Red Team Handbook 9.0 Edited 2019

A product of the TRADOC G–2
Operational Environment Enterprise
VERSION
9.0 THE
RED TEAM
HANDBOOK
THE ARMY’S GUIDE TO

MAKING BETTER DECISIONS
This publication is available publicly at
https://usacac.army.mil/organizations/ufmcs-red-teaming/.
Registered All Partners Access Network users may also use
https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/ufmcs-red-team-central/.
DISTRIBUTION
This handbook is approved for public release.
Distribution is unlimited.
UFMCS
University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies
TRADOC G-2 Intelligence Support Activity
803 Harrison Drive, Building 467, Room 315
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2308
https://usacac.army.mil/organizations/ufmcs-red-teaming
Phone Roster
Director 913-684-7981
Course Information and Operations 913-684-4323/4336
Curriculum 913-684-3861
Librarian 913-785-3081
Technology / Online Info 913-684-4323
Security 913-684-4336
Fax 913-684-3887
DSN 552-xxxx
UFMCS Red Teaming Central

The All Partners Access Network (APAN) is an unclassified
information sharing and collaboration enterprise for the United
States Department of Defense (DoD). Red Teaming Central is a
community within APAN that enables Red Teamers to share ideas
on Red Teaming. To register with APAN and join Red Teaming
Central, visit https://www.apan.org.
Class Descriptions, Scheduling, and ATRRS Enrollment

All class descriptions and fiscal year scheduling information are
available on UFMCS’s public website:
https://usacac.army.mil/organizations/ufmcs-red-teaming/classes
To register for a UFMCS resident course, each student must
have their Command’s approval and enroll through their
authorized Command’s Army Training Requirements and
Resource System (ATRRS) Operator. (No one can self-enroll in
ATRRS.) The steps below will assist in finding the UFMCS
Resident Courses available:
1. Go to https://www.atrrs.army.mil/atrrscc/search.aspx
2. Select a Fiscal Year, e.g., 2020.
3. Select the School Code: 159 (UFMCS).
4. Click Search the ATRRS Course Catalog button.
5. Select a UFMCS course from the table.
Contact UFMCS Course Information and Operations if you
require further assistance (see previous page).
RED TEAM HANDBOOK | iii
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES................................................... vii

PREFACE ..................................................................................... ix
EDITORIAL STAFF ....................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1
WHY DO WE RED TEAM? ............................................................ 2
WHAT IS RED TEAMING? ............................................................. 3
FOUR PRINCIPLES OF UFMCS.................................................... 3
UFMCS TRAINING ...................................................................... 5
THIS HANDBOOK ......................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 - SELF-AWARENESS AND REFLECTION ... 7
SELF-AUTHORSHIP ....................................................................... 9
TEMPERAMENT .......................................................................... 10
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ...................................................... 12
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION .......................................... 13
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT ...................................................... 15
INTROSPECTION......................................................................... 16
SUMMARY ................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 3 - FOSTERING CULTURAL EMPATHY ...... 19
UNDERSTANDING CULTURE FOR THE RED TEAMER ................ 21
ETHNOCENTRISM ...................................................................... 21
SOME CULTURAL DEFINITIONS ................................................ 24
iv | TRADOC G-2, UFMCS
SOME CULTURAL FRAMEWORKS ............................................... 25
CULTURAL ANALYSIS FOR THE RED TEAMER ............................ 27
FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS APPROACH ............................................ 30
CULTURAL RELEVANCE ............................................................. 36
SUMMARY ................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 4 - APPLIED CRITICAL THINKING .............. 43
WHAT IS APPLIED CRITICAL THINKING? ................................... 43
THE TIME FACTOR .................................................................... 44
TIME FOR RED TEAMING ........................................................... 46
CREATING SPACE AND TIME...................................................... 47
SUMMARY ................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 5 - GROUPTHINK MITIGATION AND
DECISION SUPPORT ....................................................... 51
GROUP DYNAMICS AND GROUPTHINK ...................................... 51
GROUPTHINK MITIGATION ........................................................ 53
DECISION SUPPORT ................................................................... 55
SUMMARY ................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 6 - THINKING CREATIVELY ......................... 57
THE CREATIVE THOUGHT PROCESS ......................................... 57
STAGE 1: PROBLEM-FINDING .................................................... 58
STAGE 2: PREPARATION.............................................................. 59
STAGE 3: IDEATION .................................................................... 60
STAGE 4: IDEA VERIFICATION .................................................... 62
STAGE 5: COMMUNICATION ...................................................... 64
SUMMARY ................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 7 - RED TEAMING TOOLS, TECHNIQUES, &
PRACTICES ....................................................................... 69
RED TEAM HANDBOOK | v
TOOLS ........................................................................................ 70
A TECHNIQUE: THE IDEAL GROUP PROCESS ............................ 70
PRACTICES ................................................................................. 70
1-2-4-WHOLE GROUP ................................................................ 74
1 ON 1, 2 ON 2, EXCHANGE EMISSARIES .................................... 76
4 WAYS OF SEEING..................................................................... 78
5 WHYS....................................................................................... 80
5 WILL GET YOU 25 ................................................................... 82
6 EMPATHETIC QUESTIONS ....................................................... 84
6 WORDS .................................................................................... 85
ALTERNATIVE FUTURES ANALYSIS ............................................. 86
ANALOGY SUITABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................... 90
ANALYSIS OF COMPETING HYPOTHESES ................................... 94
APPRECIATIVE INTERVIEW ......................................................... 98
ARGUMENT DECONSTRUCTION .............................................. 101
ASSUMPTION SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ....................................... 104
BATNA .................................................................................... 106
BRAINSTORMING ...................................................................... 108
CIRCLE OF VOICES .................................................................. 111
CIRCULAR RESPONSE .............................................................. 113
CRITICAL VARIABLES ............................................................... 115
CULTURAL PERCEPTION FRAMEWORK .................................... 121
DECEPTION DETECTION......................................................... 139
DEVIL’S ADVOCACY ................................................................. 141
DIVERGENCE - CONVERGENCE .............................................. 143
DOT VOTING ........................................................................... 146
FISHBOWL ................................................................................ 149
FRAME AUDIT .......................................................................... 151
GALLERY WALK ........................................................................ 152
vi | TRADOC G-2, UFMCS
HIGH IMPACT / LOW PROBABILITY ANALYSIS ........................... 155
INDICATORS OR SIGNPOSTS OF CHANGE ................................ 158
KEY ASSUMPTIONS CHECK ...................................................... 161
MIND MAPPING ....................................................................... 164
MY 15% .................................................................................... 166
ONION MODEL ........................................................................ 167
OUTSIDE-IN THINKING ............................................................ 170
PREMORTEM ANALYSIS ............................................................ 172
PROBLEM RESTATEMENT ........................................................ 174
SHIFTING THE BURDEN ........................................................... 177
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING ......................................................... 181
STATE–ELABORATE-EXEMPLIFY-ILLUSTRATE (SEE-I) ............ 185
STORYTELLING......................................................................... 187
STRING OF PEARLS ................................................................... 189
S-W-O-T ANALYSIS .................................................................. 195
TEAM A / TEAM B ANALYSIS ..................................................... 197
THINK-WRITE-SHARE ............................................................... 199
TRIZ ........................................................................................ 201
TROIKA CONSULTING (AD AGENCY) ....................................... 204
WHAT IF ANALYSIS ................................................................... 206
WHO AM I? ............................................................................... 208
YES, AND… .............................................................................. 210
END NOTES ............................................................................. 212
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................. 216
RED TEAM HANDBOOK | vii
List of Tables and Figures

TABLES
Table 2.1 Personality Dimensions® Needs and Values ........... 11
Table 7.1 ACT - GTM Matrix ................................................. 73
Table 7.2 Four Ways of Seeing ................................................ 79
Table 7.3 Analogy Suitability Matrix ....................................... 92
Table 7.4 Analysis of Competing Hypotheses Matrix .............. 97
Table 7.5 Critical Variables (CVs) related to PMESII-PT .... 115
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Self-Authorship Diagram ........................................ 10
Figure 2.2 Emotional Intelligence Framework ....................... 13
Figure 3.1 The Onion Model .................................................. 28
Figure 3.2 Functional Systems Approach ................................ 30
Figure 4.1 Examples of Bias ..................................................... 46
Figure 6.1 Creative Thought Process - Problem Finding ....... 58
Figure 6.2 Creative Thought Process - Preparation................. 59
Figure 6.3 Creative Thought Process - Ideation ...................... 61
Figure 6.4 Creative Thought Process - Idea Verification ........ 63
Figure 6.5 Creative Thought Process - Idea Communication 64
Figure 7.1 Ideal Group Process................................................ 72
Figure 7. 2 Alternative Futures Example ................................. 89
Figure 7. 3 Alternative Futures Example ................................. 89
Figure 7.4 Diverge-Convergence Model ............................... 145
Figure 7.5 Gallery Walk ......................................................... 154
viii | TRADOC G-2, UFMCS
Figure 7.6 Figure Diagram to present Analysis...................... 157
Figure 7. 7 Key Assumptions Check Diagram ....................... 163
Figure 7. 8 Mind Mapping..................................................... 165
Figure 7. 9 The Onion Model Manifestation of Culture ...... 169
Figure 7.10 Outside-In Thinking Diagram............................ 171
Figure 7.11 Build Your Own - Shifting the Burden Model... 178
Figure 7.12 Shifting the Burden with ACT-GTM Tools ...... 179
Figure 7. 13 Shifting the Burden Example Diagram ............ 180
Figure 7. 14 Combined Interest-Influence Diagram ............. 183
Figure 7.15 String of Pearls – Planning Process .................... 189
Figure 7.16 Grade the Pearls .................................................. 191
Figure 7.17 Find the Critical Pearls....................................... 191
Figure 7.18 Speak to the Critical Pearls................................. 192
Figure 7. 19 Problem of Contradiction .................................. 202
Figure 7. 20 Peak and Valley Drawings ................................. 209
RED TEAM HANDBOOK | ix
Preface
Chief of Staff of the Army General Mark A. Milley repeatedly
warns of increases in the complexity, ambiguity, and speed of future
warfare. These expected challenges influenced development of the
Multi-Domain Operations framework, which considers
interrelationships between support, maneuver, and fires areas across a
breadth of activities. In such a complex and time-critical scenario, the
decision cycles at all levels of command will be challenged not only
by the volume and speed of information, but also by the way we
perceive and interpret that data. The requirement to frame decisions
around the scope and rate of information sharing on the modern
battlefield, and to adapt those frames to the complexity of context and
content, necessitates the ability to think critically and creatively. The
curriculum at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies
(UFMCS) directly addresses these challenges by training and
preparing students to operate as Red Teamers. This approach enables
better decisions by employing structured techniques to identify hidden
dangers, reveal unseen possibilities, and facilitate creative alternatives.
It is, in essence, a form of risk management for the human brain.
The U.S. Army chartered UFMCS with the mission to teach Red
Teaming to the Army and other authorized organizations. As the
nature of warfare has evolved, so too have our curriculum and
academic offerings. Version 9.0 of the Red Team Handbook
represents the current state of our program. Although the contents of
this volume and our courses are not official doctrine, the practices
discussed directly support and are contained in both Joint and U.S.
Army Doctrine. This handbook provides the reader with an
introduction to the fundamental concepts, methods, and tools
essential to the practice of U.S. Army Red Teaming.
Mark R. French
Director, UFMCS
RED TEAM HANDBOOK | xi
Editorial Staff
With many iterations of the Red Team Handbook since 2005,
we could not have made it to this version without everyone’s
contribution and hard work over the past years. Many months of
work contributed to making this handbook much more concise to
the application of Red Teaming. As a caveat, Red Teamers never
like to bind themselves to only one way of looking at the world,
much less just one way of looking at this handbook. As we continue
to innovate and change how we see ourselves, we will continue to
improve and update this handbook.
UFMCS has more than 20 staff members who are committed
to training Red Teamers in the classroom, and that same staff is also
responsible for the curriculum and this handbook. All staff
members and supporters listed below really made a difference in
putting this handbook together:
Handbook Committee Chad Mitchell

Mark French LTC Steven Sallot
Sonja Moyer LTC Jackie Jones
William “Razz” Rasgorshek LTC David Bornn
LTC Neil Gensler Thomas “Andy” Shoffner
Scott Fausset Steve Hall
Chapter Contributors Gary Olson
Mark Monroe Timothy “Adam” Herndon
Patricia Callahan Rebecca Hall
Dr. Rob McClary Brian McDermott
Thomas Switajewski
Handbook Contributors
William “Bill” Greenberg Graphic Artists
Maj Pat “Coach” Lieneweg Andre J. Buck (Cover)
Michael Rogan Brian Tarallo (Graphics)
RED TEAM HANDBOOK | 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
A
leader convenes a meeting of the organization’s key
personnel and top planners to develop an operational plan
for the next year. These people work in the same
environment, have received similar training, and share common
experiences within a hierarchical framework. The process seems to
go smoothly, as most decisions are made based upon what the group
believes the leader wants, what the senior personnel suggest, and
what everyone knows to be true about the organization and the
operational environment. The plan is drafted, accepted, and put
into practice.
And it fails!
Why did it fail, and what could have been done to increase the
odds of success?
The group may have misunderstood what the leader wanted,
or “what everyone knew” might be incorrect. Participants could
have fallen into the trap of “doing things like they were always done,”
without considering alternatives or ways to improve. The group may
have ignored ambiguous and complex topics, thinking they didn’t
2 | TRADOC G-2, UFMCS
matter. Perhaps the junior person in the room knew of a problem
but was afraid to contradict someone senior or the subject matter
expert. Moreover, the actions of a competitor or adversary may have
completely derailed the plan.
As human beings, we develop patterns of behavior and thought
that help us achieve our goals with the least amount of effort
possible. For example, we learn early in life that we can have greater
success and more friends if we cooperate and agree with other
people – go along to get along. To save time and energy, we develop
shortcuts and apply solutions that work in one area to problems in
another, even if the responses don’t fit perfectly. We assume we
know more than we really do, and we don’t question our
assumptions. The introverts among us, despite having valuable
ideas, cede control in meetings to the extroverts and remain mute.
These actions and this learned behavior combine to deceive us. We
assume we are applying the best solutions without reflecting on our
actions and asking if there is a better way, or if we are really applying
the correct thought and behavior to get the outcomes we want.
When we join together in groups, these human characteristics
amplify, and our tendencies and learned patterns of behavior lead
us to situations like the planning meeting described above.
Why Do We Red Team?

Expanding on the words of psychologist Dietrich Dörner,
people court failure in predictable ways, by degrees, almost
imperceptibly, and according to their own culture and context. In
other words, we routinely take shortcuts because of limitations on
time, personnel, or other resources, and we accept that as a normal
way of doing business. We assume we understand situations
because we have been in similar ones before, and we turn a blind
eye to ambiguity or don’t fully appreciate asymmetries. We discount
potential threats because we don’t fully appreciate the likelihood of
occurrence or the complexity of influencing factors. We make
many small decisions that are individually “close enough,” but
when joined together, become the seeds of failure. We take comfort
in the familiar, and assume others, even on the other side of the
world, share our views, beliefs, and tendencies. These reasons and
more are why we Red Team.
“Every assumption we hold, every claim, every assertion,
every single one of them must be challenged.”
CSA Mark A. Milley
What is Red Teaming?

Red Teaming is a flexible cognitive approach to thinking and
planning that is specifically tailored to each organization and each
situation. It is conducted by skilled practitioners normally working
under charter from organizational leadership. It uses structured
tools and techniques to help us ask better questions, challenge
explicit and implicit assumptions, expose information we might
otherwise have missed, and develop alternatives we might not have
realized exist. It cultivates mental agility to allow Red Teamers to
rapidly shift between multiple perspectives to develop a fuller
appreciation of complex situations and environments. This leads to
improved understanding, more options generated by everyone
(regardless of rank or position), better decisions, and a level of
protection from the unseen biases and tendencies inherent in all of
us.
Four Principles of UFMCS

The University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies
(UFMCS), established in 2005, offers Red Teaming instruction
built on four main principles and incorporating several key
fundamentals. The first principle addresses the individual with
Self-awareness and Reflection (SAR). If we are to make better
decisions, we must first understand what beliefs guide and motivate
us, why our unique experiences lead us to those beliefs, and why
we make the decisions we do. An active appreciation of our system
of belief and decision-making process provides us the opportunity
to apply fundamentals like slowing down – taking time to
reconsider our preconceived notions and assumptions and basing
more of our actions on logic than on emotion. Self-awareness also
helps us foster an openness to new ideas, a desire to improve, and a
conviction we can.
When individuals join and create groups, we apply the second
principle, Groupthink Mitigation (GTM) and Decision Support.
People acting in groups can fall victim to unseen group dynamics
that can derail the decision-making process. There are unseen
forces and dynamics that can pressure us to agree with the group or
to avoid contradicting the senior person or subject matter expert in
the discussion. Closely examining group dynamics and actively
soliciting and considering ideas and solutions from all group
members (without fear of recrimination) presents a fundamental
way to break free from groupthink and help make better decisions.
When considering groups, whether larger foreign societies or
smaller sub-groups in your own organization, we gain perspective
by Fostering Cultural Empathy (FCE). This principle helps us
understand why different people and groups value different things,
and why they approach issues and act in fundamentally different
ways. Though we perceive shared similarities in some areas, we are
all unique products of a lifetime of different experiences, lessons,
and beliefs. Adopting an anthropological focus, we can ask why
another person or group acts a certain way, and honestly attempt to
explore the influences and reasoning that led to such behavior.
Even in cases in which we find behavior abhorrent, we can still
establish a clearer understanding that could lead us to a more
effective response.
The final principle, Applied Critical Thinking (ACT),
provides an improved understanding of our own decision-making
processes, as well as creative thinking techniques to generate
innovative solutions. It helps identify assumptions and biases,
deconstruct arguments to better understand others, and can allow
us to restate ideas using an analogy to describe complex ideas more
simply. Perhaps most importantly, it allows us to generate and
evaluate alternatives, thereby increasing our chances of finding the
path to success. ACT incorporates several fundamentals, including
slowing down, asking why, seeking alternatives, and other more-
advanced strategies.
UFMCS Training
UFMCS presents these interlaced principles and
fundamentals within a curriculum designed to improve the ability
of students to think and act in a continually evolving, complex, and
ambiguous environment. Like Red Teaming itself, each class is
audience-focused, tailored for topic, time and resources available,
venue, and desired result. Sessions are heavily interactive. Students
actively practice techniques and employ tools in an iterative
manner, constantly building on their knowledge and abilities. This
facilitates the development of levels of proficiency only possible
through hands-on application and helps ensure UFMCS graduates
can confidently apply their knowledge outside the classroom.
UFMCS also maintains an active online community and offers
reach back support and follow-on training to ensure continual
growth and refinement of the Red Team community.
This Handbook
This handbook is an unclassified living document and
regularly evolves to incorporate new ideas, approaches, and tools. It
should provide a compendium of ideas from UFMCS curriculum
and serve as both a reference for our graduates and a broad
introduction to others; it is not intended to be a textbook, a checklist,
or doctrine. In the spirit of Red Teaming and generating
alternatives, we welcome comments, suggestions, and input to aid
the process of continual improvement. We hope the following
pages provide value to every reader and inspire some to pursue
further study.
Chapter 2
Self-Awareness and
Reflection
"Only as you do know yourself can your brain

