War Games

Okay, I promise I am not going to be talking about the 1983 movie War Games, starring Matthew Broderick, Ally Sheedy, Dabney Coleman, and John Wood - actually, I already did that once before (see "The only winning move is not to play")!  With this post, I am really going to talk about war games.  You see, when I was growing up, my parents gave me the Avalon Hill game "Midway".  It's a strategy board game that is based upon the historical Battle of Midway, a major naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II that was a major victory for the United States over Japan.  It was a great game - still is, in fact (it's been ages since I've played it, but I still have my old copy).  It's almost impossible to play by yourself, which is perfectly okay since my best friend growing up really enjoyed playing it too.  Unfortunately, he used to beat me all the time.  As it turns out, coming from a military family, he was apparently much better at battle strategy than I was at the age.

I was thinking of my war game "Midway" earlier today after coming across a post from the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island (I've posted about that place too, see "Tap Code").  Apparently, the Naval War College (NWC) recently hosted its 10th Wargaming 101 course from August 1st to August 10th.  Even more interesting (to me at least), the NWC has an entire department dedicated to wargaming!  Apparently the United States Navy thinks its a worthwhile investment.

Captain Mike O'Hara, who chairs the NWC Wargaming Department said, "It improves decision making under risk and uncertainty. Its power stems from competing against a thinking adversary -- a ‘red team’ -- trying to accomplish its objectives while seeking to undermine your own."

At first, the Wargaming Department was created and developed to educate and train students attending the NWC.  However, in the last 5 years, they have conducted similar "war games" for individuals from outside the War College, including non-Department of Defense organizations such as the U.S. Congress, State Department, and U.S. Coast Guard (yes, the Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. military but is actually housed within the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense), reflecting a growing interest in wargaming as a useful tool for analysis of national security issues.

I've also been reading about the 18th century Prussian war game, Kriegsspiel.  The word "Kriegsspiel" literally means "war game" in German (I am proud to say that I knew that from my DuoLingo!).  Apparently, Kriegsspiel was the first official war game to be adopted by a military organization for education and training purposes.  The games were reportedly highly realistic and forced players to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity.  Following Prussia's impressive victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War, a number of other countries adopted similar methods to train their military officers.

Why all the emphasis on wargaming?  In short, wargaming is an effective way to train military officers in tactics and strategy.  If you think about it, the health care industry has adopted a number of similar approaches - think about mock codes, simulation training, and mass casualty / disaster drills!  What do all of these have in common?  They train health care providers to respond to events that occur fairly infrequently, maybe even rarely.  The natural question though, is why haven't hospitals and other health care organizations adopted wargaming (or whatever you wish to call it) to help leaders learn how to make effective decisions under conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity, and stress?  How many health care organizations have "simulated" or "gamed" a strategic decision such as an acquisition or merger?

I believe that leaders in health care organizations can and should adopt wargaming methods to help them learn to make better decisions.  We live in a world characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiquity (the Army War College first used the acronym VUCA to describe the world in which we live today).  Why not take full advantage of all of the things that can help us to drive to better performance?

"Shall we play a game?"

Two pizzas

I have been reading a lot on what it takes to run a productive meeting.  One of the most important considerations is the size of the invite list - according to an article by Paul Axtell published a few years ago in Harvard Business Review, the most productive meetings have fewer than 8 people attend.  He writes, "There is a tipping point beyond which the quality of the conversation begins to erode."  If too many people are invited to the meeting, there is never enough time for everyone to participate in the conversation.  When the group becomes too large, some people tend to clam up and not say anything, or when they do say something, they are more guarded.  Large group meetings tend to increase the likelihood of "social loafing", which is the tendency for some individuals to exert far less effort in a group compared to when they have to work alone (see my post, "Social loafers on a free ride" for more on this point).  Finally, if the goal of inclusivity is to increase group diversity, adding to the invite list can and usually does backfire due to something known as the "common information effect".  Basically, whenever we are in a group, we tend to focus primarily (and at times, exclusively) on things we have in common.  Larger groups only increase this tendency.

Whether an invite list of only eight individuals is a hard and fast rule is probably not as important as making sure that the individuals who attend actually contribute.  In general, if you are inviting someone to a meeting only so that they are "kept in the loop", it's probably better not to invite them and to communicate with them afterwards.   In general, (see "How to know if there are too many people in your meeting", also from Harvard Business Review), when you are putting together the meeting attendance list, give careful consideration to include individuals from the following key categories:

1. The key decision makers for the issues involved

2. Individuals with information and knowledge about the topics under discussion

3. Individuals who have a commitment to or stake in the issues

4. Individuals who need to know about the information you have to report in order to do their jobs

5. Anyone who will be required to implement any decisions made

One trick is to follow the so-called 8-18-1800 rule.  If you have to solve a problem or make an important decision, invite no more than 8 people to the meeting.  If you want to brainstorm about an issue, or if the purpose of the meeting is to provide updates (though I would argue that there are better ways to disseminate information than in a meeting), you can go as high as 18 people.  Finally, if the purpose of the meeting is to rally the troops, go for 1,800 people or even more!

Amazon supposedly uses the so-called "two pizza rule".  Jeff Bezos reportedly once said, "If you can't feed a team with two pizzas, it's too large."  I guess that also depends on how big of an appetite everyone at the meeting has though, right?  The bottom line is, bigger is not always better!

