making and situational awareness has now become not only a best practice, or just a tool in my repertoire. It is a trait that is a part me and my autonomous behavior.
A word of warning: The mind reader’s self assurance fallacy: When we empathize with someone enough, we construct ideas on why they do what they do, and a profile on how they’d behave in various situations. We believe we can predict their actions. We may, but we are not alone in this game.
Empathy may be a trait we practice internally, we must remember the other side is a player as well, and they can play their hand in any number of ways. We must consider them as part of the equation, or we will be strategically surprised and our plans will become irrelevant.
We forget these are people; thinking and feeling beings all on their own. We forget how much they can surprise us with their own decision making. We become self assured and cocky. A state of mind is is fleeting by nature, and however well our predictive “profile” may work, it will in fact fail us at some point.
Build your plans, but remember this: Intelligence can be as easy as a holding conversation. Collect it, validate it, or in laymen terms, open lines of communication! Not doing so can lead unfavorable results, escalation, and potentially failure. Doing so provides you with higher visibility, and better control.
Gadi Evron.
(twitter: @gadievron)
#FoundersNotebook #strategy