serve you as a sharp and efficient tool. Know
your own failings, passions, and prejudices so
you can separate them from what you see."
Bernard Baruch, Presidential advisor to Woodrow Wilson
(WWI) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (WWII)
H
umans are more complex than we appear. Though
outside observers might note our habits and routine
behavior, they cannot easily observe or discern the
experiences, values, psychological needs, and biases that cause us
to act in specific ways. As the only one with an internal view, each
individual is responsible for reflecting on and considering their own
inner composition. We act to overcome undesired or unproductive
personal tendencies only when we understand why we behave in
certain ways.
The journey to such understanding is that of becoming more
self-aware. Self-awareness provides the ability to see the self as a
separate entity, independent from others and the environment, yet
continually influenced both by those factors and by a lifetime of
experiences. The need for such awareness shows itself every time
we make a decision; objective evaluations and decisions can only
be made by self-aware individuals who understand the
characteristics of the self that would influence the end result.
Such an understanding can protect us from the pitfalls of
modern life. Constant demands on our time, whether from family,
work, or other obligations, push us toward making faster decisions
based on instinct or intuition. While that technique certainly takes
less time than reflecting on the issue, it often leaves no time to
consider the subconscious memories, emotions, or biases involved
in decision-making processes. Recognizing the factors that cause us
to think or feel a certain way is the first step to making a better
decision.
A self-aware person is more mindful of personal dispositions
and biases, and recognizes internal cultural, contextual, and
situational frames. This self-awareness benefits the Red Teamer and
critical thinker by allowing us to understand not only our own
baseline of thought and behavior, but also how external stimuli like
exposure to other cultures or different ways of thinking impact that
baseline. Self-awareness allows us to move beyond simply
recognizing our emotions, into awareness of why those emotions
exist in the first place. Beyond allowing us to understand ourselves,
this deeper awareness can help strip away the barriers to
understanding and empathizing with others.
Though discussed as a single discipline, self-awareness
development at UFMCS employs a collection of lessons,
techniques, and evaluations, all based on the theory of Self-
Authorship. The combination includes:
1. Study of Temperament; Personality Dimensions®
2. Study of Emotional Intelligence and Well-being
3. Study of Interpersonal Communications
4. Introspection: Who Am I? Exercise
5. Introspection: Daily Journaling
Self-Authorship
Self-Authorship, first penned by developmental psychologist
Robert Kegan and then further developed as a higher education
model by Dr. Marcia Baxter Magolda, is a holistic model and
approach to developing self-awareness. Self-Authorship generates
an internal voice to guide responses to external realities and has
value for critical thinking and decision making. It is a process
whereby we develop the values and an internal compass that will
enable us to deal with new information, ambiguities, and life
challenges. Expanded into the Theory of Self-Authorship (see
Figure 2.1), Dr. Baxter Magolda describes our ability to internally
define our own beliefs, identities, and relationships as a key driver
of personal growth and self-awareness. The theory is grounded in
two assumptions about adult learning and knowledge. First, people
create knowledge by interpreting their own personal experiences.
They analyze and judge experiences from an individual perspective,
and the resulting information is what we consider to be knowledge.
Second, self-authorship, or the knowledge of one’s self, has an
underlying structure that is developmental in nature. As a person
matures, the ability to know one’s self-develops, changes, and
matures as well.
The theory proposes three dimensions of self-authorship:
epistemological/cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. The
cognitive dimension employs meaning-making in ways that
recognize the socially constructed and experiential nature of
knowledge. The intrapersonal dimension considers our own
personal beliefs, values, and goals, while the interpersonal
dimension considers the same in others. Together, these three areas
provide insight into the nature of our knowledge, the roots of our
personal philosophy, and the ways we relate to others.
Figure 2.1 Self-Authorship Diagram
Temperament
One’s temperament determines behavior, because a
behavior is the instrument for getting us what we must
have. Our behaviors cluster into activity patterns
organized around themes of needs and core values
specific to each temperament. 1
Temperament is one facet of our personality. It is habitual,
often observable, and represents particular repeated patterns of
behavior. It is the way we make decisions, communicate, and
prioritize; it is our comfort zone. To explore temperament,
UFMCS uses Personality Dimensions®. Rooted in Jungian
Typology, Personality Dimensions® explores our preferences, needs
(see Table 2.1), and orientation along a continuum between
introversion and extroversion.
Introversion involves:
• Directing our attention [energy] inward to internal stimuli.
• Thinking things through internally before we share any
thoughts.
• Doing our best processing through quiet, individual
contemplation.
Extroversion involves:
• Directing our attention [energy] outward for external
stimuli.
• Thinking things through externally as we brainstorm out
loud.
• Doing our best processing through collaborative group
interaction.
Personality Dimensions® Needs Value
To achieve mastery; Concepts, theories,

Inquiring Green knowledge and scientific inquiry, and
competence consistent logic
Harmony, cooperation,
To find significance and
Authentic Blue ethics, and authentic
meaning; a unique identity
relationships
To preserve the organism; Belonging, stability,

Organized Gold procedures and security, and group
responsibility preservation duty
Freedom, variety,
To act in the moment;
Resourceful Orange adventure, and
impact and expediency
performance with skill
Table 2.1 Personality Dimensions® Needs and Values

Complementing these dimensions, Linda Berens speaks to
three layers of the self in Understanding Yourself and Others: An
Introduction to Temperament. 2 The first and outermost is the
contextual self, which examines how we prefer to act in the
moment of any given situation. The second is the developed self,
representing behavior and skill we learn as we grow from those
situations. The third and innermost layer is the core self, illustrated
as genetic predispositions acquired at birth. Taken together, the
models from Personality Dimensions® and Linda Berens provide a
framework around which to build our understanding of the
cognitive aspects of the Theory of Self-Authorship.
Emotional Intelligence
“Anyone can become angry, that is easy. But to be angry
with the right person, to the right degree, at the right
time, for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is
not easy.”
Aristotle
Emotional Intelligence is both the natural ability and the

developed skills to recognize and understand emotions in one’s self
and in others. It also involves using this awareness to manage
behavior and relationships. It affects critical thinking and decision
making, as well as the navigation of social complexities.
The Emotional Intelligence Framework (see Figure 2.2),
developed by Daniel Goleman, contains competencies in both
personal and social realms. The personal competencies have two
dimensions:
1. Self-Awareness of emotions as they occur and impact
rational thought and influence personal outcomes.
2. Self-Management, or the ability and skill to identify and
understand your emotional response to positively influence
behavior, personal outcomes, work performance, and
leadership, as well as to develop coping skills and resilience.
The social competencies also have two dimensions:
1. Social awareness developed through recognition of the
emotions of others, which facilitates the development of
cognitive empathy and the ability to understand another
person’s perspective. This is done through verbal interactions,
active listening, and asking relevant, impactful questions, as
well as by accurately interpreting non-verbal communications
and cues.
2. Relationship Management, which occurs through
accurately interpreting and interacting in social situations,
networks, and systems. This involves the skills of persuasion,
influence, and negotiation, as the practitioner works to
facilitate cooperation, cohesion, and teamwork.
Figure 2.2 Emotional Intelligence Framework
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal communication is an exchange between two or
more people conveying ideas, emotions, or information. This can
be either verbal or nonverbal and includes semiotics. Interpersonal
communication:
• Includes actions and ethics related to moral principles.
• Occurs between people who are themselves evolving
and/or changing.
• Can attain mutual goals, when done intentionally;
appropriate/effective.
For the Red Teamer, interpersonal communication goes well
beyond speaking, and relies heavily on three types of listening:
Strategic Listening is seeking information to facilitate choices
or open a space for new ways of talking about a problem, using
open- and closed-ended questions [not a statement in the form of a
question].
Use it when:
• Seeking clarification about the purpose of the interaction
• Shaping the outcome to accomplish your ends
• Thinking critically or solving a problem
• Fulfilling a role or responsibility
How to do it:
• Consider when to inject open and closed questioning
• Ask clarifying questions and offer paraphrases
• Weigh what is said against your goals
• Be on the lookout for discoveries
Empathic Listening is showing concern and identification in
support of emotions. In the moment, it helps the person feel safe
and understood. Its absence may suggest impatience, disinterest, or
even dismissal.
Use it when:
• Trying to understand how your counterpart feels
• Trying to defuse strong emotions
• You are able to be sincere
How to do it:
• Ask indirect questions to echo pieces of what they say
• Don’t interrupt, but murmur an emotional reaction
• Keep your eyes on the other’s face (not just their mouth)
• Acknowledge their emotions
Active Listening is showing involvement and respect to foster
social relationships. It is measured at the perceived quantity and
quality of your interest. Its absence may show a lack of concern or
importance.
Use it when:
• Complementing strategic and empathetic listening
• Demonstrating that the topic and/or relationship matters
How to do it:
• Acknowledge what they are saying without interrupting
• Keep eye contact or your eyes on the other’s face
• Expand on parts of what they are saying
Interpersonal Conflict
Competence in personality temperaments, emotional
intelligence, and interpersonal communication are helpful
safeguards when conflict arises. Managing conflict requires mutual
participation but provides mutual benefit. Pausing to revisit ideas
and reflect on similarities/differences between temperaments can
reveal the relevant perceptions that led to conflict. The reflection
in turn can be leveraged into bridging strategies that can help
defuse the conflict.
Introspection
“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct
your life and you will call it fate.”
Carl Jung
Introspection allows us time to look inward, remove outside

distractions, and consider ourselves, our thoughts, and our behavior.
As practiced at UFMCS, it comprises daily journaling and the
“Who Am I?” exercise.
Journaling is a fundamental requirement for UFMCS
students. Daily reflection leads to written journals covering
personal thoughts, discoveries, questions, class topics, and an
examination of applicability for each particular student. Entries
reflect a deeper and more considered review of the day’s topics; not
a simple retelling of the day’s events. The process involves an
emphasis on personal consciousness that is also paramount to
critical thinking habits, and that is seldom explored in the normal
course of a day. Time with personal thoughts/feelings often prompts
the writer to analyze life experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and values,
as well as how those elements influence thought and behavior.
• What have I learned about myself or my emotional
responses?
• What is my personal growth? Do I feel most proud/upset
about?
• What topics/tasks did I respond to most easily/guardedly?
Who Am I? is an introspective exercise that works
simultaneously on many levels. Participants consider and evaluate
formative life experiences, identifying the fundamental events that
made them who they are. They then take turns telling their story;
an opportunity to practice active listening, deepen the
understanding, and create an environment where alternate
perspectives are valued. Participants soon view themselves in a
profound way, at a depth rarely welcomed in the military. Invariably,
they find that they are not alone in coping with life’s dilemmas.
As a result, participants feel significantly more connected to the
group and less alone in the world; a tremendous team building
vehicle. The group learns about where others are coming from with
ideas, values, and alternate perspectives. Participants are both
liberated individually and bonded as a group.
Summary
Effective interpersonal communication will bring about more
satisfying relationships and increase both personal and professional
success.
Self-awareness is increased by reflecting and journaling daily,
studying the Personality Dimensions® model, and committing
increased attention to interpersonal communication. Studying the
four temperaments, identifying one’s comfort zone, and examining
preferences along the introversion/extroversion continuum will
increase understanding of personal and social behavior. We have a
better understanding of why and how we make decisions after
careful thought and reflection regarding our personal needs, values,
stressors, and biases.
Self-aware Red Teamers know that values, behaviors, beliefs,
personal stories, motivations and goals differ from person to person.
Most notably, they are mindful that how we see ourselves (what we
say and what we do) may be quite different from how others
perceive us, and vice versa. Red Teamers also understand where
they need improvement: empathy for others, critical thinking,
interpersonal communication, cohesion within the group, etc.
As a self-aware individual, you are better equipped to:
• Optimize your interpersonal communication.
• Positively influence and persuade others.
• Leverage preferences, talents, and skills.
• Unravel gaps, differences, and conflicts.
• Appreciate and empathize with others.
• Consider others' perspectives.
• Think more broadly.
1
David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates, Please Understand Me: Character &
Temperament Types, 3rd ed. (Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis, 1984).
2
Linda V. Berens, Understanding Yourself & Others: An introduction to the 4
Temperaments, 4th ed. (Huntington Beach, CA: Radiance House, 2010).
Chapter 3
Fostering Cultural
Empathy
"Cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete. And, worse than that,

the more deeply it goes the less complete it is. It is a strange science
whose most telling assertions are its most tremulously based, in
which to get somewhere with the matter at hand is to intensify the
suspicion, both your own and that of others, that you are not quite
getting it right. But that, along with plaguing subtle people with
obtuse questions, is what being an ethnographer is like."
Anthropologist Clifford Geertz, 1973
I
n the above passage from The Interpretation of Cultures,
Clifford Geertz was describing what it is like to be an
ethnographer, but he may just as well have been describing
a Red Team tasked with a cultural analysis. A curious and skeptical
disposition, rather than one of certainty, suits the Red Teamer.
Cultural awareness means the discovery that there is no “normal”
position in cultural matters. 1
Cultural awareness is not the same thing as cultural sensitivity.
The idea is not to escape or discard our own deeply held values,
beliefs, and ideals, or to practice cultural relativism, but to better
understand the distinctions and similarities between our own and
those held by others (both adversaries and allies) for the purpose of
avoiding missteps in planning and policy formulation. Our
methods and outcomes as military planners differ from those of the
ethnographer or anthropologist in that our task is not only to observe,
but also to plan and act upon our analysis.
Keep this caution in mind as you read this chapter and as you
begin on any cultural examination: when we analyze another
culture, we must do so with full consciousness that our vantage
point lies outside of it. Moreover, the things we see are the things
we most often attempt to manipulate. These things are the
superficial edifices of culture. Real wisdom here is to gain an
appreciation for the deep, unalterable foundations of culture, not
to reconstruct it in the manner we desire.
“I don’t think we should study things in isolation. I don’t
think a geographer is going to master anything, or an
anthropologist is going to master anything, or a historian
is going to master anything. I think it’s a broad-based
knowledge in all these areas, the ability to dissect a
culture or an environment very carefully and know what
questions to ask, although you might not be an expert in
that culture, and to be able to pull it all together. Again,
an intelligence analysis that isn’t an order-of-battle,
militarily oriented one, but one that pulls these factors
together that you need to understand… I mean, as
simple as flora and fauna all the way up to basic
geographic differences, environmental differences –
cultural, religious and everything else. That becomes
your life as a planner, or as the director of operations,
and as the key decision maker.”
General Anthony Zinni, 1998 2
Understanding Culture for the Red Teamer
This chapter is about developing better questions concerning
culture, in order to facilitate planning, policy making, and strategic
and operational decision making. These are informed by cultural
empathy and enhanced by Red Teaming tools and a functional
systems approach. Red Teaming methods and tools prevent us from
accepting easy answers to hard questions about culture and its
complexity. The functional systems approach enhances our ability
to translate the abstractions and nuances of culture into doctrinal,
and/or operational terms. To that end, we emphasize the following
in our Red Teaming approach to cultural examination:
• Conscious examination of the roles of ethnocentrism vice
cultural relativism
• Culturally-centric case studies
• Tools to foster empathy
Ethnocentrism
One aim of the Red Teaming cultural methodology is the
reduction of blind ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, the belief that
one’s own culture is inherently superior to other cultures, is a
natural tendency of most individuals. 3 This problem exists in
planning when the planner is so bound by their own culture as to
be “blind to the ability to see the world through the eyes of another
national or ethnic group.” 4 Negative or distorted stereotypes, too,
are a challenge to complete cultural understanding as well.
Stereotypes by themselves are not negative; at issue here is whether
they are accurate or distorted. Distorted stereotypes are polarized,
simplistic, and self-serving. Race and ethnicity are common
characteristics that are historically susceptible to distorted
stereotypes.
“Stereotyping is a process by which individuals are
viewed as members of groups and the information that
we have stored in our minds about the group is ascribed
to the individual.”
Behavioral Scientist Taylor H. Cox, 1994 5
Often, we tend toward oversimplification of cultural

complexity in matters of planning. Our natural inclination is to
construct simplified models of a complex reality in order to explain
things. We develop simplified explanations based upon selected
cultural aspects of the Operational Environment (OE) that
facilitate our planning and desired end states. The tendency is to
regard culture as a block, a category with geographic or ethnic
boundaries, and not as the people, the individuals that makeup
what is the human domain. For example, a simple answer to the
question “Where is Mexico?” might be one that explains
geographical boundaries, as on a political map. A more insightful
answer is “It’s where Mexicans are,” or where Mexican food is,
where “Mexican” Spanish language is spoken, or wherever Cinco
de Mayo is celebrated, by whomever and for whatever reason.
Cultures have social and psychological as well as geographical
contexts. Culture’s complexity is illustrated by the hundreds or
perhaps even thousands of culturally learned identities, affiliations,
and roles we each assume at one time or another. “Complexity
involves the identification of multiple perspectives within and
between individuals.” 6 Multiple and alternative perspectives, better
questions, and thinking more “complexly” is the aim of the Red
Teaming approach to culture.
To that end, we adopt the position that the study of culture is
“not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive
one in search of meaning.” 7 There are several challenges to
forming an interpretive approach to culture, but that is our aim. We
seek an explanation that accounts for the occurrence of certain
phenomena in culture, in a place, at a certain time, for a certain
group, for the purpose of planning, policy formulation, and
decision support.
Challenges to interpreting culture:
• Choosing apperceptive (conscious perception with full
awareness) frameworks that are sufficiently rigorous without
being reductive.
• Determining what cultural skills a Red Teamer should
have.
• Determining how best to introduce these skills in our
practice.
• The most important aspects of multicultural awareness
may be learned but cannot be taught. 8
• Establishing favorable training conditions for multicultural
awareness to occur and provide the necessary knowledge and
skills.
• Defining “good cultural training” for Red Teamers.
“It is difficult to know the cultures of others until and
unless you have an awareness of your own culturally
learned assumptions as they control your life.”
Psychologists Mary Connerley and Paul Pedersen, 2005
When seeking to interpret, understand, or analyze a culture,

nothing is more essential than to realize the extent to which the
interpretation is uniquely our own, with all the inherent and
inescapable biases and ethnocentricity that comes with it. While we
cannot completely escape our culturally learned ethnocentricity,
there are tools, methods, and frameworks we employ to give us
greater awareness of it and how it shapes our thinking and decision
making.
There are many definitions of culture. Some are broad, general,
and inclusive, while others are specific to the interest of the
practitioner (ethnographer, social scientist, psychologist, warfighter,
etc.).
Some Definitions of Culture

• “Whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to
operate in a manner acceptable to [the culture’s] members.” 9
• “The webs of significance designed by men for
themselves.” 10
• “The collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people
from another.” 11
• “Operational Culture: Those aspects of culture that
influence the outcome of a military operation; conversely, the
military actions that influence the culture of an area of
operations (AO).” 12
• “A theory on the way in which a group of people in fact
behave.” 13
The key point to remember is it is all theory until you get there.
Culture…
• Is learned
• Is shared
• Changes over time
• Is not always rational to outsiders
There are several frameworks that attempt to capture aspects of
culture for the purpose of studying them. These broad frameworks
lay out major categories of cultural differences.
Differences of the various approaches relate directly to the
purpose of the research. Cultural frameworks do not explain
everything, but they still explain something, and our attention
should be focused on isolating what that something is with regard
to military planning.
There is no ideal framework or best way to classify a culture.
Moreover, frameworks should not supplant a straightforward
explanation. The Red Teamer should understand that
classifications and categories often only serve to provide a simplified
basis for analysis. Opting for one categorization or framework over
another not only determines the kind of questions we may ask but
may obscure other important questions that should be asked. For
this reason, Red Teamers should employ several frameworks or
cultural “lenses” (like 4-Ways of Seeing) when conducting
cultural analysis.
Some Cultural Frameworks