Are you emotionally resilient?

I came across an interesting post a few weeks ago by Dr. Cortney Warren.  It was the title that caught my attention: "Harvard psychologist: If you use any of these 9 phrases every day, you're more emotionally resilient than most."  It's worth a read.  Please don't misunderstand - if you are not necessarily an emotionally resilient person, uttering these phrases won't make you more resilient.  Rather, these 9 phrases are more frequently used by those individuals who are more resilient than their peers.  

Here are the 9 phrases:

1. "I can get through this."

2. "I'm not going to let myself be a victim."

3. "Life is hard."

4. "This, too, shall pass."

5. "What can I learn from this?"

6. "I need some time."

7. "I still have things to be grateful for."

8. "It is what it is."

9. "I'm letting this go."

I was somewhat gratified (maybe relieved is a better word) to realize that I've used at least a few of these phrases a few times in the last week or so.  How about you?

You can't make this stuff up...

I have written a number of posts in the past on the so-called Dunning-Kruger Effect and its opposite, the Impostor Syndrome (see "Aristotle's Golden Mean", "Juste Milieu", "The July Effect and the Beginner's Bubble Hypothesis", "The Ignorance of Arrogance", and "Success is a Lousy Teacher").  I was very surprised to learn recently what inspired David Dunning and Justin Kruger to begin their research on the effect that now bears both of their names.  To be honest, I've heard the story before, but certainly not in connection with the Dunning-Kruger Effect.  

Several years ago, on January 6, 1995 to be exact, two men named MacArthur Wheeler (no relation) and Clifton Earl Johnson robbed two banks in the Pittsburgh area at gunpoint without attempting to disguise themselves - at least that's how it initially appeared.  Neither man wore a mask - instead, they had applied lemon juice to their faces!  Remember, lemon juice is one of the main ingredients in at least one of the common household recipes for invisible ink.  Lemon juice apparently contains compounds that are colorless at room temperature.  When you hold up a piece of paper with invisible ink on it next to a light bulb, the heat from the light bulb releases the carbon from these compounds, and exposure to the air oxidizes the carbon, causing the writing to magically appear.

According to Wheeler (again, no relation!), Johnson had told him that the lemon juice would make their faces invisible to the security cameras.  Wheeler was initially skeptical - because who wouldn't be!?!?!  However, he tested Johnson's recommendation by covering his face with lemon juice and taking a picture of himself with a Polaroid camera.  Surprisingly, his face was missing from the resulting photograph (detectives later suggested that there had been a problem with the film, the camera, or Wheeler's photography skills).

The two bank robbers made off with over US$5,000, but were apprehended less than a week later following an anonymous tip in response to the release of the security camera footage of the two men on Pittsburgh Crime Stoppers.  When shown the footage, Wheeler responded with surprise, "But I wore the lemon juice.  I wore the lemon juice."  Johnson pleaded guilty and testified against Wheeler ("Prisoner's Dilemma" anyone?) and was sentenced to five years in prison.  Wheeler was convicted and sentenced to 24 1/2 years in prison.

David Dunning, a professor of social psychology at Cornell University read an account of the two bank robbers and reportedly said, "If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber - that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity."  He designed a study with his graduate student at the time, Justin Kruger, to determine how an individual's self-competence measured against to their actual level of competence.  They published their findings in a 1999 paper, "Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments".  There findings subsequently led to the concept of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, in which our incompetence prevents us from recognizing our own lack of incompetence.  As Dunning and Kruger wrote, "When people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Instead, like Mr. Wheeler, they are left with the mistaken impression that they are doing just fine."

Summer Break is Over!

A few of you have noticed the lack of blog posts for the last couple of months - a few of you have even asked if I was done posting.  I just took a break.  Some of you know that we lived for a couple of years on the island of Guam, and our youngest daughter was born there.  We left when she was about 2 months old, so we had always planned on taking her back to see where she was born.  Unfortunately, the original plan to go right after she graduated from college had to change due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  We were thrilled to be able to go this summer, and we just got back a few weeks ago.  We spent about five days on Guam, and I have to say that very little has changed.  Guam will always hold a special place in our hearts - the people and the island are just incredible.

We flew back home via Tokyo, Japan and took the opportunity to spend a few days there as well.  There is absolutely nothing quite like experiencing a different culture.  I think that if more of us had the opportunity to do that, perhaps the world wouldn't feel so large.  I ate more Sushi than I hope to ever eat again, and I wouldn't recommend visiting Japan in August (it's unbelievably hot and humid there in the summer).  I think we were most impressed by how Tokyo is so clean despite being the largest city (by population) in the world and having absolutely no trash cans anywhere on the streets.  Apparently everyone carries their trash with them and brings it home for disposal!  Lastly, I would have to say that the mass transit system is one of the best I've ever encountered.  Tokyo is an amazing city, Japan has an amazing culture, and our family had an amazing time.

My plan is to resume my previous schedule of posts at least twice a week.  I've been doing a lot of background reading and research, so I am looking forward to sharing it all with you in the coming weeks and months.  Happy Summer to everyone, and I look forward to getting back in the swing of things with posting real soon!