Take a SIP: Handling Self-Induced Pressure
By Richard Mann, Haley Barrows, and Glenn R. Fox
“We’ve already decided which people we want, so you might as well quit now.”
Those quietly imposing words from the Chief Instructor welcomed Richard Mann to the initial stages of the selection process for the Special Boat Service (SBS — UK Special Forces equivalent to US Navy SEALs). For Richard, who served 14 years as a British Royal Marine and SBS operator, the journey through his career was as much about mindset as it was skillset. As most imagine, British Special Boat Service selection is both daunting and relentless physically, but many do not know that the psychological challenges are themselves a formidable obstacle course.
Throughout the selection process candidates are tested to their limits through a series of phases, designed to test fundamental soldiering skills as well as individual aptitude to learn and operate under pressure. For SBS candidates, this includes approximately a 6-month joint selection phase with their SAS (Special Air Service) counterparts, followed by another 4-months of follow on specialist training.
The scope of the selection is wide ranging with elements such as: timed individual route marches, jungle warfare, demolitions, survival and resistance to interrogation. Specialization for SBS candidates after that initial cut moves into training on specific skills of the job: boating, combat diving and patrol paramedic training.
Richard has been motivated since the time of his service to share his insight and key experiences, particularly as it can illuminate how he has handled the transitions between critical phases in his life. Here, I laid out some specific questions and we discuss his experiences and reflections — where I can, I chime in with applied science and context.
GF: Richard, in your experience, what did you see in terms of how others handled pressure in the selection process, how much did people vary in how they handled it and how did that relate to whether they quit or not? When were people most likely to quit?
Richard: Without doubt most of the pressure was internal with most people quitting in the early stages of selection. This really is the period when those that aren’t fully committed come face to face with the reality of what they are being asked to accomplish. There really is no room for self-doubt, second guessing yourself or half measures. Clearly the justifications for opting out for many were formed in their internal thinking. That seemed to be the single biggest variant, not how good someone could soldier or read the map but instead a storyline of how it might not be for them at that time. Some guys remained and tried to push through but didn’t meet the expected standards in one way or another.
For those that remained the pressure was often handled by the support of each other and a good dose of humour (away from the prying eyes of the training team!). There were inevitably down days and down periods but this, as with any pursuit of high hard goals and excellence, was more a case of pushing through moment by moment, day by day.
There was also what we termed SIP — Self Induced Pressure. This insight came further on into selection during a moment when we were being called upon to undertake another arduous evolution [another word for training exercise] on a cold, wet UK night. This was a realisation of the mind games and the fact that much (if not all) of the pressure we were facing was being self created.
GF: As I would see it, the internal ‘self induced’ pressure you are discussing here comes from the mind’s ability to compare reality to what we hope reality should be. It’s the story we tell when we implicitly decide, regardless of the external circumstance, that we are out of capacity to deal with the present moment and lack the ability to tell a creative, empowered story about our ability to handle stress and failure.
GF: What happened when people quit? Was it a big deal?
Richard: I’m not sure if it is just the ‘British way’ but unlike our SEAL team counterparts, opting out of SBS selection called for no fanfare, or ‘bell ringing’ as per the now famous BUD/S hell week. It was a much more ‘matter of fact’ approach. Certainly in the early stages the focus of the training team really was to weed out those that didn’t have the right mindset.
We did in fact have a bit of a ‘cull’ around week 10, when the chief instructor unexpectedly got everyone together and started calling out names of people that were no longer required. After putting in that amount of commitment and effort it was a ‘heart in mouth’ moment for all!
GF: You’ve talked about training in the Jungle Phase — what did that do, how did the training staff alter your expectations to shift or challenge your mindset?
Richard: The ‘Jungle’ phase was another opportunity for the training team to build pressure and build deep levels of fatigue, which in turn challenged the mindset. It is a harsh environment, with the terrain and humidity helping to sap much needed reserves of energy. One of the training team was assigned to each patrol and there was the gnawing feeling of knowing they were watching and assessing your every move on any given day. We would only know if we had met the required standard at the end of the phase, which a number of people didn’t.