1. PMESII-PT (Political, Military, Economic, Social,
Information, Infrastructure, Physical Environment, and
Time) is frequently used to organize militarily-relevant
knowledge about a place, but it is not the only valid
framework nor is it complete in and of itself. Frameworks of
all kinds are artificial tools, not explanations for the way
things really are in the society. Graduates are encouraged to
ask themselves, “What is missing in an exclusively PMESII-
PT analysis … does it cover the WILL of the people in
question, does it fully address complex interaction between
variables, etc.?”
2. Kluckhohn’s Six Age-Old Dimensions of Culture:
• The nature of people, good or bad?
• The relationship between people and nature,
harmony or subjugation?
• The relationship of people, individualism or group?
• The primary mode of activity, being or acting?
• Conception of space, private or public?
• Time orientation, past, present or future?
3. Nesbitt on Cognitive Differences:
• Patterns of attention and perception
• Assumptions about the composition of the world
• Beliefs on controllability of the environment
• Assumptions about stability and change
• Preferred patterns of explanation of events
• Habits of organizing the world
• Use of formal logic rules
• Application of dialectical approaches
4. Hall on Communication Patterns:
• Context, what must be explicitly stated?
• Space, how much personal space is necessary?
• Time, monochronic (events occur one at a time) or
polychronic (simultaneity)?
5. Hofstede’s Country Profiles:
• Power distance
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Individualism
• Masculinity/femininity
• Time Horizon
6. Five Operational Cultural Dimensions (from Operational
Culture for the Warfighter 14):
• The Physical Environment
• The Economy
• The Social Structure
• The Political Structure
• Beliefs & Systems
In the end, the framework(s) we choose is/are based on what
we want to know and what we plan to do. We want to gather not
only analysis and facts but explanations that lead to
empathy/understanding that contribute to a methodological
approach to both operational design and joint and service military
decision-making processes.
Every Red Teamer should possess a general OE knowledge of:
• Dimensions of Culture
• Aspects of National Culture
• Distinct motivational values born of cultural upbringing
and context
Cultural Analysis for the Red Teamer

Red Teaming instruction at UFMCS focuses on culture at the
general level of knowledge. Emphasis is placed on culture because
culture was identified as a gap in the understanding of the OE
during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom, and because culture is historically difficult to understand
as its substance and significance are often abstract and not
immediately observable.
The UFMCS Cultural Empathy curriculum includes lessons
focused principally on four subject areas that are uniformly
acknowledged in anthropological studies as foundational to any
cultural study: social structure, politics (power and authority),
economics, and religion (belief systems). The assumption is that to
understand any one part of a culture or society we must look at all
the rest of the socio-cultural context. The purpose of separating a
society or culture into elemental parts or basic principles is not to
isolate these elements, but to understand the nature of the whole.
General knowledge focuses learning about a complex OE on
what is important for military planning and decision making.
General knowledge is not concrete but an abstraction from
experience - generalizations abstracted from multiple specific cases.
Generalization simplifies a complex reality - complexity that
otherwise overwhelms our ability to understand. An example of a
model or framework that serves to simplify and illustrate an
otherwise complex cultural reality is Hofstede’s Onion Model of
Cultural Manifestations (see Figure 3.1). 15
Figure 3.1 The Onion Model

When populated, this simple general model presents the Red
Teamer with a cultural “…set of patterns, of and for behavior,
prevalent among a group of human beings at a specified time period
and which…presents…observable and sharp discontinuities.” 16
Models like this one allow the Red Teamer to analyze what is the
same, and what is different, the “sharp discontinuities” of the
cultural context. It provides general categories and a set of patterns
with which to begin a cultural examination of the OE that may be
useful in the development of the Environmental frame of the
design process.
Without general categories we easily get lost in the complexity
of specific details. At the population level, the human domain is
extremely complex and is continuously changing, which makes
analysis to identify what can be influenced to achieve the desired
outcome intractable. There are too many interconnected
variables—at some level most all variables are connected—and
causal relationships are constantly changing. This fact alone is
enough to make planners take an essentialist view of culture, “It’s
always been that way with these people.”
“To explain different patterns of culture we have to
begin by assuming that human life is not merely random
or capricious. Without this assumption, the temptation
to give up when confronted with a stubbornly
inscrutable custom or institution becomes irresistible.”
Anthropologist Marvin Harris, 1989 17
Organization of cultural information is more than simple data
aggregation or population of rigid systems models with general
information. Important nuances of culture may be missed in a
simple aggregation and cannot be examined by looking only at
institutional design. This is where Red Teaming may be useful in
determining which information, general and specific, is
contextually important in the design or planning process, and help
us to avoid the temptation to “give up,” or generalize in a
stereotypical fashion.
The complexity of the human domain may be simplified by
organizing specific information into general categories important
for military operations. These general categories are based on what
is important to know. At the highest level of organization for
military operations, these general categories are the military
operational variables, PMESII-PT. These categories simplify reality
and provide a framework to focus collection of Regional Expertise
and Culture (REC) specific information relevant for military
analysis.
According to CJCSI 3126.01A, Language, Regional Expertise,
and Culture (LREC) Capability Identification, Planning, and
Sourcing, systems thinking is “Understanding how ...variables in
the regional system interact with one another and change over
time.” 18 At the population level, it is an understanding of the
interaction of variables across a population. Given complexity, as
mentioned above, “systems thinking” is enabled by the
simplification of reality into relevant general categories of variables.
The task for Red Teamers is to render reality as simple as possible,
but no simpler, for the purpose of military planning. For this reason,
a functional approach to cultural analysis of the OE is suggested as
one approach the Red Teamer may take for the purpose of
connecting cultural analysis to planning and operations. The
following Functional Systems Approach to cultural analysis for
planning is adapted from the USAFAS Regional Expertise and
Culture Instructor Course (Pilot) developed by Dr. Daryl Liskey.
Functional Systems Approach
Figure 3.2 Functional Systems Approach

Functional System is an analytical approach to understand
regular interacting relationships (links) and the associated entities
(nodes) in an OE (see Figure 3.2 and JP 2 01.3). 19 It is an analytic
device for separating from its context a set of phenomena we want
to study. Anthropologist Ronald Cohen describes it this way:
The system as a whole does something. It can be
characterized as having an activity or activities, and its
various parts contribute to the fulfillment of these ends.
Indeed, systems designers are quite clear on this point
when they design systems, since they start with
functions (emphasis added) and then work back to
create a set of interrelationships that will, in fact,
describe the carrying out of these ends. 20
How variables are related to produce a specific outcome is the
definition of a function. The functional system consists of the
regular patterns of interacting variables that cause the output. A
functional systems approach is useful because it provides a systemic
approach to analyzing interactions on what is important to know.
Keep in mind that the functional systems approach is not
theory, nor is it doctrine. It is a method that links all aspects of
cultural research together (Red Teaming, Design, LREC, PMESII-
PT, etc.). It is but one of many methods that may be used to
enhance apperception (conscious perception with full awareness).
Its intended use is as a bridging device between Red Teaming
analysis and doctrine. The goal of this approach is an accurate
description of a culture, leading to an explanation, and ultimately
better-informed planning and decision making.
The PMESII-PT systems (which the Army identifies as the
Operational Variables) purport to identify the most important
outputs or effects relevant for military operations in a typical
country at the campaign level of planning. In functional terms, the
Operational Variables are:
Political – power: how binding decisions are made
Military – physical force: how physical force is exercised
Economic – resources: how goods and services are
produced, distributed, and consumed
Social – solidarity: how people interact in their everyday
lives
Infrastructure – physical macro systems: how critical
resources and activities move across man-made physical
systems
Information – communications: how information is
produced, distributed, and consumed
Physical environment: how geography, manmade structures,
climate, and weather impact the operational environment
Time: how timing and duration are perceived by various
actors
ADRP 5-0: “A functional understanding differs from but is
consistent with the description of the operational variables in ADRP
5 and other Army and Joint Publications like JP 2-01.3.”
At UFMCS, we include Religion, or belief systems, as a
function.
In general, the PMESII-PT variables are important functions
of any population, which is well established in the academic
literature. A PMESII-PT systems approach can be used across the
levels of war: a village, for example, may be usefully analyzed in
terms of a PMESII-PT framework for missions that cross the full
range of military operations.
Caveats: In general, a PMESII-PT Operational Variables
approach is consistent with a functional systems approach given two
caveats:
1. PMESII-PT is not meant to be stand-alone descriptive
bins for categorizing entities (e.g., persons or institutions).
a. In other words, it is unnecessary to think of any
element of the system as a compartmentalized function
which must be sharply separated from its context. A single
entity or institution may be important across the PMESII-
PT operational variables, e.g., a sheik may be an important
factor in an analysis of power, force, resources, and
solidarity of a tribe. If the sheik is categorized as a social
factor but not a political factor, then the analysis of power
misses an important aspect. In complex societies,
institutions may be structured to perform a single
specialized function, e.g., a business enterprise to perform
an economic function or a government to perform a
political function. However, a political analysis of
American politics can include military, economic, and
social institutions as important variables. If economic
institutions are walled off from political, then the analysis
will be partial or biased and unlikely to accurately estimate
the effect.
2. Mission Dependent: Which functions are important in
a particular military mission differ depending on the
mission.
a. As noted in JP 2 01.3, Joint Intelligence Preparation
of the OE, for more-focused military operations a full
analysis of the PMESII-PT is not needed. As, in
governance operations, analysis of the political system can
be the most useful (keeping in mind that PMESII-PT are
not descriptive categories) while in military force-on-force
operations the analysis of the Military system is likely the
most useful.
By now we have established that there are several frameworks,
procedures, and models by which to examine culture. Whatever
design we decide upon is dependent on the answer to four critical
questions (adapted from Keesing, 1970):
1. What will be the shape and design of the cultural
description?
2. What is the relation of such a cultural description to the
overall goals of the military plan or decision?
3. How is the adequacy of the description to be evaluated?
4. What evidence is there that the descriptions we have
sketched will be productive?
The purpose of these questions is to explain culture to what
end? What is the connection? And the answers to these questions
are critically important in determining the validity of whatever
cultural framework, process, or model we choose. The answer must
be better understanding to inform the planning process.
The human domain is infinitely complex. It pushes back,
evolves, and changes rapidly and unpredictably. We currently lack
sufficient analytical power to reliably understand functions in the
human domain in the same way we can in the biological or
engineering domains. Institutions can be engineered to perform a
function, but the OE outside of institutions are more complex.
Rather, Red Teaming tools and a functional approach to the
human domain generate research questions that focus the purpose
for an analysis and what casual relationships are important. Given
a certain question, we structure research areas by identifying what
is necessary to answer the question based on our general knowledge.
To the extent that general knowledge is true, the categories and
relationships will be true. It provides our “best initial guess” which
is preferable to the alternatives. The Critical Variables, Cultural
Perceptions Framework, Onion Model, and Six Empathetic
Questions are useful Red Teaming tools in generating questions
and categories that support the functional systems approach and in
generating broader understanding (empathy) and alternative
perspectives for cultural analysis.
There are three important advantages of a functional approach:
• Focuses Analysis on Outcomes and Effects: Observing
entities alone can tell us little about what is important for
outcomes like power (control). A local government official or
sheik may not be an important variable. In a village, the priest
or large landowner may exercise more power. Or, power, more
likely, is distributed throughout a functional political system.
By understanding the functional system, entities or
relationships can be identified that are important for causing
an outcome. Systemic functional analysis increases the
likelihood of developing a course of action (COA) that will
achieve a desired effect.
• Identifies what is important across specific areas: A
functional approach also enables a Regional Expertise and
Culture-general understanding applicable across any area.
Understanding key specific functional relationships like
decision making, execution, and enforcement enables
identification of the specific institutions across specific regions
or systems. The specific institutional form can vary greatly: the
ultimate decision-making function can be exercised by
Congress in the United States, the Central Committee in the
People’s Republic of China, or the Supreme Leader in Iran. It
may also be shared among different institutions to varying
degrees. Understanding of functions provides general
knowledge of what is important across specific areas where
institutional form can vary widely.
• Synchronizes knowledge and analysis across echelons:
Specific forms of institutions also vary across echelons within
an AO. For example, political parties may have a national level
organization, linked to regional political groups, which in turn
are linked to local informal power holders in a village. A
functional analysis enables an understanding of vertical as well
as horizontal system relationships related to outcomes despite
specific differences in form. This enables an analysis of how
one level affects the other as well as enabling the aggregation
of information and analysis across echelons.
Cultural Relevance
A few rules of thumb apply to recognize when culture may be
more important:
Greater Cultural Differences: Culture is more important
when cultures differ from our own. In countries like Afghanistan,
these differences can be marked and more important than
institutional considerations. In more Westernized cultures, cultural
differences may be few and institutional differences will matter
more.
Unstable Countries: Where institutions are weak or are
collapsing, cultural ties are relatively more important and can
become a critical source of conflict as well as resilience.
Marked Differences within a Country: The cultures within
a country can vary markedly. The culture in rural areas is less
Westernized compared to major urban areas and the culture can
vary from area to area within a country. Differences in culture can
produce strong cultural dynamics within a country even in highly
institutionalized Western countries and these dynamics can be
critical for Western countries.
Additionally, culture can be a more critical consideration in
Inform and Influence Activities and, at the individual and
organizational levels, operating with JIIM partners.
Summary
Anthropology is about observation, collection, and cross-
cultural comparisons. Military planning is oriented toward action
and exhibits a bias toward a particular type of action (security,
stability, decisive action, etc.). The processes of military planning
can have a dramatic effect on the goals of those actions. Red
Teaming is about apperception and theory construction and testing.
These fields frequently overlap but tend to use different
methodologies and techniques. Red Teaming aims at improving
cultural understanding with the goal of enhancing the chances of
successful outcomes in military planning. In the case of cultural
empathy, it is about explanations of the relationships of cultural
functions. Red Teaming represents a methodology, and the
approach affects the method. The order of application reflects a
strategy. The aim of the strategy is the support of operational
planning in the form of Design and MDMP. The following are
some thoughts for the Red Teamer to keep in mind when
conducting cultural analysis:
• The study of culture is not performed in isolation. It is only
meaningful when regarded as part of a larger body of thought
(e.g., strategy, design, campaign planning).
• Cultural analysis is part of the larger intellectual process of
warfighting and peacekeeping.
• The tendency to depend on one authority, one theory, or
one approach to cultural apperception is extremely dangerous
in military planning.
• Red Teaming cultural methodology is not a new way of
knowing—it is a systematized approach—a synthesis of several
works.
• A functional systems approach is useful because it provides
a systemic way to analyze what is important to know about the
OE.
• Red Teaming methodology does not produce solutions, but
insights that inform planning—a logic of inquiry.
• The aim is to avoid spurious correlations and conclusions.
• The goal is to make sense of—or meaning of—what goes on
in a particular cultural milieu; for that time, and in that
context, for the purpose of planning and policy making.
• The Red Teaming cultural methodology aims to inventory
and understand a people and their motivations at a level of
general knowledge for the purpose of resolving conflict or
avoiding violence.
• The goal of general knowledge is not prediction per se but
understanding in order to control and influence the outcomes
we desire in military operations.
And finally, some observations on “why we study culture” from Dr.
Geoff Demarest 21:
1. To find people and things. Cultural knowledge helps
locate individuals, their wealth and their supporters. ‘Locate’
means establish their precise whereabouts -- where they will
sleep tonight, where their mother is buried, the number of
their bank account and the bank routing number, where their
motorcycle is sitting, their email address, where and when
they play golf…and where they feel safe. For the competitor
in a violent struggle this is the first and most compelling
reason for cultural knowledge. It is what Sam Spade, the
private investigator, knows. The rest is useful, too, but if he
knows where you are while you don’t know where he is, you
are the prey. To control anonymity, you must know the
culture.
2. To communicate well. Cultural knowledge can improve
communications with others so as to endear and not offend,
to facilitate collaboration and compromise, and to settle
disputes peacefully when preferable. This involves language
beyond the verbal, and into customs, prejudices, habits,
mores, expectations, fears, historical grievances, community
pride, and the like. All knowledge is grist to the mill. It will be
especially productive to identify aspects of the culture related
to honor and dishonor.
3. To identify objects of desire, sources and holders of power,
grievances, agents (especially ‘exclusive’ agents), resolution
mechanisms, debts, tax relationships, jurisdictions, and
expectations. In short, to comprehend the territorial
geography of conflict and conflict resolution.
4. To set reasonable objectives. Knowing how or if to change
the social compact, how long it might reasonably take you to
implement such a change, and how long the changes might
last. This may include determining the interrelationship
between peoples’ behaviors and their surrounding
environment in order to derive durable improvements in
human flourishing and harmony. When good intentions are
not built on sufficient knowledge, the reward may be a set of
nasty unintended consequences. In a domestic legal setting
we demand due diligence of doctors and lawyers - that they
avoid negligent practice. Strategic due diligence presupposes
the programmed and resourced study of foreign cultures in
order to avoid strategic negligence.
5. To put things in the right places. Whether you want to
optimally place a fish pond, police station, camera, or a
shooter, it is local cultural knowledge (and usually the kind
that cannot be gained via remote sensing) that will guide best.
6. To correctly time actions and activities. Knowing when to
act and not act is a much easier standard if we are steeped in
local cultural knowledge.
7. To get the joke. Jokes work the same mental pathways as
military deceptions. For practical purposes, military
deceptions are jokes. Irregular armed conflicts are generally
clothed in law, economics, propaganda, and other aspects of
quotidian, civilian life. Not being able to get civilian jokes
means being vulnerable to the dangerous military or criminal
ones. Just as the insurgent can move from military uniform to
civilian attire, so can military thought hide in civilian guise.
1
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973)
2
Anthony Zinni, Non-Traditional Military Missions in Capital "W" War: A Case
for Strategic Principles of War (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University,
1998), 282
3
Haight, G. "Managing Diversity." Across the Board 27, no. 3 (1990): 22.
4
Ken Booth, Strategy and Ethnocentrism, (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1979),
15
5
Taylor Cox, Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and
Practice, (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993), 88
6
Mary L. Connerley and Paul Pedersen, Leadership in a Diverse and
Multicultural Environment: Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005), 29
7
Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, 5
8
Mary Connerley and Paul Pedersen, Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural
Environment: Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005), xii
9
Ward Hunt Goodenough, Culture, Language, and Society, 2nd ed., (Menlo
Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Pub., 1981), 109
10
Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, 5
11
Geert H. Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for
Survival, Rev. and Expanded 3rd ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 6
12
Barak A. Salmoni and Paula Holmes-Eber, Operational Culture for the
Warfighter: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Marine
Corps University, 2011), 15
13
Florence Rockwood Kluckhohn and Fred L. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value
Orientations, (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1961), 7
14
Barak A. Salmoni and Paula Holmes-Eber, Operational Culture for the
Warfighter: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Marine
Corps University, 2011)
15
Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations, 8
16
Claude Levi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1967), 10
17
Marvin Harris, Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches: The Riddles of Culture, (New
York: Random House, 1989), 4
18
CJCSI 3126.01A. Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture (LREC)
Capability Identification, Planning and Sourcing, H-1
19
JP 2-01.3, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment, (21
May 2014)
20
Ronald Cohen, "The Political System," in A Handbook of Method in Cultural
Anthropology, eds. Raoul Naroll and Ronald Cohen, pp. 484-499. (New
York & London: Columbia Press, 1970).
21
Geoffrey Demarest, Winning Irregular War, (Fort Leavenworth: Foreign
Military Studies Office, 2014), 153-154
Chapter 4
Applied Critical Thinking
H
uman beings think almost every waking minute; in fact, it
can actually be harder to clear our minds and not think.
Considering the huge amount of experience this gives us
with the act of thinking, it should be surprising how often our
thoughts lead us astray. We make unfounded assumptions, take
mental shortcuts, and allow biases to hijack logic, all leading to
decisions and actions that fail to satisfy our needs and wishes. By
applying a level of criticality to the thinking process, Red Teaming
helps not only to improve our decision-making processes, but also
to improve the clarity of our worldview.
What is Applied Critical Thinking?

Psychologists and researchers have devoted a wide range of
books and articles to the subject of critical thinking, and often
debate the best definition for the term. While UFMCS uses and
references many of those resources, they are not required for a basic
understanding of the subject. As taught at UFMCS, Applied
Critical Thinking (ACT) is the sum of the words. We think all the
time, so we can understand the mental process of making sense of
the world around us, both the way we perceive it and the way we
would like it to be. Being critical about that process means
intentionally analyzing the merits and faults of those thoughts, to
include evaluating our reasoning and logical processes. We apply
the whole process by injecting the critical analysis of thought into
our decision making to ensure sound, justifiable decisions. Putting
these together, we can informally describe ACT as the deliberate
process of analyzing and evaluating the way we perceive and
interpret the world around us, performed to improve our
understanding and decision making. It includes the key practice of
making the implicit (our unseen and unexamined thoughts and
beliefs) explicit so that we can judge their value and suitability to
the situation.
For a more advanced understanding, we turn to our official
definition:
Applied Critical Thinking (ACT) is the deliberate process
of applying tools and methodologies to critically review
problems by “asking better questions,” such as
deconstructing arguments, examining analogies,
challenging assumptions, and exploring alternatives.
Effective employment of ACT tools and methodologies
cannot occur without self-awareness of one’s own
cognition, as how one “thinks about thinking”:
understanding biases, perception/interpretation, mental
models, framing, and worldviews.
The Time Factor

Describing ACT as a process can seem problematic at first.
Many of our most important decisions, including those for which
we have the greatest need for ACT, occur in time-sensitive
environments. We speed toward events, knowing we have to make
the correct decision before we reach a stage at which the decision
is overcome by events. In such a setting, it is easy to imagine there
is no time to insert an additional process. The answer to this
dilemma involves two parts: first, UFMCS provides reflexive ways
to evaluate and adjust thinking that become natural with practice;
and second, we provide structured tools designed to fit within time
constraints while supporting ACT.
To make critical thinking reflexive or intuitive, we should first
consider the common ways our brains approach thought. Most
situations we face have some time constraint, whether explicit,
implicit, or self-imposed. An explicit example might be a timed test
or a work deadline; there is a distinct, known point at which the
input is due. In an implicit case, there is still a time by which input
is required, but the time has some sense of vagueness; consider the
example of how long to wait before calling after a first date or a job
interview. A self-imposed deadline can often be seen in the case of
deciding when to purchase a vehicle. The important commonality
in all these cases is that time matters, and it is often in short supply.
Thinking as often as we do and experiencing a range of
scenarios in which time is limited, humans have developed
shortcuts for the thinking process. We will often face situations in
which we lack the information needed to make a good decision, but
because of time constraints, our minds fill in a hopefully suitable
representation for the missing data. In other words, we make
assumptions. We also find circumstances in which events either
mirror or conflict with our beliefs, and we pass judgment based on
that agreement or disagreement in the form of biases (see Figure
4.1). That initial belief often lies below the surface, and only shows
itself through our actions. Another time-saving thought process
involves heuristics, or mental shortcuts that tell us to expect a
certain outcome any time we see a specific known behavior. Finally,
we react to time constraints by settling, accepting a solution as good
enough given the time available, even though we might prefer a
different outcome.
Recency Bias – the expectation that events and

trends that have occurred recently will have a
higher likelihood of recurring or continuing
Mirror Imaging – the expectation that others

will think and act like us despite having
different experiences and cultural associations
Figure 4.1 Examples of Bias
Time for Red Teaming

With the understanding that we learned these behaviors, it is
logical that in most cases we can learn to counter them. In cases
where shortcuts are required, we can learn to use better ones. To
address assumptions, for example, Red Teamers consider frames
and mental models to establish an understanding of a person’s point
of view and belief system. Through repetition and comfort with
tools like Frame Audits and 5 Whys, a Red Teamer can rapidly
examine a thinking process, highlight potential issues, and suggest
techniques or apply tools that could provide more satisfactory
outcomes.
That same repetition and comfort with thinking differently
strengthens a Red Teamer’s awareness, improving perception and
increasing the likelihood of noticing things others might not. One
of the most common events Red Teamers identify and challenge
using ACT is “cognitive autopilot,” meaning doing that which is
mentally easy and/or familiar. For example, we often find that in
response to a notional problem A, we automatically respond with
solution B. Sometimes that works, but other times it might not.
Because of the complexity of the world around us, multiple
instances of problem A might not always have the same cause or
characteristics. That means we are failing to notice that we are not
actually dealing with exactly the same problem, and therefore the
exact same solution will not work. By using ACT skills and tools to
identify the often-subtle differences between problems, we can alter
our responses and apply more appropriate and effective solutions.
As an added benefit, ACT also helps us avoid the undesired second-
order effects that might spring from an imperfect solution.
Creating Space and Time

When there is time for a Red Teamer to perform structured
group facilitation in support of ACT, practitioners can call on a
wide range of tools with which to address the situation. Even in
cases of formal decision-making or planning processes, in which the
process requires questions at various points, Red Teams can help
ensure participants are asking the right questions from the right
points of view. For example, a group might ask, “Is a foreign military
formation behaving in a threatening manner?” As military
members directly opposed to that formation, troop movements
might make it easy for us to respond in the affirmative and
recommend action. As Red Teamers, however, we could use ACT
tools like 4 Ways of Seeing to determine if there are other reasons
for the behavior, or tools like 6 Empathetic Questions to examine
motivation and highlight potential misunderstanding. On the other
hand, the same tools used to examine seemingly mundane activity
might reveal deception and a previously unseen threat.
The disconnect between behavior and perception, e.g.,
whether a certain behavior should be considered threatening, is
often caused by differences in how we see the world, and how we
expect the world to work. These viewpoints and beliefs are often
characterized as frames and mental models but can also be
attributed to cultural differences. Using the cognitive autopilot
discussed earlier, it would be easy to assume that everyone has the
same values, beliefs, and desires that we do, but that conclusion
would not stand up if we were thinking critically. Every person we
encounter, whether a family member or military adversary, has a
unique lifetime of experiences that shape their perception and
beliefs. No two people have exactly the same experience, so no two
people see the world exactly the same way. As human beings, we
tend to group with those like us, but it is critical to realize that like
us does not mean exactly the same as us.
With this understanding, Red Teamers use tools to create
distance from the problem and allow themselves and others to
adopt different perspectives to evaluate understanding. ACT tools
like the Onion Model provide our minds freedom of maneuver to
deconstruct culture, decipher explicit behavior, and reveal implicit
belief and motivation. While this activity serves as a core
component of the Red Teaming principle of Fostering Cultural
Empathy, it also serves the principle of ACT by helping critically
deconstruct assumptions and beliefs about others. Chief among
these challenged assumptions is the idea that all members of a
common group are the same; ACT combats this by suspending
judgment while identifying the things that make people different
using tools like Stakeholder Mapping, and then considering how
those differences impact the situation.
In cases where answers remain hidden, Red Teamers explore
alternatives. When an answer presents itself, Red Teamers practice
healthy skepticism and continue to diverge, understanding that the
first answer is often the easy one, and the easy answer is rarely the
right one. Tools like Brainstorming and Circle of Voices facilitate
divergence. Once sufficient divergence has occurred, Red Teamers
apply further tools like Dot Voting to converge on appropriate
solutions. With this structure, they facilitate the collection of a wide
range of solutions, then logically and critically narrow those
solutions to find the ones that best suit the situation and the desired
outcome.
Combining these activities and practicing them in a deliberate
manner provides the opportunity to adjust our way of thinking
concerning how we see ourselves, how we see the world, and what
might be possible in the future. That altered and improved
worldview, supported by Red Teaming techniques and tools,
enhances our understanding of the operational environment and
the involved stakeholders. Understanding that we are always
thinking, judging, and deciding, ACT allows us to think more
critically, judge more accurately, and decide more favorably.
Summary
Red Teams use structured tools and techniques to perform and
facilitate Applied Critical Thinking. They do this by analyzing and
evaluating perception and interpretation, with the goal of
improving understanding and decision making. Due to time
constraints in the decision-making process, Red Teamers
internalize ACT principles when possible to make them second
nature, as well as tailor activities to match the time available.
During this practice, we identify assumptions, biases, and instances
of cognitive autopilot, making the implicit explicit and guiding
groups through exercises to improve understanding and outcomes.
Finally, Red Teams help groups explore and evaluate alternatives,
revealing previously unseen possibilities and providing freedom of
maneuver.
Chapter 5
Groupthink Mitigation
and Decision Support
O
rganizational decisions, though normally made by a single
person, are often based on the input and support of groups
of people. Commanders weigh the input of their staff
when making decisions and executives consider advice from their
senior managers. The dynamics of such groups directly impact the
quality of the information they provide, and consequently weigh on
the decision’s outcome. Red Teaming addresses the group
dynamics and issues in decision-making activities present in these
scenarios through the principle of Groupthink Mitigation (GTM)
and Decision Support.
Group Dynamics and Groupthink

The benefit of using a group for Decision Support lies in the
varied experience, knowledge, and perspectives of the participants;
a group will naturally have a wider range of these elements than
would a single person. As discussed in previous chapters,
considering alternative perspectives and approaching problems
from multiple directions leads to better understanding and better
decisions. A collection of people employing good group dynamics
is well-suited to provide exactly this to a decision maker, but group
dynamics are often precisely what get Red Teamers into trouble.
The problem, at least in part, lies in the human affinity for grouping
and hierarchy.
Categorization and ranking are inherent parts of Western
culture. We group similar things, then establish a hierarchy to
determine relative merit. This behavior is particularly prevalent any
time people gather in groups; we naturally and automatically
identify subgroups and arrange people by seniority, importance, or
other categories. Perhaps nowhere is this more prevalent than in
the military, where we categorize by service, branch, unit, staff
section, etc., and prioritize by the rank clearly displayed on a
member’s uniform. Though this behavior helps us to understand
the elements of our environment and our comparative place in it,
this categorization can directly harm the effective group dynamics
required for providing Decision Support.
Psychologist Irving Janis noted that such behavior is so
common and harmful that he popularized the term “groupthink”
to describe what often happens when we join together. Groupthink
comprises multiple elements, all of which can contribute to
unsatisfactory outcomes. First, the forming of a group can
immediately create an “us-against-them” mentality. This leads to
both an often-unfounded sense of moral and intellectual superiority
for group members and a sense of pressure toward conformity and
uniformity for members. Rather than exploiting the range of
knowledge, experience, and viewpoints mentioned earlier to
generate multiple options, this pressure artificially drives group
members to agree on a single line of reasoning. It also impacts the
group’s perception of adversaries by assuming they have the same
level of group conformity; this misperception can be particularly
harmful when a single person displays hostility. In such a case, a
group can incorrectly assume hostility from all members of the
adversarial group, leading to unnecessary conflict.
A second issue of groupthink presents itself in actual and
perceived hierarchy. Few people willingly and openly challenge
their superiors in a group setting, as disagreeing with your boss can
be detrimental to your career. In other instances, senior individuals
establish themselves as “mind guards” and prevent the group from
following certain lines of reasoning, therefore limiting the
divergence that might be required to find a suitable solution.
Likewise, groups can evolve into a hierarchy of extroverts and
introverts, with the former dominating the conversation while the
latter’s ideas remain unspoken. Whether the censorship of people
and ideas is directed or self-imposed, it always limits and sometimes
destroys the effectiveness of the group.
Harmful group dynamics and groupthink can also set the stage
for the “everyone knows” phenomenon. Whether presented by a
senior member or a forceful personality, statements like, “We can
all agree that…” and “Everyone knows that…” typically shut down
questions or conversation of alternatives, even when people do not
agree. Group members often choose to avoid challenging such
statements in the belief that doing so would be ineffective or would
derail the group’s progress. In either case, valuable opinions and
information remain unspoken while the group drives on unaware.
Groupthink Mitigation
To combat such behavior and support better decision making,
Red Teamers practice Groupthink Mitigation. This act helps
groups establish dynamics more conducive to the free flow and
sharing of information and the generation of quality alternatives.
Groupthink Mitigation (GTM) is the application of tools
designed to foster divergent thinking during problem
solving by including the perspectives of every member of
the group before converging on a course of action.
Inherent in the GTM techniques are the requirements of
the individual to consider and record their thoughts
before group engagement and use anonymity to
encourage feedback.
GTM fundamentals include countering hierarchy, exploiting
anonymity, and providing time and space.
To counter the negative aspects of hierarchy, Red Teamers
focus on removing the fear of recrimination and embracing the
democratization of thought. Anyone can have a good idea, but that
is of little value if the person is afraid to speak up. In cases where
participants are willing to share, but simply afraid of contradicting
superiors, Red Teamers use tools like Circle of Voices to solicit
input, combined with the strategy of starting with the most junior
group member and moving up in rank. This provides an
opportunity to hear honest opinions that have not been influenced
by statements from senior members.
In cases where group members still resist providing
information, or where senior members automatically prefer the
opinions of certain individuals over those of others, anonymity
becomes a useful approach. Participants are freed to diverge and
present ideas outside the realm of the expected, which often opens
new and useful avenues to address the problem. Red Teamers
accomplish anonymity by employing tools like 5 Will Get You 25
or by soliciting written information from group members and
sharing without attributing sources. Such methods allow groups to
discuss ideas without attaching them to personalities or positions,
and therefore evaluate them purely on the merits of the idea.
Anonymity also helps avoid peer pressure, as it forces participants
to generate their own ideas without knowing what others will
provide.
Personality and temperament can also present challenges in a
group setting, which Red Teamers counter by providing space.
While some people enjoy aggressively attacking problems in a
group setting, others prefer to contemplate the problems and think
them through fully before discussing. For these scenarios, Red
Teams leverage awareness of such preferences to identify those
people and ensure they have an opportunity to contribute by using
tools like Think-Write-Share or Think-Draw-Share and
intentionally allowing time before requesting input.
Decision Support
The combination of GTM tools and techniques improves
group dynamics and restores the value of having a range of
participants in a group. Once a group overcomes the natural
predilection toward groupthink, Red Teamers leverage the
knowledge and expertise of the group members to facilitate
divergence. As discussed earlier, variety of experience, knowledge,
and perspective helps a group provide higher quality support to
decision makers. Divergence continues that variety by allowing
members to explore a range of non-intuitive ideas and previously
unrecognized options. Tools like Brainstorming and Mind
Mapping contribute to this first part of the Ideal Group Process,
focusing on generating options without passing judgment.
After a period of initial debate on the divergent ideas, the
process continues to convergence. In this phase, Red Teamers help
groups evaluate the merits and applicability of the generated ideas
using tools like Dot Voting. While providing a decision maker with
options can be beneficial, providing too many options becomes
overwhelming and counterproductive. Convergence ensures the
best of the generated ideas make their way to the top, to present the
decision maker with options the group determines are most
appropriate to the situation and most likely to accomplish the
desired results.
Summary
Groups often provide decision makers with a wide range of
experience, knowledge, and perspectives on which to rely, but
group dynamics and groupthink can sabotage that effort. This
typically happens because of categorization and hierarchy. Red
Teamers apply tools and facilitate groups to mitigate these issues
and empower all group members to participate. Once the group is
functioning properly, structured approaches support divergence of
thought to generate alternatives and convergence to narrow those
alternatives to the best options to support the decision-making
process.
Chapter 6
Thinking Creatively
“The only thing harder than getting a new idea

into the military mind is getting an old one out.”
Basil Liddell Hart, Thoughts on War, 1944
T
he ability to think creatively, that is, the ability and
disposition to generate ideas that are both new and useful,
is very important for military leaders, teams, and staffs.
However, many aspects of military culture tend to impede creative
thinking. Some of the barriers to creative thinking include time
pressures, hierarchical structures, emphasis on uniformity and
training standards, and a predilection for risk avoidance due to the
potential for severely negative outcomes of flawed decisions.
The Creative Thought Process

The thoughts and actions by which people generate novel and
adaptive ideas can be modeled by a 5-stage process. Although the
linear model depicted below is a useful tool for describing and
understanding how creative ideas are generated, in actual inventive
situations the stages of the process tend to blend together, and the
progression is iterative and nonlinear.
Stage 1: Problem-Finding
The first stage in the creative thought process is problem-
finding (see Figure 6.1). Many successful innovators believe that
this is the most crucial stage of the process. 1 The key in this stage
is to see beyond the symptoms and gain an understanding of the
underlying or root causes of the problem, and how the current
situation differs from the desired state.
Figure 6.1 Creative Thought Process - Problem Finding

Effective problem-finding can be very difficult when facing
complex or unstructured problems. Additionally, when teams
conduct problem-finding in organizational settings, they often face
significant challenges such as groupthink, confirmation bias,
motivated reasoning, and egocentrism.
Red Team Tools:
Red Teamers can greatly assist leaders during this stage of the
creative thought process by using Red Team Tools, especially:
Shifting the Burden Stakeholder Mapping
Problem Framing Cultural Perception Framework
4 Ways of Seeing 5 Whys
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses
*Alternative Futures Analysis is also a very useful way for leaders
to anticipate and prevent future problems.
Stage 2: Preparation
After finding the problem, the team immerses itself in the
problem. During the preparation stage (see Figure 6.2), the team
typically tries all previously known solutions. If they discover a
solution that works during this initial search, they apply the solution
and move on, especially in time-sensitive situations.
Figure 6.2 Creative Thought Process - Preparation

The goal during preparation is to learn as much as possible
about the problem, the context, and even how similar problems
have been solved in different domains. There are also significant
challenges to teams in this stage, including:
1. The tendency to interpret the situation in such a way as to
erroneously identify the problem to be like one that they have
previously experienced and to which they have a known
solution
2. The tendency to over-simplify complex problems
3. The tendency for groupthink
4. Failure to challenge, or even to be aware of, assumptions
5. The tendency to minimize or deny the presence of
problems in order to avoid blame or the appearance of
weakness/ignorance
Red Team Tools:
Red Teamers can assist leaders and teams during the
preparation stage using Red Team tools such as:
Key Assumptions Check Fishbowl
Think -Write- Share 5 Whys
The preparation stage continues until the team either finds a
potential applicable solution to try or ceases mental work on the
problem.
Stage 3: Ideation
The third stage of the creative thought process, ideation, is
probably the stage most often associated with creativity (see Figure
6.3). This stage also is an individual action. Even when the
planning or problem solving is conducted collaboratively by a team,
the initial creative insight occurs to a single person. Having said that,
working collaboratively in the preparation stage can significantly
increase the chances of any individual in the group experiencing a
creative insight, especially in teams comprising people with diverse
perspectives, experiences, and areas of expertise.
Beginning with Graham Wallas’ book The Art of Thought,
published in 1926, there has been a widely accepted notion that the
ideation stage consists of: Step 1 – Incubation, Step 2 –
Illumination.
Figure 6.3 Creative Thought Process - Ideation

Incubation begins when the leader or team working on the
problem puts the problem aside and either begins deliberate work
on a different problem or enters a state of cognitive relaxation.
Although creative insights rarely occur while the person is studying
and actively thinking about the problem (the preparation stage),
they are much more likely to occur if the preparation stage was
thorough, and the person consciously thought about the problem
in detail and from different perspectives.
At some point during the incubation step, an insight comes to
mind, often suddenly. This is the illumination. One of the best
accounts of the incubation – illumination steps was from German
Scientist and prolific inventor, Herman von Helmholtz, who said
during a speech,
“Often… [ideas] appeared without any effort on my part,
like an inspiration. They never came to a fatigued brain
and never at the writing desk. It was always necessary,
first of all, that I should have turned my problem over on
all sides to such an extent that I had all its angles and
complexities in my head. Then there must come an hour
of complete physical freshness and quiet well-being
before the good ideas arrived. Often, they were there in
the morning when I first awoke. But they liked
especially to make their appearance while I was taking
an easy walk over wooded hills in sunny weather.” 2
Red Team Tools:
Red Teamers can assist leaders and teams during this stage to
think more divergently and bring about more creative insights using
Red Team tools such as:
Divergence - Convergence TRIZ
Structured Brainstorming
Stage 4: Idea Verification