There would be long days of silent patrolling interspersed with live firing ‘contact drill’ lanes, ambushes and hostage release missions. All designed to test our fieldcraft and our ability to operate and fight under duress. This continued to the last ‘final-ex’ where we were tasked to secure a helicopter landing site so that we could be extracted to our base camp. The pick up never happened. It was a final mental test, as the helicopters were never coming! What actually followed was a further two days of patrolling before finally seeing the canopy of the trees dwindle to reveal remarkable open blue skies!
Overall, during the selection process, while everyone is different, SIP certainly added to the challenge. SIP is everywhere — in our business, athletic and personal lives, wherever we see limits where we wish there was space and capacity. Anyone can be subject to SIP dependent upon how we choose to frame decision-making under stress. Thankfully the inverse is also true: SIP can be deflated by practice, shifting our perspective, and focusing on self-knowledge and clear understanding of our options.
Thankfully, SIP can be challenged through our own practice, reflection and curiosity about how our minds work under pressure.
Here, we present five tactics of how to handle SIP. Each tactic has its own research-backed benefits and challenges, and most important of all, each is a skill to be trained.
1. Radical Self Awareness — To reduce the effects of SIP, we must develop awareness of what is actually taking place. What makes it ‘radical’ is the immolation process of getting to the root of what took place to put us in this situation, what we can control, and what aspect of our ego needs to be let go for us to unleash a plan.
Radical self-awareness is a process and skill. We advise tonglen meditation and journaling practice to develop the ‘muscle’ of awareness, particularly in that space between a stimulus and our mental reaction. It is in this space we can access the core aspects of ourselves that build our capacity for pressure. In fact, past studies support that dispositional and state mindfulness are associated with increased self-regulated behaviour and positive emotional states.
2. Radical Acceptance — The famous psychologist Carl Rogers, once said, “The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change”
Acceptance is not resignation to circumstance. It is at its core, a process of working with reality leading to effective action without adding additional layers of self-defeating pressure. A study of 101 outpatients reporting moderate to severe levels of anxiety and/or depression found that practicing therapy that involved acceptance of experience and commitment to action showed large improvements in depression, anxiety, functioning difficulties, quality of life, life satisfaction, and clinician-rated functioning.
Once we truly accept how things are and what we need to do, both good and bad, we can stop ‘fighting’ our reality and apply tools we reveal through insight.
3. Reframe Adversity — reframing adversity is a hugely powerful tool in overcoming challenges we face. It is a paradigm shift in mindset to no longer be defeated by obstacles but to see them accurately as opportunities for growth. This is sometimes known as cognitive reappraisal, or changing the emotional response of an event by reinterpreting the meaning of the stimulus to be something more manageable. Past research has shown that practicing cognitive reappraisal moderates the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms as well as predicts increased levels of well-being.
4. Locus of control — When the world pins us to the ground, when reality cannot be escaped — where does your mind go? Does it lash and blame others, or does it work to evaluate what aspects still remain under control? Locus of control refers to the degree of ownership we take for our reaction to events in life. Even at our worst moments, there are choices to make, down to the choice to be grateful for even a single breath. In less dire circumstances, we can respond to stress by helping others, asking questions that undermine our assumptions, and having the courage to challenge authority and our own egotistical attachment to outcomes and positions. For SIP, setting up a clear course of action and goals can establish a pattern of autonomy for use to follow and sort our behavior as events unfold. Additionally, locus of control has been linked to positive health behaviours and correlated with increased job satisfaction.
5. Lower the bar of expectation — to many this may sound opposite or even toxic to what creates high performance — here we argue that our expectations paradoxically limit our performance. This tactic does not mean we forego our best, rather, it recognises that to access our optimum performance state (flow state) we need to reduce pressured thinking and be ready to accept that the future is always a mystery.
Expectations often lead to perfectionism, which has been associated with negative performance outcomes in all manner of high performance. In fact, one study found that athletes who showed negative patterns of perfectionism were related to higher levels of cognitive anxiety and lower levels of self-confidence. Additionally, athletes who had negative reactions to imperfect outcomes in their sport showed decreased mastery compared to athletes who strove for perfection.
In summary
Continued application of these tactics builds the ‘muscle’ of mental performance. Our willingness to engage and ‘stick with’ challenging situations builds confidence and resilience as we prove to ourselves on a consistent basis we do have the capability to push out into the unknown.