Once the person has experienced the insight and has a new
and creative idea, they share it with the team. The team members
need to think it through, asking themselves questions such as, “Will
this actually work?” and, “What would happen if…?” In most cases,
the creative insight generated during the illumination arrives into
the person’s conscious mind incomplete. As psychologist J.S. Dacey
noted about the idea verification stage (see Figure 6.4), this is
where “the idea must be tested against the cold reality of fact.” 3
Teams tend to be more effective at idea verification than
individuals for two main reasons:
1. Teams can help mitigate the natural tendency to “fall in love
with your idea,” and disregard all potential causes of failure due
to wishful thinking, pride, and protective instinct. It is very
natural for a person to develop a personal attachment to their
new idea. It is critical, but indeed not natural, too
dispassionately and objectively analyze and critique your own
new idea. NOTE: Teams are only better than individuals
during this stage if they operate in a climate conducive to
candor and characterized by intra-team trust. To be successful,
it is also very important for them to have processes in place to
mitigate the tendency for groupthink.
2. Teams, especially when comprising members with diverse
areas of expertise and perspectives, can better anticipate how
the implementation of the new idea might impact other aspects
of the organization.
Figure 6.4 Creative Thought Process - Idea Verification

Red Team Tools:
Red Teaming tools, and especially a Red Teaming mindset,
can greatly enhance the effectiveness of individuals and teams
during the idea verification stage. The Red Team Tools that tend
to be most useful during this stage:
Premortem Analysis What if? Analysis
Stakeholder Mapping Fishbowl
Stage 5: Communication
During the communication stage (see Figure 6.5), the person
or team that generated the new idea informs the relevant
organizational stakeholders of the idea.
Figure 6.5 Creative Thought Process - Idea Communication

The goal at this stage is to communicate the new idea in a way
that the relevant stakeholder:
1. Understands the idea, the problem that the idea is meant to
solve, and the associated costs and risks of implementing the
new idea, and
2. Supports the idea. This is, of course, a critical step because
having a new idea, no matter how brilliant, is of no value to the
organization until it gets implemented. And to get
implemented, the idea must be shared with those in the
organization who can direct actions such as committing
resources, changing policy, or reprioritizing efforts and assets.
For ease of description, communication is listed here as a
single stage. However, in practice, especially in collaborative
settings, the communication of a new idea is often done in multiple
steps, interwoven with the idea verification stage in an iterative
sequence.
There are a few significant challenges to success during this
stage as well, especially if the person with the creative idea is not
among the organization’s senior leaders. These challenges include:
1. The organizational climate in hierarchical units can often
appear to its members as unreceptive to ideas that challenge
the status quo. Such organizational climates can deter
members who aren’t senior leaders from sharing their creative
ideas.
2. The creative person needs to be able to communicate the
new idea in a manner that is understandable by the leaders.
The more creative the idea is, the tougher it will tend to be
for people unfamiliar with the idea to understand it.
Red Team Tools:
The Red Team methods and tools that can best assist leaders
and teams during this stage include:
• Stakeholder Mapping, specifically the analysis of interests
step. Identifying the specific interests of key stakeholders
enables the creative team to effectively articulate how the
implementation of the new idea would serve the stakeholders’
interests.
• A variation of Argument Deconstruction, specifically
using the tool to help construct a compelling argument that
ensures sound logic with clearly stated premises that
sufficiently support the desired conclusion.
• A variation of Determining the Suitability of an Analogy
combined with the 4 Ways of Seeing. Using an analogy can
be an effective way to use a familiar concept to communicate
an unfamiliar concept (the new idea) in a compelling
manner. 4 To be effective, the communicator must be sure
that the receiver is indeed familiar with the source concept
and perceives it in a favorable way. The 4 Ways of Seeing is
a tool to help envision another person’s perspective and
thereby gain empathic accuracy.
Summary
The ability to think creatively promises to be increasingly
important for Army leaders and teams. With some practice and
study, the Red Team Tools described in this book can significantly
enhance leaders’ abilities to both think creatively and foster
organizational climates in their units that develop and facilitate
their subordinates’ creative thinking.
1
M. A. Runco and C. Ivonne, “Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and
Creativity,” in Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity, edited
by Mark A. Runco (Norwood, NJ: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1994),

40
2
John Kounios and Mark Beeman, The Eureka Factor: Aha Moments, Creative
Insights, and the Brain (New York: Random House, 2015), 29
3
John S. Dacey, Fundamentals of Creative Thinking (Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, 1989), 86
4
Cynthia Sifonis, Adrian Chernoff, and Kevin Kolpasky; “Analogy as a Tool for
Communicating about Innovation”; International Journal of Innovation
and Technology Management, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 2006.
Chapter 7
Red Teaming Tools,

Techniques, & Practices
V
olatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA); the
modern operational environment is all of these and more,
demanding flexibility and adaptability of both thought
and action to succeed. Every situation holds unique challenges,
demanding more than just a standard response from a checklist.
Red Teamers engage this environment as architects, drawing from
a host of skills and tools to design and craft custom solutions
supporting their team. Though they learn from experience, Red
Teamers know every challenge is different, whether through
context, culture, or countless other influences.
To address such an environment, Red Teamers rely on training
and experience to build uniquely-capable teams. They then apply
Red Teaming tools, techniques, and practices (RT-TTP) in flexible
yet purposeful ways to craft a suitable framework on which to build
their recommendations. Mastery of RT-TTP allows them to adjust
for time and purpose and permits the reevaluation of progress and
alternative approaches when needed. This dynamic approach
allows them to assess situations, diagnose problems, and design and
test solutions in a fluid manner.
Tools
Tools can serve multiple purposes, depending on the method
and circumstances of employment. Tools are typically not intended
to stand alone, but rather to work in sequence with each other to
support a decision-making process. As illustrated in Table 1, most
tools support Applied Critical Thinking (ACT) and/or Groupthink
Mitigation (GTM). The table provides an initial categorization of
tools that enable the Red Teamer to think about “what tools could
I employ” and “how could I use them.” Once you select your tools,
your team’s success is dependent on the judicious sequencing,
application, and adaptation of tools within the context of the
situation and time available.
A Technique: The Ideal Group Process
Adopted from Russo and Schoemaker's Winning Decisions,
the “Ideal Group Process” provides a framework for group divergent
and convergent thinking overlaid with ACT and GTM tools (see
Figure 7.1). The Red Teamer selects the recommended ACT or
GTM tools (see Table 7.1), and methodically takes the group from
divergent thought, through analysis, debate/discussion, and then
convergent thought. Continuous ACT and GTM tool employment
bring variations of existing thoughts, perceptions, and views into the
discovery of new ideas and critical evaluation. As with the
philosophy of yin and yang, the ACT and GTM tools are applied
in an interconnected and continually revolving feedback loop
throughout the framework, in a never-ending state bounded only
by the time available.
Practices
As you consider the use of tools and techniques, here are some
practices to keep in mind when working with a group:
1. Some roles to assign to a Red Team:
a. Contrarian or Devil’s Advocate who will challenge
the group’s thinking. This will preferably be someone
who has had experience with employing Red Teaming.
b. A recorder to take notes, collect the data, and
capture the story/narrative.
c. A visualizer to draw diagrams from discussions,
sketch models/pictures, and envision the outcomes.
d. Subject Matter Experts who have expertise in their
field and access to analytics and research to support the
group.
2. Build an outline/framework that will guide the group
through its process. Consider utilizing a Design Storyboard to
critically think through how you are going to deal with the
problem, which tools you could use, and what the desired
end state could look like.
3. Allow the group to help define the rules for how they will
proceed when working together. Better-defined rules will
provide transparency amongst the group and will enhance
collaboration and honest feedback.
4. Keep an open mind and withhold judgment while
diverging and allow the emergence of new ideas.
In closing, the Red Teaming TTP within this handbook add to
the steps on your life-long journey of learning. Doing and thinking
in the same way over and over again in an ever evolving VUCA
environment will set you and those you support up for failure. Just
as you train your psycho-motor skills for the battlefield, take the
time for serious study of thinking about how to draw divergent
information from groups and then how to challenge the
assumptions on which they base their decisions. As the famous 16th-
century Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi once said, “There
is more than one path to the top of the mountain.”
Figure 7.1 Ideal Group Process

Table 7.1 ACT - GTM Matrix

1-2-4-Whole Group
This GTM tool is adapted by the University of Foreign Military
and Cultural Studies from The Surprising Power of Liberating
Structures. 1 This is an iterative group activity designed to solicit and
improve upon ideas and input from all participants, as well as to
generate new ideas. Starting with each individual’s own idea, group
members participate in successive conversations to share, discuss,
and improve upon individual ideas. The effort creates an
environment where individuals can offer their original ideas
without influence from others, gradually exploring and sharing
ideas so that all are heard, and everyone contributes to the outcome.
This tool also allows for ideas to merge into something new, or to
spark ideas not realized in the initial round.
When to Use
Use when a group needs to critically review an issue of
importance, seek new solutions or approaches to a problem,
highlight the vast range of views that surround a certain issue, or
hear ideas/solutions from all individuals.
Value Added
It allows everyone to steadily grow the input, harvesting refined
variants inside the issue by incrementally adding voices to enrich
the discussion.
The Method
Facilitator: Prepare one well-defined question to position the
issue.
One: Each participant reflects on the question within the
allotted time (a few minutes to overnight, if possible), and then pre-
commits by writing down their answer or idea before they have
heard from or been influenced by any other participant.
Two: Each participant finds one partner and discusses the
information to which they have pre-committed. From this starting
point, they share feedback and add any new thoughts or insights
prompted by the discussion. This can be a refinement, a merging
of ideas, or a new idea prompted by the discussion. Ten minutes is
usually sufficient.
Four: Each pair joins one other pair and repeats the process,
covering those elements the participants found useful from the
previous conversation. In addition to sharing observations, they
identify biases, frames, and missing information.
Whole Group: All participants come together in a single
group to discuss insights discovered during the process. Discussion
should include new discoveries, novel solutions, and an
understanding of how their view of the issue has changed.
Variations
Consider utilizing the SEE-I (State, Elaborate, Exemplify, and
Illustrate) tool during the reflection of the individual (One). This
tool will assist you on critically thinking and clearly expressing your
thoughts given to a question or concept that is provided. Now, share
your ideas with other (Two).
1 on 1, 2 on 2, Exchange Emissaries
This GTM tool was designed by the University of Foreign
Military and Culture Studies. 2 This tool provides a method for
soliciting ideas from all group members and addressing a problem
from multiple angles. The use of emissaries allows for greater
divergence than the similar tool 1-2-4-Whole Group.
When to Use
Use to overcome groupthink and provide divergent thought
that can highlight different approaches to a problem. Useful any
time there are two or more teams working toward a common
objective, whether working on identical tasks or on different tasks
within a purpose. This method assists with breaking down silos.
Value Added
An issue is thoroughly vetted, everyone has an opportunity to
cross-pollinate across the larger group, and ideas build randomly
upon others. Emissaries create space for creative thought, bringing
fresh views into what could have become an insular group; a good
groupthink mitigation practice. Teams integrate work across
disciplines and functional silos, refining problems clearly, and
building trust through mutual support.
The Method
The role of the emissary is to describe the group’s interpretation,
options being considered, and challenges they are struggling to
resolve. The emissary brings this collection of information to the
new group to affirm, add, or refine. Then emissaries return to their
original group, share the feedback, and help the original group
incorporate useful ideas.
Steps
1.Participants individually consider an agreed-upon issue
facing the group and pre-commit by writing down their ideas.
2.Participants pair off and exchange ideas (1 on 1).
3.Each pair joins another to continue the dialog (2 on 2 small
group). The members choose a spokesperson, who will be the
emissary. The role of the emissary is to describe the group's
interpretation, options being considered, and challenges they
are struggling to resolve to another group. Having identified
the emissary, the small groups then discuss both pair-
generated ideas as well as any newly generated ideas.
4.Each small group sends their emissary to another small
group and welcomes an emissary into their own discussion.
The emissary shares highlights from their original group’s
discussion and listens as the new group attempts to improve
or add to the that discussion.
5.The emissary returns to the original group to share feedback
from the other small group and, in turn, hear details of the
emissary’s exchange.
6.All small groups come together and share information in a
plenary group out brief on the issue.
See Also
1-2-4-Whole Group, Ideal Group Process, and Groupthink
Mitigation.
4 Ways of Seeing
This ACT tool was designed by the University of Foreign
Military and Culture Studies. 3 This fundamental tool helps users
examine two entities (people, organizations, nations, etc.) and gain
a better understanding of perception, motivation, opportunity,
opposition, and potential misunderstanding.
When to Use
Use when a situation or decision involves two or more
stakeholders.
Value Added
Per the diagram below, the tool can be used to examine two
groups and their views of one another. It can (and should) also be
used in multiple iterations to examine the complex
interconnections in scenarios with more than two participants.
The Method
1. Given two stakeholders, identify one as X and the other as
Y.
2. Create a 2-by-2 matrix and insert X and Y identifiers (see
Table 7.2) as illustrated below. Ensure each cell is
clearly labelled with the entities' actual names, e.g.,
"How red sees blue."
3. Addressing one cell at a time, solicit group input for each
cell using a tool like brainstorming or circle of voices. In
addition to the labelled views, participants should
consider topics like how each stakeholder views the
operational environment (OE) and how culture,
ideology, and situation influence their views.
4. Once all cells are filled, participants identify points of
commonality, opposition, and potential
misunderstanding between the stakeholders. This
information can be used to highlight opportunities and
red lines.
How X How X
Sees X Sees Y
How Y How Y
Sees X Sees Y
Table 7.2 Four Ways of Seeing

Caution
Thorough research should be conducted to complete the
analysis of these perceptions. It is more complex than the simple
model implies. Some areas for further thought are:
• Seldom, if ever, will there be only two stakeholders in the
system under study.
• Consider all the stakeholders’ perceptions and inter-
relationships within the system in order to provide context for
the analysis.
• Consider how each stakeholder perceives and defines the
OE, legitimate targets, and acceptable actions and weapons.
• All stakeholders hold values, beliefs, and perceptions that
they view as right and rational.
• Consider stakeholder perceptions of the external
audience(s).
See Also
Brainstorming, Circle of Voices, Devil’s Advocacy
5 Whys
This ACT tool is a question-asking technique developed by
Toyota executive Taiichi Ohno to explore the cause-and-effect
relationships underlying a particular problem. 4 The technique is
often used as part of the Lean Six Sigma process.
When to Use
To determine the root cause of a defect or problem symptom;
however, the process can be used to go deeper to explore questions
related to purpose rather than problems.
Value Added
Similar to Shifting the Burden, it is designed to push beyond
the symptoms to get at the root of the problem.
The Method
Choose an issue or pose a question and ask participants to think
about it for at least a minute. Pair up or form a small group and
choose one person to state their thoughts on the issue. Each
participant gets a turn in this role of explaining their thoughts and
position on an issue of their choice.
The role of the others in the group is at first to be active listeners.
Let the speaker complete their thoughts; do not interrupt for
clarification or any other purpose. Once the speaker is done, ask
“why?” at least five times, e.g., “Why is that important? Why should
my staff section care about that? Why should resources be applied
against that effort now?”
NOTE: If before asking ‘Why’ five times it looks like answers
are circling back to the original statement or question, asking a
‘How’ question will change the perspective of analyzing the answer
to continue researching for the root cause of the issue or problem.
When seeking new opportunities, also consider asking "why not?"
In addition to 5 whys, several “what” and “who” questions
should arise as a result, like “what should we do now? What are the
implications of what is suggested? Who else needs to know?”
It is important to begin with “why” questions. The answers to
“why” questions get at causal links behind events and problem
symptoms. “What” questions tend toward simple data collection
and are subject to confirmation biases.
Example
Toyota provides the following example on their global website:
1. “Why did the robot stop?”
The circuit has overloaded, causing a fuse to blow.
2. “Why is the circuit overloaded?”
The bearings were insufficiently lubricated, so they locked
up.
3. “Why was there insufficient lubrication on the bearings?”
The oil pump on the robot is not circulating sufficient oil.
4. “Why is the oil pump not circulating sufficient oil?”
The pump intake is clogged with metal shavings.
5. “Why is the intake clogged with metal shavings?”
Because there is no filter in the pump.
5 Will Get You 25

This GTM tool is adapted by the University of Foreign Military
and Cultural Studies from The Surprising Power of Liberating
Structures. 5 This weighted anonymous feedback tool lets you solicit
feedback a leader might not otherwise get from a staff, thereby
providing the opportunity to identify opportunities and avoid
unseen pitfalls.
When to Use
This tool allows for divergent thinking in generating ideas in
an anonymous manner where hierarchy or introversion might
inhibit these thoughts from being expressed to the entire group in
open discussion. It also assists in convergence because it begins to
whittle down the ideas that are rated as having sufficient merit for
further evaluation.
Value Added
The idea sharing process can spark new ideas for the group,
enhancing creativity and revealing new possibilities.
The Method
This tool generally starts with a question. Some examples are:
• What is the single greatest challenge for our organization?
• What is the biggest threat to this strategy?
• What is the primary obstacle to this plan?
• What is our core competency?
First: Ask the participants to think about the question and write
their best answer or idea on a card as clearly, as legibly, and in as
few words as possible – a bullet is better than an explanation.
Second: When everyone is finished, collect the cards, shuffle
them, and deal them back to the group, giving each person one card.
Once everyone has a card, have each person read the card silently
and consider the response. Then on the back of the card, have them
rate that response from 1 to 5, with 5 being brilliant and 1 being not
good.
Third: Conduct the process five times, in five rounds, ensuring
no one rates a card more than once. In each round, ensure the cards
are passed with the scores facing down. It is important to ask people
to mentally rank the card before looking at the numbers on the back
so that they are not influenced by others’ ratings. By round five,
each card should have five ratings on the back of the card.
Fourth: Once the group is finished, have the participants tally
the numbers on the back of the card they are holding. Call out
descending scores starting with 25 ("25, 24, 23...", etc.) and write
the responses that correspond to the highest three to five scores on
a whiteboard or butcher paper. These top responses can be
discussed and refined further as the group begins its convergence
process.
See Also
Dot Voting
6 Empathetic Questions
This ACT tool was adapted from Ken Booth, Strategy and
Ethnocentrism. 6 This tool is designed to make Red Teams more
aware of their inherent ethnocentrism by consciously attempting to
recreate the world through another’s eyes; a set of questions for
insight into another’s worldview.
When to Use
To foster cultural empathy or to examine a partner, adversary,
or non-aligned actor who is culturally different from us.
Value Added
As part of a country study, it might uncover characteristics or
attitudes of an actor, society, or nation-state that might not manifest
during the 4 Ways of Seeing. Although less intuitive, the Red
Teamer roleplays the “other” through critical thinking and
visualization techniques.
The Method
Visualize the world from the point of view of the other.
Empathetically examine the world by answering from the other’s
perspective:
1. It is difficult to appreciate another’s problems.
What are the other’s problems?
2. It is difficult to feel another’s pain.
What is the nature of the other’s pain?
3. It is difficult to understand another’s ambitions.
What are the other’s ambitions?
4. It is difficult to internalize another’s experience.
What is the other’s experience?
5. It is difficult to understand how our actions appear to others.
How do our own actions appear to others?
6. It is difficult to feel how threatened another may feel.
Why does the other feel threatened?
6 Words
This tool, inspired by Larry Smith, Six Word Memoir 7, is an
ACT tool designed to help Red Teamers focus on a core idea by
writing a short phrase summarizing their thoughts into a set number
of words that are clear, concise, and accurate. This idea is based on
a complete short story written by Ernest Hemingway: “For sale,
baby shoes – never worn.” Six Words forces people to synthesize
their ideas in a succinct and meaningful way, cutting away fluff and
distilling the idea to its bare essence.
When to Use
Utilize the tool to encourage participants to critically think
about ideas when writing down their ideas to share. This tool also
mitigates others from sharing ideas out loud that are not well
thought out.
Value Added
This tool can create pithy “bumper stickers” that communicate
in a meaningful, memorable way.
The Method
When a priming question is asked, and participants are
provided time to think, have them write down their ideas in 6 words
or less. The facilitator will guide the students by collecting their
ideas through storytelling, 5x8 cards, stickies, or writing them down
on a white board.
Alternative Futures Analysis

This ACT tool is derived from Peter Schwartz, The Art of the
Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. 8
Systematically, the tool explores multiple ways a situation or
scenario can develop when there is high complexity and
uncertainty.
When to Use
This approach is most useful when a situation is viewed as too
complex or the outcomes as too uncertain to trust a single outcome
assessment. First, the Red Team must recognize that there is high
uncertainty surrounding the topic in question. Second, they, and
often their customers, recognize that they need to consider a wide
range of factors that might bear on the question. And third, they are
prepared to explore a range of outcomes and are not wedded to any
preconceived result. Depending on how elaborate the futures
project, the effort can amount to considerable investment in time,
analytic resources, and money.
A team can spend several hours or days organizing,
brainstorming, and developing multiple futures; alternatively, a
larger-scale effort can require preparing a multi-day workshop that
brings together participants (including outside experts). Such an
undertaking often demands the special skills of trained scenario-
development facilitators and conferencing facilities.
This technique is a sharp contrast to contrarian techniques,
which try to challenge the high confidence and relative certitude
about an event or trend. Instead, multiple futures development is a
divergent thinking technique that tries to use the complexity and
uncertainty of a situation to describe multiple outcomes or futures
that should be considered, rather than to predict one outcome.
Value Added
This approach is useful in highly ambiguous situations, when
analysts confront not only a lot of “known unknowns” but also
“unknown unknowns.” What this means is that the Red Team
recognizes that there are factors, forces, and dynamics among key
actors that are difficult to identify without the use of some
structured technique that can model how they would interact or
behave. Given the time and resources involved, scenario analysis is
best reserved for situations that could potentially pose grave threats
or otherwise have significant consequences. Past experience has
shown that involving policymakers in the alternative futures
exercise is the most effective way to communicate the results of this
exploration of alternative outcomes and sensitize them to key
uncertainties. Most participants find the process of developing such
scenarios as useful as any finished product that attempts to capture
the results of the exercise. Policymakers and Red Teams can benefit
from this technique in several ways:
1. It provides an effective means of weighing multiple
unknown or unknowable factors and presenting a set of
plausible outcomes.
2. It can help to bind a problem by identifying plausible
combinations of uncertain factors.
3. It provides a broader analytic framework for calculating
the costs, risks, and opportunities presented to policymakers
by different outcomes.
4. It helps anticipate otherwise surprising developments by
challenging assumptions and considering possible wild cards
or discontinuous events.
5. It generates indicators to monitor for signs that a particular
future is becoming more or less likely, so that policies can be
reassessed.
The Method
The most common method used in both the public and private
sectors involves the following steps:
1. Develop the “focal issue” by systematically interviewing
experts and officials who are examining the general topic.
2. Convene a group of experts (both internal and external) to
brainstorm about the forces and factors that could affect the
focal issue.
3. Select by consensus the two most critical and uncertain
forces and convert these into axes or continua with the most
relevant endpoints assigned.
4. Establish the most relevant endpoints for each factor; (e.g.,
if economic growth were the most critical, uncertain force,
the endpoints could be “fast” and “slow” or “transformative”
and “stabilizing” depending on the type of issue addressed.)
5. Form a futures matrix by crossing the two chosen axes. The
four resulting quadrants provide the basis for characterizing
alternative future worlds.
6. Generate colorful stories that describe these futures and
how they could plausibly come about. Signposts or indicators
can then be developed.
Participants can then consider how current decisions or
strategies would fare in each of the four worlds and identify
alternative policies that might work better either across all the
futures or in specific ones. By anticipating alternative outcomes,
policymakers have a better chance of either devising strategies
flexible enough to accommodate multiple outcomes or of being
prepared and agile in the face of change.
Example
When buying a home, we might
select house prices and financing
rates as our two most critical and
uncertain variables. The endpoints
for each variable would be high and
low, giving us the following axes.
Figure 7. 2 Alternative Futures Example
Within each quadrant, we then develop colorful prospective

outcomes should that combination of factors come true.
From this, the group can develop
perspectives concerning how each
scenario might come about, along
with signposts that would indicate
which direction the problem is
heading. This knowledge would
assist with the development of
Figure 7. 3 Alternative Futures Example plans to counter unwanted
outcomes.
Analogy Suitability Analysis

This ACT tool was enhanced by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies. 9 An analogy is an analysis used to
improve our ability to comprehend one situation by comparing it
to a previous situation about which we know something. We use
analogies to simplify communication of complex ideas or concepts,
and to establish a common reference point or pattern to stimulate
dialogue regarding ambiguous situations. This tool is a form of
inductive reasoning, in which we proceed from one general
premise to another. Like all inductive reasoning, however, there is
no certainty that the analogical conclusion is warranted—at best
the conclusion might be probable.
When to Use
To improve your comprehension of the situation and review
the validity, relevance, and worthiness of comparison for the
purpose of improving communication and selecting appropriate
analogies.
Value Added
To determine an analogy’s suitability is to compare the ways in
which both situations are similar or dissimilar and to evaluate the
relevance of those similarities and differences. For example, given
the analogy “Going into Iraq will be our next Vietnam,” the person
making the statement presumes that one will be like the other. In
some ways, perhaps it might, however, there may be significant
differences.
The Method
1. Brainstorm the criteria for “similar and dissimilar” to
assess; consider the most expansive criteria one could possibly
infer. Sample criteria (at minimum) are the:
a. Historical context
b. Economic factors
c. Environmental factors
d. Duration of the conflict
e. Regional power intervention
f. Morale, will, and ideology (motivators)
g. Public opinion (regional, indigenous, international,
etc.)
h. Size and composition of the allies and of the
opponents
i. Professional state of the opponent and the U.S. allied
forces
j. Likelihood the population will rally around one side
or the other
k. Nature of the enemy, the operational environment,
and the regional parties which may help/hinder
either side
2. Develop a comparison with a minimum of 4 columns.
Column 1: Criteria. Column 2: Similar/Dissimilar
assessment. Column 3: Relevance. Column 4:
Notes/Remarks (see Table 7.3).
3. List the criteria in the first column.
4. Evaluate the two situations (analogies) on whether the
criteria are similar or dissimilar. Other methods such as
weighted anonymous feedback, divergence-convergence, etc.
can be used to add rigor to the evaluation as time and
situation permits.
5. Determine the relevance of the criteria to current
situation. Recommended terms for characterization include
“High”; “Moderate”; “Slight”; and “Inconsequential.”
6. Provide short notes and comments about key insights for
the evaluation of the criteria in the final column to serve as a
record for the evaluation.
7. Conduct the final assessment: pan for gold, what is the “so
what?”, and consider these core questions:
a. Is the analogy valid? (i.e., enough similarities--
strong inductive argument)
b. Is the analogy relevant? (i.e., is context
beneficial/applicable to current situation?)
c. How is the analogy useful?
d. How is the analogy dangerous or unbeneficial?
(Note: be mindful that while USEFUL ideas/concepts
emerge, the analogy itself may not be beneficial.)
Similar /
Criteria Relevance Remarks
Dissimilar
> 10 years;
Domestic
Duration Similar Moderate
opinion affects
policy
COIN; saw Iraq

Nature of
Similar High as High Intensity
conflict
conflict
Buddhist
/Confucian
Cultural Dissimilar High
influence vs
Arab & Islam
Table 7.3 Analogy Suitability Matrix

Optional Additions
List the similarities / dissimilarities of each the analogies while
considering a broad set of criteria, such as Critical Variables, and
then consider the relevance of each item. Infer your conclusions
from your analysis.
Caution
The assessment of an analogy’s suitability rests in large part on
the number of criteria you can possibly cite and compare.
Whomever uttered the analogy may have focused too narrowly [or
too broadly, or just right] on criteria, in a way that framed their
conclusion.
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

This ACT tool was developed by Richards Heuer and
introduced in his book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. 10 When
a Red Team is working on difficult issues that are generating many
alternative explanations (hypotheses), utilizing the Analysis of
competing Hypotheses (ACH) will evaluate all evidence that will
disconfirm rather than confirm any hypotheses. The thoroughness
of this tool will provide an audit trail to show what was considered
and how the team arrived at their conclusion.
When to Use
This tool engages and evaluates large amounts of data. Analysts
have also found that examining evidence more systematically
makes this technique ideal for considering deception and denial.
ACH also develops a clear record that shows which theories were
considered and how analysts made judgments on controversial
issues.
Value Added
In essence, ACH identifies alternative explanations and helps
point out the best solution, going through all the possibilities,
instead of stopping at the first solution that seems satisfactory. An
ACH matrix also allows others to review the analysis and identify
areas of agreement and disagreement. Moreover, ACH guards
against common flaws that lead to inaccurate speculations. Groups:
• Too often rely on evidence that supports their preferred
hypothesis, but which also is consistent with other
explanations.
• Are susceptible to undue influence, first impressions,
incomplete data, existing analytics, or one fitting explanation.
• Seldom generate a full set of explanations [hypotheses] at
the outset of a project.
Caution
For a level playing field, protect against:
• Innate tendencies to ignore or discount.
• Premature closure of a particular explanation or
hypothesis.
• Dismissing information that does not fit comfortably, at the
time, with the preferred explanation.
• Unequal treatment, or weight, of any argumentation or
information while considering each hypothesis.
Additionally, if the data might need to be reassembled, the
initial phases of the ACH process may require additional time.
Otherwise, developing a matrix of hypotheses and loading already
collected information into the matrix can be accomplished in a day
or less. And while ACH lends itself to one single analyst, it is most
effective in a small team challenging one another’s assessment.
The Method
Work to disprove hypotheses to break the mind’s natural
inclination to confirmation and anchoring cognitive biases.
Evaluate all reasonable alternative hypotheses together, but
evaluate one hypothesis at a time in the line of
evidence/information. This technique mitigates the mind’s natural
tendency to see patterns and make correlations. If the group wants
to use this technique, it is important to adhere to the ‘Think-Write-
Share’ methodology so various points of view are considered before
synthesizing information into a group answer. Have a team of
analysts:
1. Brainstorm to determine the key question or issue that
needs to be addressed.
2. Brainstorm to develop possible hypotheses; applying varied
perspectives.
3. Prepare a matrix with columns for evidence/information,
source of information, hypotheses, credibility of source and
evidence/information the source produced, and relevance of
evidence/information to key question. The rows will contain
the appropriate information.
4. Place each hypothesis in a separate column after the
source column, and before the credibility column.
5. Search for evidence that would be expected if a given
hypothesis is true but is not being seen. Is denial and
deception a possibility?
6. Place appropriate evidence/information in each row.
7. Place the type of source in next column that corresponds
with the evidence/information provided.
8. Weigh the sensitivity of each hypothesis to evidence that
would impact its validity, should those select few critical
pieces prove to be misleading, wrong, or subject to deception.
9. Determine your criteria for the evidence/information to be
consistent (C), Neither (N), and Inconsistent (I). Next,
develop a value/weight you place on the C, N, and I (For
example, C and N = 0, I = -1). Finally, decide if each row of
evidence/information is consistent/neither/inconsistent with
each hypothesis.
10. Add the total number in each hypothesis column and
place the total in the consistency score box for each
hypothesis. A lower consistency number indicates the
hypothesis is less likely to be supported by the
evidence/information provided.
11. For credibility and relevance columns, first determine
your criteria for high (H), medium (M), and low (L). Next,
develop a value/weight you place on the H, M, and L (For
example, H = 2 M = 1, L = 0). Finally, determine in each
credibility and relevance column if the evidence is
high/medium/low.
12. In each row, first multiply the credibility and relevance
numbers, then multiply the product with each hypothesis
value. When complete, go to each hypothesis column add
up the total credibility/relevance number and put the total in
the credibility/relevance box for each hypothesis.
13. Explore what might account for any inconsistencies in
the data.
14. Log all conclusions, including the weaker hypotheses that
should still be monitored as new information becomes
available, and monitor the indicators.
15. As new information continues to be collected, refine the
matrix and reconsider all of the hypotheses; old ones will
need to be re-examined and/or new ones will arise.
Example
Key Question: Who bombed the checkpoint near outpost X in Dec 20yy?
Evidence or Information Source H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 Credibility Relevance

Suspect 1, 2, 3, 5 observed conducting
survellance on checkpoint HUMINT C / 0 (0) C / 0 (0) C / 0 (0) I / -1 (-2) C / 0 (0) M (1) H (2)
Adversary organization suspect 3,4,5 quoted
in local news they do not like movement
restrited near outpost OSINT I / -1 (-2) I / -1 (-2) N / 0 (0) N / 0 (0) N / 0 (0) M (1) H (2)
Suspect 4, 5 cellphone intercept regarding
detonator acquisition SIGINT I / -1 (-4) I / -1 (-4) I / -1 (-4) C / 0 (0) C / 0 (0) H (2) H (2)
Consistency
Score -2 -2 -1 -1 0
Credibility /
Relevance Score -6 -6 -4 -2 0
LEGEND:
H1 = suspect 1 C = consistent: 0 H = high: 2
H2 = suspect 2 I = inconsistent: -1 M = medium: 1
H3 = suspect 3 N = neither: 0 L = Low: 0
H4 = suspect 4
H5 = suspect 5
Table 7.4 Analysis of Competing Hypotheses Matrix

Appreciative Interview
This GTM tool builds on success stories and can spark positive
conversation and ideation in any size group within a short period of
time. Originally designed, inspired by, and adapted from Professor
David Cooperrider of Case Western Reserve University, many
organizations have developed variations of this tool.
When to Use
Use this tool as an icebreaker for introductions, to build up
energy in the room, and to focus participants on personal and
organizational success. Use it to bring clarity to a story, get to a
story’s core, or just to pass ideas in a non-hostile/informal
environment.
Value Added
This tool introduces members to one another, initiates trust,
and socializes ideas in a way that allows everyone to contribute. The
Red Team Leader should consider the desired end state before
selecting which variant to use. Variant 1 offers more one-on-one
interaction for icebreaker activities, while Variant 2 builds
momentum within the larger group.
The Method
Variant 1 (derived from GroupJazz.com 11):
1. Setup
a. Identify a positive priming question like, “Think of
an instance when you suggested an out-of-the-box
idea and you got a positive response.”
b. Give the group five minutes to prepare their
individual story.
2. Round 1:
a. Pair up people so they can share their stories.
b. Give the pairs ten minutes to share their stories.
c. Encourage active listening.
i. Each teller finishes their story without
interruption.
ii. The listener may ask questions after the story is
finished.
3. Round 2:
a. Pair up with new people and share stories.
b. Again, give ten minutes to share stories; encourage
active listening.
4. Round 3:
a. For the last time, pair up with new people and share
stories.
b. Again, give ten minutes to share stories; encourage
active listening.
5. Discuss the idea and the interaction as a group.
Variant 2 (derived from The Surprising Power of Liberating
Structures 12)
1. Setup
a. Identify a positive priming question like, “Think of a
time you worked on a challenge and were proud of
what you accomplished. What is the story, and what
made the success possible?”
b. Give the group five minutes to prepare their
individual story.
2. Round 1:
a. Pair up people so they can conduct interviews and
share their stories.
b. Give the pairs 15-20 minutes, with a focus on what
made the action a success.
c. Encourage active listening.
i. Each teller finishes their story without interruption
ii. The listener may ask questions after the story is
finished.
3. Round 2:
a. Join pairs into groups of four.
b. Each person shares the story of their partner from
round 1.
c. Listeners should focus on patterns and conditions
supporting success.
d. Give the groups 15 minutes to share stories;
encourage active listening.
e. Collect insights in a discussion with the entire group.
Argument Deconstruction
This ACT tool was adapted by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies from Browne and Keeley, Asking the
Right Questions13. An argument is the sum of its issue, reasons, and
conclusion. Critical Thinking emphasizes the need to thoroughly
and systematically test the argument, which this tool facilitates.
When to Use
Use this as a framework when posed with an oral or written
argument.
Value Added
Deconstructing the argument can surface value conflicts,
hollow statistics, false assumptions, and/or erroneous conclusions.
It can also help to reveal attempts at influence. Additionally,
applying this tool to yourself can help you fill gaps and construct
stronger arguments.
The Method
1. Identify the component parts of the argument: Issue +
Reasons + Conclusion
a. State the issue: a problem, premise, or thesis.
i. Problem: the gap between existing and desired
states.
ii. Premise: something hitherto stated or assumed as
the basis of further dispute; a condition,
proposition, or supposition, antecedently
supposed or proved that helps support a
conclusion.
iii. Thesis: a proposition to be maintained against
objections or put forward for consideration; an
affirmation, distinct from a hypothesis; one to be
discussed and proved.
b. State the reasons: justification or logic provided to
support the issue.
c. State the conclusion: the judgment or end state of
the argument.
2. Is the right issue defined?
3. What is the author’s point of view?
4. What is the author’s purpose for writing the article or
assessment?
5. What has the author identified or brought up as key
questions that need to be answered?
6. Are there any value conflicts, fallacies in the reasoning, or
vague or ambiguous terms?
7. Are there any: prescriptive assumptions [a statement by the
author of how things should be] and are they valid
assumptions; or descriptive assumptions [a statement by the
author of how things are] and are they valid assumptions?
8. Does the author use heuristics [a simplifying strategy or
rule of thumb] to lay out information/make a case? (devil in
the details)
9. How reliable is the evidence; has the author used or relied
on:
a. Intuition?
b. Testimonials?
c. Research studies?
d. An appeal to authority?
e. Personal experience or observation?
f. An analogy?
And if so, is it appropriate?
10. What are the author’s inferences based on the
information presented? (Inference: Conclusion achieved by
mental processing of information)
11. Is there a rival cause, or another way to explain the
evidence and conclusion, or another plausible hypothesis,
which might explain what happened? What is it?
12. Are any statistics deceptive, e.g., using numbers without
percentages and vice versa?
13. Is any vital information omitted? (the dog that isn’t
barking)
14. Is any evidence open to another reasonable conclusion?
15. What are implications from the author’s point of view?
16. What are the implications of accepting the argument?
The examination and consideration of these points facilitates the
evaluation of the argument.
Assumption Sensitivity Analysis

This ACT tool utilizes practices from the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies and a sensitivity analysis tool used in
financial modeling. 14 This tool uses anonymous weighted feedback
to quantify the group’s confidence level with assumptions and focus
on the most questionable one.
When to Use
Any time planning, analysis, or synthesis includes assumptions,
this tool allows the group to anonymously identify the assumptions
in which the group has the least confidence (and consequently, in
which it often sees the most danger). With this knowledge, the
group can then direct its focus to challenge or recraft the
assumption.
Value Added
The tool helps the group quantify the expected likelihood that
assumptions are correct, allowing it to assign expected confidence
levels. Once the group has determined the desired level of
confidence to move forward, it can logically handle the
assumptions, determining which to accept and which to further
research.
The Method
1. Gather input.
a. Give everyone a 5x8 card; ensure anonymity.
b. List and number the assumptions to be assessed.
c. Ask participants to estimate their confidence in each
assumption by writing a percentage of likelihood that
each one will come to fruition. Example: “On your
card, estimate your confidence in each assumption as
a percentage. If you believe there is a 70% chance
that the first assumption will be correct, please write
70% next to number one. Please do this for all six
assumptions.”
2. Collect the cards and compute the aggregate confidence
with each assumption.
a. Example: For assumption 4, the eight participants
responded: 80%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 90%, 90%, 95%,
and 95%. The average is the sum divided by the
number of participants, or 705/8 = 88%. “For
assumption 4, we are 88% confident that it will come
to fruition as stated.”
b. Example: Average the responses for each assumption,
which in our notional example would be: 1 = 75%, 2
= 80%, 3 = 82%, 4 = 88%, 5 = 90%, and 6 = 93%.
3. Compute the likelihood that at least one assumption is
invalid; the probability equals the product of all
confidences.
a. Example: The probability that all assumptions will
prove correct = .75 x .80 x .82 x .88 x .90 x .93 =
36.24%.
b. Example: “The input provided suggests we have the
lowest confidence in assumption 1 at 75%, and the
likelihood that all assumptions are correct is 36%.”
4. The group may then challenge or recraft assumptions as
desired to increase their likelihood of coming to fruition.
5. The result should stimulate a Premortem Analysis.
BATNA
Military and Cultural Studies from Fisher and Ury, Getting to
YES. 15 The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
is the standard by which any proposed agreement should be
measured. Knowing your BATNA enables you to predetermine
what is minimally acceptable to you in your agreement.
When to Use
Developing your BATNA is perhaps the most effective course
of action you can take when dealing with a seemingly more potent
negotiator. Use your BATNA to guard against: (a) rejecting terms
that are in your best interest to accept, and (b) accepting terms that
are too unfavorable. Devise a “best solution” independent of the
other side’s assent.
Value Added
A good BATNA helps you negotiate on merit. BATNA is not
only a solid metric, it is also flexible enough to permit exploring
imaginative solutions; in doing so, you greatly strengthen your hand.
Instead of ruling out a solution that does not meet your bottom line,
you can compare a proposal to the interests within your BATNA.
Moreover, as your BATNA evolves you can convert resources into
negotiation power. The more easily you can walk into a negotiation,
the greater your capacity to affect its outcome.
The Method
Attractive alternatives are not just lying around waiting on you;
you must develop them with your data, time, money, wit, and
network:
1. Ask, “What do I intend to do if I cannot reach an
agreement?”
2. List conceivable actions you could take if no agreement is
reached.
3. Improve on the promising ideas, solidifying practical
alternatives.
4. Tentatively select the one alternative that looks the best.
5. In negotiations, keep your BATNA in mind, and refuse to
accept any agreement less desirable than the BATNA.
6. Consider the other side’s BATNA; their available
alternatives. The more you know about their options, the
better you’re prepared; you can more realistically estimate the
path of the negotiation.
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a term mentioned in Alex F. Osborn, How to
Think Up.16 This ACT/GTM tool is used as a structured analytic
technique for generating ideas or stimulating new thinking in an
unconstrained group effort.
When to Use
Groups typically meet to generate hypotheses or discuss
challenges at the beginning of a project or at critical points.
Brainstorming is most useful when members want to build on an
initial idea.
Value Added
A modest investment of time can leverage varied perspectives
to help structure a problem. The process gives permission to
suspend “good judgment”, think “outside the box” beyond
conventional mind-sets, and optimize creativity in the thinking
process. It can also be combined with many other tools. In
particular, it sparks new ideas, ensures a comprehensive look at an
issue, raises unknowns, and prevents premature consensus around
a single hypothesis. More generally, it can surface a wider range of
factors that might bear on the topic than would otherwise be
considered.
The Method
Paradoxically, to be most productive, brainstorming should be
a structured process. An informal discussion might produce some
interesting ideas, but a more systematic process will soften mind-
sets and produce new insights. A four-phase structure tends to get
the most out of the session: get ready, diverge to generate/collect
new ideas/insights, converge to organize those ideas around key
concepts, and then decide what is next.
Phase 1: Stage the Session
1. Plan the meeting: Schedule time (usually at least one
hour) in a comfortable room and invite 10-12 people; one
should be an outsider.
2. Frame the focal question: Posit the issue into one
question.
3. Set the room: Display the focal question on a working
board.
Phase 2: Employ Divergent Thinking
1. Request ideas: Ask the group to quietly write down their
ideas about the focal question (as many as they can think of
or use sticky notes – one per idea), which facilitates clustering
ideas in the next phase.
2. Circle the room in order, allow each person to share one
idea, write it on the whiteboard; silence any judgments.
3. Continue circling to exhaust everyone’s ideas.
4. Allow for building on the ideas of others.
Phase 3: Employ Convergent Thinking
1. Organize ideas: Cluster ideas and shape categories
together.
2. Vet ideas: Discuss the feasibility of each idea or cluster.
3. Examine the outcome: Recognize which ideas, concepts,
or further work the group has generated.
Phase 4: Continue or Conclude the Session
1. Press on or stop: The group should elect to continue [or
not] and integrate other RT-TTP, e.g., Dot-voting to narrow
the field.
Optional Additions
1. Never censor, no matter how unconventional an idea.
Instead, find out what prompted the thought; the idea may be
the seed of an unstated connection between the topic and an
assumption.
2. Allot enough time to brainstorm correctly; usually one
hour to set the “rules”, get the group comfortable, and
exhaust the conventional wisdom in the room.
3. Involve an “outsider”, such as someone familiar with the
topic but outside the group’s culture, background, or
mindset.
4. For a variant, it can be very effective to conduct
brainstorming in silence, with participants placing their ideas
on a board using sticky notes. The notes can then be grouped
in affinity clusters for further examination and development.
Circle of Voices
This GTM tool was adopted by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies and designed by Stephen Brookfield,
The Skillful Teacher. 17 This is a simple tool for facilitating a
respectful group discussion.
When to Use
When you need to promote active listening and ensure
everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute and participate in
group discussions. It is a simple facilitation technique for stabilizing
group participation.
Value Added
Participants discover that listening, appreciating, and
synthesizing are just as crucial to good discussion as originating
brilliant contributions.
The Method
1. Seat 5-6 in a small group circle and explain, “each
person gets 1 minute of uninterrupted airtime to say
what they wish about the topic before we discuss it,” and
share these operating principles:
a. Pre-commit to no stress about who goes when or for
how long (within the 1-minute limit).
b. No one speaks a second time until everyone has
spoken once.
c. Listen actively; seek to understand what is
communicated.
2. Share the assigned topic and impose 60 seconds of
silence to think.
3. The initial Circle of Voices – Everyone gets a 1-minute
turn to speak.
a. Person #1 gets their turn at “uninterrupted airtime”
to say what they wish about the topic, while others
listen actively.
b. Going around the circle in order, person #2 gets their
turn, and so on, to the last person, while others listen
actively.
4. Once the initial Circle of Voices is complete, the
facilitator can open the floor for anyone who wants to
speak. The only restriction:
a. Refrain from grandstanding. You may discuss
another’s idea (already expressed), but you may not
expand on your own idea.
b. When discussing another’s idea, participants should
utilize the Yes, and… technique.
Circular Response
This GTM tool was developed by adult educator Eduard
Lindeman and discussed by Stephen Brookfield in his book, The
Skillful Teacher. 18 Often individuals will talk past others in a group.
To promote continuity or democratize participation so that others
show respectful listening, the Circular Response follows the same
protocols as Circle of Voices yet adds an intriguing twist. New
speakers must integrate the previous speaker’s message into their
own. Hence, speakers are never free to say just anything, and each
must expand upon or refute the previous.
When to Use
When you have to facilitate a vocal group of perceived experts,
this is a great tool to: (a) guard against grandstanding; (b) ensure
everyone gets at least one say on the matter; and/or (c) practice
active listening.
Value Added
No one speaker gains any advantage over another; it levels the
playing field. No one can rehearse a perfect contribution because
they have no idea what the preceding person is going to say until
they have said it.
The Method
1. Seat 5-6 in a small group circle and explain, “Each
person gets one minute of uninterrupted airtime to add
what they wish about the topic before the group openly
discusses it.” Share these operating principles:
a. Do not discuss as a group until everyone has spoken
once.
b. The person on my left is the next speaker for one
minute.
c. Listen actively and seek to extend what is
communicated.
2. Share the assigned topic and impose one minute of
silence to think.
3. The initial round – Everyone gets one minute to speak.
a. The first person gets a turn at “uninterrupted airtime”
to say what they wish about the topic while others
listen actively. Once the speaker has finished, they
yield the floor to their left.
b. The person to the original speaker's left gets one
minute to speak and must integrate some aspect of
the preceding message into their own. This can be
agreement, dissent, or expansion on the original
statement. Once finished, this speaker yields left also.
c. Continue to circle clockwise, requiring responses
that conform with the rules above, as others listen
actively.
4. Once each person has had one minute to speak, the
facilitator may open the floor to all for unconstrained
conversation.
Critical Variables
This ACT tool was developed by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies. 19 Critical Variables (CVs) are the
dynamic factors representing the circumstances, conditions, and
influences that affect the operational environment (OE). Framing
and studying these interrelated factors allows us to use them to our
own advantage, keep adversaries from using them against us, or
incorporate them into our planning.
When to Use
As part of any effort to frame, study, or analyze the OE and
convey baseline data. Red Teamers organize the data utilizing
systems thinking practices to visualize the complexity and to
organize the relevant knowledge of the OE.
Value Added
The OE can be framed many ways. PMESII+PT model is a
comprehensive approach but struggles to illustrate the complexity
of multiple layered and interrelated variables. Applying the CVs to
PMESII+PT (see Table 7.5) enhances the effectiveness of the OE.
Table 7.5 Critical Variables (CVs) related to PMESII-PT

The Method
Review the descriptions of the Critical Variables and analyze their
impacts on the OE. Consider systems thinking techniques to
analyze the impact of each Critical Variable on each other.
1. Military capability is the most critical variable for military
operations. It was once easy to define military capabilities:
equipment, manpower, training levels, resource constraints,
and leadership issues. However, this variable is rapidly
becoming more complex. Niche technologies are increasingly
the norm. Asymmetric concepts, rapid technological
advancement, and hybridization reconstitute changing needs
and requirements. Special Forces and paramilitary or
enhanced police units are increasingly significant as their
capabilities/roles expand. A commander must visualize all
military capability/flexibility of the threat, conventional and
unconventional.
2. Economics establish boundaries between “haves and

have-nots.” The economy may point out relationships that
invite political or military assistance. Economic power
measures the ability to rapidly procure resources, mobilize a
nation, and conduct sustained operations. Elements of
economic power may influence the battlefield. The ability to
affect another actor through economic means rather than
using military capabilities might even be the key to dominance
in the region. Economic superiority typically results in conflict
caused by some sort of economic gap among nation-states, e.g.,
deprivation or control.
3. Technology is the equipment and industrial

sophistication an entity can develop, produce, utilize, or
import. Globalization is slowly eroding the U.S. advantage.
The presence of advanced technology can indicate where
opponents perceive the greatest threat or expect the greatest
advantage. We must determine if the threat has the
technological capability to overmatch or achieve equality.
4. Information is an entity’s mechanisms for preserving or

transmitting information: infrastructure, systems, access,
usage, distribution, manipulation, and reliance. Mass media
can influence U.S. internal opinion, sensitivities, policy, and
decision making. Networks provide a communications web.
Redundant systems allow a constant flow of information:
couriers, graffiti, rumor, gossip, and print. Actors sway
populations by managing propaganda and perception. For
example, which combat operations are visible to the world, and
how?
5. Regional and Global Relationships are an element of

nation-states or non-state actors. These relationships include
political, economic, military, or cultural mergers and
partnerships. Allegiance to such a relationship can influence
an actor’s actions, in terms of support, motivation, and treaty
construct. Actors create alliances to aid their collective
capability and broaden their scale of operations. Regional and
global relationships shape the scale, intensity, and persistence
in military operations. In our age of globalization, regional
activities will undoubtedly draw global interest. Effects created
in one part of the world at the operational or tactical level
could have global, cascading outcomes at the strategic level.
6. Nature and Stability of State (Critical Actors) denotes to

the internal cohesiveness of actors; an actor’s strength or
weakness. Strength may lie in the political leadership, the
military, the police, or some other element of the population.
It is important to determine the real strength and evaluate the
population, political processes and authority, economic
infrastructures, military forces, goals, and agendas.
Understanding this variable allows U.S. forces to better
visualize the nature of the military campaign and the true aims
of an opposition’s campaign. Any entity that must commit
significant resources to maintain internal control may
represent less of a conventional threat and more of a stability
and support threat.
7. Will of the Nation and its Critical Actors is the unification

of values, morals, and effort between the population and its
government, leadership, or military. In unity, all parties are
willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the goal. The interaction
between political judgments and military actions define the
achievable objectives in a conflict; also underpinning its
duration and conditions of termination. People’s willingness to
support soldiers, insurgents, or terrorists is a critical
characteristic of the battlefield. It influences the type and
intensity of resistance to U.S. military operations. Many
countries view the U.S. national will as a U.S. strategic center
of gravity. The group’s ability to set the conditions for achieving
a favorable resolution rests on how well it preserves its own will
while attacking its opponent’s. For example, a perceived attack
on the group’s cultural identity will usually bolster its will to
fight and increases both the intensity and the duration of the
conflict.
8. External Organizations include non-government

organizations (NGOs), international humanitarian
organizations, transnational organizations, civilian
organizations, multinational corporations, etc. Organizations
have stated and/or hidden interests that assist or hinder U.S.
operations. Actors may have private motivations that differ
from their organization’s public statements. Actors also pursue
interests in concert/competition with other actors.
9. Sociological Demographics discerns the characteristics

of a human population or some portion of it. Demographics
measure population volume, growth, density, distribution,
births, marriages, diseases, and deaths. Demographics
significantly contribute to the likelihood of conflict. Perceived
inequities among sectors can breed envy and resentment.
Overpopulation, illiteracy, unemployment, or a “youth bulge”
can aggravate economic, ethnic, or other rivalries.
10. Culture is a system of shared beliefs, values, customs,

behaviors, and artifacts that a membership uses to navigate
their world and others. We examine multiple elements to
understand a culture: core values, history, myths, traditions,
etc. A culture may change over time or transmit shared values
and beliefs from generation to generation through social
interaction. Finally, a culture in and of itself does not cause a
conflict; friction in an interaction between two different
cultures creates the potential for conflict.
11. Religion is a variable that affects all other variables.

Religion itself is a worldview in which people personify cosmic
forces and devise ways to handle them. This approach often
resembles the ways they deal with powerful human beings. It
provides man with a way to deal with uncertainty that he
otherwise cannot control. It is interwoven into culture as a
cornerstone that affects every aspect of culture. It also provides
a more global connection to others beyond geopolitical
borders. An understanding of the endemic religion should
shape the way we conduct operations in that state (i.e., belief
system of our opponent, organization of society, interpersonal
relationships between our forces and the population, key sites,
etc.).
12. Time is a tool for manipulating tactical, operational, and

strategic advantages. It is one of the most significant planning
factors driving decisions in every aspect of military planning.
For example, force package development, force flow rate,
quality of intelligence preparation, need for forward-deployed
forces and logistics, etc. Planners must consider time in
concert with the context of culture. Cultures view time
differently; it might be radically different from ours or cause
disjointedness in operational tempo.
13. Physical Environment is the circumstance surrounding

and influencing air, land, sea, and space operations: terrain,
weather, topography, hydrology, etc. History demonstrates that
opposing forces utilize the physical environment to increase
their prospect of success. Less complex and open environments
tend to favor the United States, with its standoff technology,
precision guided munitions (PGM), and sophisticated
capabilities (surveillance/reconnaissance). Hence, adversaries
seek to confront U.S. forces in unfavorable weather, complex
terrain, and isolated sea lanes.
Cultural Perception Framework

This framework is an ACT tool and was designed by the
University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies. 20 This tool is a
scalable procedure for reviewing a selected culture. It provides the
kinds of questions a Subject Matter Expert (SME) would ask to gain
alternative perspectives about that culture.
When to Use
To discover another culture’s underlying tendencies, habits,
values, and beliefs and avoid mirror-imaging.
Value Added
It steps you thorough examining aspects of a culture without
requiring you to be a SME on that culture.
The Method
Step 1: Establish a baseline of understanding by applying 4 Ways
of Seeing:
• How does X view itself?
• How does X view Y?
• How does Y view itself?
• How does Y view X?
• What views conflict or are inconsistent?
Step 2: How does the physical environment impact the culture?
a. Land
• Has the geography facilitated security, or invited
invasion? How has social safety evolved in respect to
its geography?
• Who owns the land? Is it restricted to anyone? What
are the local conventions of ownership/use, i.e.,
private, communal, or state? How does land relate to
power in the region?
• Is there sufficient land for agricultural use? Does it
completely feed the population? Does it provide for
agricultural export?
• What land is/is not proper for certain groups to use
and why?
• Who has legitimate ability to decide outsiders’ access
to land?
• Is there symbolic meaning for certain sub-districts,
and do area groups view this symbolism
similarly/differently? Why?
• What is the relationship between the political
boundaries, and how do people living in the area
view those boundaries in terms of politics,
economics, genealogy, and security?
• What are the geographic area’s principles of division,
and is there a relationship between these dividing
lines and access to both tangible and symbolic
resources?
• Are there visually striking land formations of local
significance?
b. Climate and Seasons
• How does climate influence local attitudes, business,
work, and combat?
• What, in local terms, passes for good/bad weather,
etc.?
c. Water
• Do any rituals relate to water or its use?
• Does water have any symbolic significance?
• What cultural rules are associated with water?
• Who customarily exercises functions with respect to
water?
• Who has customarily controlled access to water, and
how have they used that for influence?
• What roles are expected of U.S. military personnel
with respect to water and its use or provision?
d. Food
• What are the local staples, and what labor is required
to grow, prepare, and serve them?
• What foods are served by whom, to indicate the status
of server or guest?
• How do U.S. Military operations or logistics impact
the ability of local people to obtain essential
foodstuffs?
• What foods have which kinds of ritual significance?
• What are the time- or calendar-related roles of
various foods?
• Which foods are strategic commodities, since
controlling access to them influences one’s coercive
or political power?
• What, in local terms, passes for sufficient/scarce food
and appropriate for external forces to provide?
• What foods raise concerns about health or sanitation?
• What locally-accepted foods are considered strange,
dangerous, or not even food, by the U.S. Military?
e. Natural Resources
• What natural resources can be found inside the
borders?
• Are the resources accessible and/or nearing
depletion? Who controls access to these natural
resources?
• Which resources are required by the culture, but
unavailable? Where are those resources procured?
Who is in the controlling seat for procuring them,
and who provides them? What sources of power
emanate from this relationship?
f. Fuel and Energy
• What are the locally found/produced sources of
fuel/energy?
• What is the relationship between local elites and
fuel/power; access to and provision of?
• How do authorities provide, or control, access to
power?
• How does the population deal with shortages of
power and fuel, and how do U.S. Military operations
impact them?
• What roles are expected of U.S. military personnel
with respect to power/fuel provision and protection?
Step 3: How do people make use of the physical environment;
how is the economy structured?
a. The Informal Economy
• What economic opportunities exist for the
population?
• What categories of people work in the informal
economy?
• On what commodities/services does the informal
economy focus?
• Compared to the formal economy, how big is the
informal economy? If it is larger—why?
• What percent of the formal/informal economy is
under foreign control?
• What goods/services are legal, but culturally frowned
upon? Who deals in these goods/services?
• How does the formal economy rely upon the
informal economy? Does this cause abuse to the
area’s population?
• What is the relationship between the informal
economy, on the one hand, and crime, violence, and
unregulated movement of people, on the other?
• What is considered an “illegal” good or service in the
area, and on what basis? Is bribery and corruption [in
Western terms] endemic? If so, what do locals
consider corrupt?
• What are formal/informal economic actors’
expectations of the state or over-arching political-
military authority, with respect to involvement in or
disregard for economic activity?
• How will U.S. Military expenditure in the local
informal economy, or employment of local informal
economic actors, influence the socio-economic
balance of power in the area?
b. The Formal Economy
• What comprises the formal economy?
• What categories of people work in the formal
economy?
• On what commodities/services does the formal
economy focus?
• How will U.S. Military operations impact the formal
economy, and the people in it?
c. Economy as a Network of Exchange
• Would a specific operational plan improve or block
access to critical goods and services?
• What is the degree of (in)equity in the distribution of
goods and services among the population?
• How do people gain access to critical services such as
medical care, transportation, or education?
• How are important physical resources (food,
clothing, shelter, cars, etc.) obtained by local people?
• Along with (or instead of) money, what do local
people rely on to obtain and exchange goods in the
region?
• Who seems to control the distribution of
goods/services, and how? Would a planned operation
change the distribution pattern?
• If money is not the primary economic system, can
the U.S. Military effectively use the local method of
economic exchange?
d. Economy as a Way of Structuring Social
Relationships
• Does the economy rely on general, balanced, or
negative reciprocity?
• Do the elites own wealth, or do they possess power
that generates wealth?
• What are the important features of the environment
that determine the economy of the area?
• How do local economic structures reflect the
relationship of the group to the larger political and
state system?
• Who has/controls most of the wealth? What percent
of the population lives in poverty, as locally defined?
• What are the economic rhythms of the community
(migration seasons, planting and harvesting, market
day, work hours, etc.)?
• What are the main economic systems in place in the
region (pastoralism, agriculture, and/or industrial
production)? Are all three present simultaneously?
• How is wealth distributed? Does it seem to be
concentrated in the hands of certain
individuals/groups? On what basis? What power is
conferred from such a concentration?
Step 4: How is the social organization structured? How do the
people organize, given the gifts of their physical environment and
their economic choices? (Age, Gender, Kinship, Class, Ethnicity)
a. Age
• At what age is someone considered a child or adult?
• What special status or roles are accorded to the
elderly?
• What are the population’s demographics? What do
they suggest?
• What are locally accepted or expected economic
roles for what U.S. society considers children?
• What specific ceremonies mark the transition to
adulthood? What new social privileges do these
rituals grant?
• Is there a stratifying system for age or stage in the life
cycle? If so, what rights, roles, and duties do people
have at each stage?
• How should the U.S. Military prepare to respond to
children who act as soldiers or participate in violent
activities against U.S. forces?
b. Gender
• What roles/tasks do women undertake “behind the
scenes,” if they are not visibly observable?
• Do women engage in armed combat? What roles do
they play in local militaries and insurgencies?
• What are common child rearing practices, and how
do they differ by gender or class? Who undertakes
which tasks and where?
• What roles are assigned to men and/or women? What
activities, spaces, and work are assigned
predominantly to men and women?
• How must operational plans change to account for
different work, roles, and spaces assigned to men and
women?
• How can operational plans and assignment of
manpower include gender to maximize effectiveness
of the unit?
c. Ethnicity
• To what degree does ethnicity play a role in society?
• What is the relationship between ethnic groups and
positions of power or control of professions?
• With respect to ethnic group struggles, what are local
assumptions about U.S. and western partisanship and
biases?
• In the area, what kinds of processes have historically
activated which ethnic identities and feelings of
group membership?
• How do groups that are barred from positions of
power challenge the system: Petri dish for insurgents,
civil war, theft, bribery, etc?
• What are possible reactions from groups that are
ignored; how will any perceived alliance with U.S.
Military affect a particular ethnic group or those in
power?
d. Class
• Does class play a role in society? To what degree?
• Is status acquired through birth or achieved through
action?
• What privileges (economic, political, social, and
religious) are given to members of the upper class?
• What are key institutions in the social structure, and
how did the leaders of those institutions acquire their
roles?
• How is class differentiated in the area, based on
region of origin, inheritance, wealth, education, or
other factors?
• How does wealth in the upper elite’s hands relate to
resource or power: through corruption, graft, or
legitimate means?
• How is access to subsistence resources (food, shelter,
water, etc.) determined: by class, inheritance, wealth,
or other factors?
• What do local people consider to be their potential
for in-system upward mobility, and what is the
probability of upward mobility?
• To support the lower class, will funds/resources have
to first pass through the hands of the upper class, and
will they consequently disappear?
• How will U.S. Military measures that influence
social mobility be viewed by differing groups:
affected groups, competing groups, and/or others?
e. Kinship and Tribal Membership
• Does society rely upon extended family units or
nuclear families? Why?
• Does some form of tribe or clan related social
structure exist? If so, to what degree does it play a role
in society?
• What reasons underlie social unity? What holds the
society together? What provides “meaning” to this
society?
• What degree of egalitarianism is prevalent; to what
degree does the society believe in collective unity,
vice individualism?
• How will our operations in the region support certain
kin groups and enhance their power, or conversely,
undermine them?
• How are land, water, or access to certain goods and
resources concentrated in the hands of specific kin
groups or tribes?
• Does society rely upon “fictive” kinship, and if so,
what is the essence of this fiction? Which segments of
society does it uphold and/or suppress?
• Does the society practice monogamy or polygamy,
and who decides? What is the nature of power
internal/external to the married couple? What is the
nature of marriage?
• Is the society matriarchal or patriarchal? From which
side of the family does descent extend? Do family
members identify with the father’s or the mother’s
relatives, or both?
• How does a U.S. Military’s choice of local points of
contact influence or disturb local kin relationships,
thereby influencing the degree of success of U.S.
Military initiatives?
• What are possible outcomes of an operation that will
challenge the power/control of resources by certain
kin groups in the region: war, insurgency, increased
stability, more/less access to goods/services?
Step 5: What defines the political structure? Who makes the
decisions concerning power distribution and resource usage?
(Conflicts over Power and Leadership)
a. Conflicts over Power
• Are groups cognizant of any exclusions?
• Which groups are excluded, and along which axes?
• Which groups hold power, and in what
concentration?
• Do the leaders think it is possible to challenge the
system?
• How do state bureaucracies relate to other social
structures?
• What characterizes a patron and what is their
functional role?
• Does this society rely on the harshness of power or
the rule of law?
• Is religion used for political ends or is politics used
for religious ends?
• How flexible and interactive are local religious,
ethnic, or tribal groups?
• To what degree do religious, ethnic, or tribal
identities polarize the area?
• What tensions are inherent? What motivates the
society: political or economic concerns, desires for
social change, or other?
• What cultural characteristics determine one’s
position and power in the community: age, class,
gender, tribal identity, ethnicity, religion?
• To what degree is society comfortable with
uncertainty: display low stress/anxiety, what is
different is also interesting; or display high
stress/anxiety, what is different is also dangerous?
• How does society handle the inequity of power: are
members inclined to meekly accept it; do they revile
others who exert power upon them; do they depend
on what the boss says; do they wait until told what to
do; do they use initiative, e.g., interdependence?
• What is the nature of bureaucracy: Does society
easily navigate bureaucracy? Is red tape exercising
power, exacting tribute, the way of efficient business?
Do we need a person who can quickly deal with
inefficient bureaucracy [wasta]?
• If U.S. Military allies with a group, how will this
affect relationships with other groups? How do
marginalized or losing groups access valued goods,
resources, and opportunities: black market, theft,
raids, and/or insurgency?
b. Leadership
• To whom do people turn to get something done?
• Who makes decisions and how is decision-making
organized?
• Whom do leaders have to consult, and to whom must
they answer?
• What is the relationship between the formal and
informal leader?
• Who are official formal leaders and what symbols
show their status?
• What principles and procedures govern policy
debates and decisions?
• What are the motives of the leadership; do they live
for politics or make a living off of politics?
• What types of leaders has the society supported:
Legally elected, Violent, Charismatic, or other?
• What narratives are leadership using? What social
and political ideologies are prevalent?
• Who are the central players in the leadership, and
what are their histories, ideologies and beliefs, and
network affiliations?
• How is leadership obtained and passed on: election,
inheritance, force, demonstration of skill, or a
membership?
• Which institutions wield power: religious entities,
labor unions, tribes, clans, social structures, criminal
organizations, courts, political parties, or other?
Step 6: What are the belief systems? (i.e., Rituals, Icons,
Religion, Mores, Symbols/Communication, History, Memory,
Folklore)
a. Rituals
• What are the rites of passage and/or rites of
enhancement?
• What behaviors and/or actions are important in the
ceremony, and what does this reveal about cultural
ideals and values?
• Who participates, what is the nature of their
involvement, and what does their presence say about
their status in the group?
• What activities, unrelated to the ritual or ceremony
itself but due to the social status of the participants,
occur at ceremonial gathering?
• What is the public display of the ritual supposed to
say to outsiders? How might this display be a
politically charged statement about the group’s status
and rights within its larger society?
b. Icons
• Who are the local heroes and what qualities do they
embody?
• Who are the local villains and what qualities do they
embody?
• Are Americans or U.S. Military compared to any
heroes or villains?
• What do these comparisons mean, and what do they
illustrate about local attitudes?
c. Religious Membership
• What does geography mean to religious groups in the
area?
• How do people in the region show their religious
membership?
• What roles/status do religious groups hold in the
larger society?
• How would a planned U.S. Military operation in the
region impact the religious groups’ power, status, and
access to critical resources?
• How would a planned U.S. Military operation in the
region influence the indigenous peoples’ views of
U.S. Military or U.S. biases towards different
religious groups within the social structure?
d. Mores (Norms & Taboos)
• What taboos exist in the region: food, behavioral, and
other?
• How does society sanction members? Does it allow
criticism or alienation?
• Being foreign to the area, what norms should U.S.
Military observe?
• How are emotional outbursts perceived: gender
specific, restrained, accepted, or other?
• What underlying allegiances or codes of honor could
influence the success of an operation?
• In contrast to local norms, mores, and taboos what do
locals believe or assume about Americans?
• Locally, what behavior is considered a serious
violation of social mores and could carry serious
punishments, including death?
• Are societal values predicated on dualism (absolutes,
evil v. good) or relativism (right v. wrong depends
upon context)?
• Why might a killing be allowed: on behalf of the
state, to exact revenge, restore honor, etc.? Does
society value human life?
• In terms of local norms, mores, and taboos, with what
might local people think the U.S. Military will
disregard (likely propaganda)?
e. Symbols and Communication
• What does local body language (particularly hand
gestures) mean?
• What is the meaning/nature of routine greetings and
farewells?
• What words/phrases are essential to basic local
communication?
• Which societal proverbs get lost in translation, and
what do they mean?
• What non-verbal behavior might be misinterpreted
by local people, particularly in meetings and
negotiations?
• What symbols indicate group, ethnic, religious, or
social status (e.g., clothing, headdress, insignia, and
scarification)?
• What symbols are help identify, navigate, or
understand what is happening in the area (e.g.,
fences, signs, graffiti, and spiritual markers)?
• How is information shared: word of mouth, gossip
and rumor, in writing, television, texting and cell
phone, internet, or other?
f. Religious Beliefs
• What religions are predominant in the area?
• Who is the actual leader of the local religious
community?
• What power does the formal religious system hold
over daily life?
• What do key religious narratives signify and whom do
they support?
• What gives a religious leader authority: scholarship,
lineage, charisma, or other?
• How do these leaders relate to varied sects: popular,
learned, elite?
• Are religious practices focused on the present social
welfare of the people, on the hereafter, or both?
• What conflicts/disagreements of the area exist
between the local religious practices and the formal
religious system?
• How prominent is religion as an explanatory feature
for people about history, current events, or historical
trajectories?
• How do local practices of the religion differ from
what the U.S. Military thinks it is supposed to look
like?
• According to locally-held religious beliefs, what is the
way the world is supposed to be, and how does U.S.
Military presence impact that?
• In areas where the U.S. Military operate, what
religious practices are actual, vice theoretical? Are
these religions affected by the culture?
g. History, Imagined Memory, Folklore
• What key myths associate with social control?
• How does this society perceive current and past
events?
• What histories, folktales, and sayings teach significant
ideals?
• What sayings/folktales do people refers to in daily
conversation?
• With outsiders, does society defer to ethnocentricity
or relativity?
• Is there any historic significance of the area being
invaded/isolated?
• How do differing groups give meaning to the same
historical stories?
• How did society handle past cultural changes:
syncretism, pluralism, or assimilation?
• What pivotal historical stories and critical cultural
narratives do people in the community share?
• Are people taught in school to follow the party line or
challenge authority and conventional wisdom? How
are they taught: Socratic dialogue, rote memory, or
other? What stories are taught for them to believe
about themselves and from where they come?
• To what degree do people identify with a national
myth? Which myths explain the essence of the
nation? Does this conflict with other social structure
bases: ethnicity conflicts, tribal conflicts, etc.?
• Do the people have shared significant emotional life
events, and if so, how recentare they? Does myth tint
these events? If so, which myths, and which groups
foster these myths to their own ends?
• How are these histories, folktales, and sayings used to
influence propaganda about U.S. Military and U.S.
activities in the region?
Step 7: What deductions can you come to, based on the aggregate
of the collected information?
a. Analyze the results of all information acquired.
b. Determine the “so what.” Given the reason or motive for
conducting the analysis, synthesize the results.
• How does the information provide insight as to how
another culture might react to U.S. Military
presence?
• In what ways does the information illuminate “how
they might think” about various issues
Deception Detection
This ACT tool was adapted for use by the University of Foreign
and Military Cultural Studies. 21 Antagonists would be remiss if they
did not try to deny or manipulate our intelligence assets.
Information can be shaped to mislead us. Many of us do not assume
every piece of intelligence is valid, but few know how to screen for
the possibility of deception. Even in the most benign of situations,
we can become overly confident in the effectiveness of our
techniques and fail to consider the possibility of deception. In any
event, posing the hypothesis of deception is a considerable
cognitive burden. Probing for clues of deception can be frustrating
and time consuming, requiring extensive vetting, fact checking,
and hypothesis testing. This tool offers a process for determining if
deception may be present.
When to Use
We are always wise to consider the possibility of deception,
especially if we were party to developing the intelligence or if there
is a history of encountering deception. Moreover, when stakes are
high, or if a deceiver could have a lot to gain from the deception,
considering possible deception is crucial. Also consider the maxim,
"If it seems too good to be true, it probably is."
Value Added
A well-developed set of indicators might actively mislead us.
Deception detection adds rigor to any analysis effort and reinforces
its efficacy. Once accepted, the possibility of deception puts all
evidence under scrutiny and makes it difficult to accept inferences
without thorough vetting and solid evidence. A checklist of
questions can prevent paralysis.
The Method
Task a team to screen your key practices and products for
deception.
1. Have them measure the likelihood of deception.
(Acronym: Check Mom, Pop, Eve, and Moses for any
possibility of active deception.)
a. (MOM) Does any actor have Motive, Opportunity,
and Means?
i. What are their objectives?
ii. What are the means available to deceive?
b. (POP) Is deception consistent with Past Opposition
Practices?
i. Has there been have a history of deception?
ii. Does the deception fit prior patterns?
c. (EVE) What do we know from the Evaluation of
Evidence?
i. How accurate is the reporting source?
ii. Does the information from one source conflict
with other sources?
d. (MOSES) How probable is the Manipulability of
Sources?
i. How reliable is the source?
ii. Is there reason to believe the source is being
controlled?
2. Then have participants employ the Analysis of
Competing Hypotheses (ACH) and explicitly pose
deception as one of the multiple explanations for the
presence, absence, or disconnect of any information.
Devil’s Advocacy
This ACT/GTM tool was adapted by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies from Heuer and Pherson, Structured
Analytic Techniques. 22 Its purpose is to challenge a single, strongly
held view or consensus by building the best possible case for an
alternative explanation.
When to Use
When assertions have been formed prematurely, without first
considering alternative perspectives. It is a technique designed to
help expose implicit assumptions and faulty reasoning.
The logic behind Devil’s Advocacy stems from the cognitive
challenges of decision making discussed by Richards Heuer (The
Psychology of Intelligence Analysis) and Morgan D. Jones (The
Thinkers Toolkit):
• We commonly solve problems by first forming a
conclusion, and then using available evidence to support it.
“[We tend to] favor a particular outcome or solution early on
in the analytic process...long before we can objectively
analyze the evidence and reach a conclusion.” (This is the
cognitive bias known as confirmation bias.)
• We tend to perceive what we expect to perceive
• We tend to value information that is consistent with our
views, and reject or overlook information that is not
• We can easily become wedded to a pre-existing plan,
person’s reputation, etc., which precludes us from continuing
to think critically about that plan, person, etc.
Value Added
Devil’s Advocacy helps Red Teams expose faulty reasoning,
especially when the beliefs or assertions in question are the result
of “conclusions jumped to.” The tool will help establish additional
evidence which should have originally been considered; it helps
illuminate evidence which was either intentionally or
unintentionally disregarded or ignored.
The Method
Conducting Devil’s Advocacy is simplified by demonstrating
the opposite idea of a state belief or assertion. Do this by 1)
considering the same evidence, some of which may have been
disregarded or ignored, and by 2) finding new and disconfirming
evidence originally unavailable.
Example
Given a stated position: “The U.S. Federal Government
should not directly fund private schools”
• State and prove the position in its opposite form: “The
U.S. Government should directly fund private schools,
because…”
o Enumerate reasons why this should be so. Consider
all evidence originally available, especially that which
was disregarded or ignored. Oftentimes, evidence can
support several hypotheses, based upon its interpretation.
o Actively search for new evidence which proves this
opposite assertion.
• Disprove the original belief or assertion:
o Reasons in the “stated position” which are faulty
o Reasons in the “stated position” which were
ignored/overlooked
o Reasons which are missing from the “stated
position”
o Consider any implicit assumptions upon which the
“stated position” rests
Divergence - Convergence
Military and Cultural Studies from Morgan Jones, The Thinkers
Tookit and J. Russo and Paul Schoemaker, Winning Decisions.23
This tool is a problem-solving model based on the notion that we
must first think broadly to consider possibilities and options before
we think narrowly and decide.
When to Use
During decision support activities for any particularly complex,
important, or polarizing issue.
Value Added
Everyone shares the process, gets a say, and owns the
conclusion.
The Method
The exercise begins by describing the situation, preferably with
a focused question or problem statement. It is important to avoid
constraining responses by imposing limits on resources or options.
For example, funding may be a concern, but limiting the responses
to ones that stay within budget stifles creativity. By allowing the
group to be truly divergent, you may find a seemingly expensive
option that costs less than expected by approaching it in a non-
traditional manner.
Step 1 (Divergence): After stating the problem, capture ideas.
Think-Write-Share is an excellent method of initiating
the process of critical thought. To begin tackling the issue,
first, think independently and reflectively, then write
down your thoughts to shape and refine them, and finally
share them in an orderly fashion using a technique like
Circle of Voices.
Four Golden Rules:
1. The more ideas the better
2. Build one idea off another
3. Wacky ideas are okay
4. MOST IMPORTANT: Don’t evaluate ideas
(Research has demonstrated that others build
upon wacky or unrealistic ideas. They liberate the
imagination.)
Step 2 (Debate): Discuss the ideas presented, identifying
themes and conducting preliminary evaluation of viability.
This will result in grouping some ideas, eliminating others
as impractical or inappropriate, and creating new ideas
from aggregates. Cluster, combine, refine, and rewrite as
needed until you have a list of viable options.
Step 3 (Convergence): Refine the most intuitive and
promising ideas. Integrate other tools (Dot Voting, 5 will
get you 25, etc.) to further narrow the field of ideas.
Consider regrouping and reorganizing ideas based on
other parameters such as time, function, geography, who
does the action, who is the customer or recipient, etc. Use
other tools (5 Whys, SWOT, etc.) to further analyze and
refine the ideas. Narrow to find the most viable solution
that is most likely to achieve the desired goal.
Caution
It is easier to analyze and think narrowly than to create and
think broadly. This can lead to an absence of divergent thinking up
front, resulting in a narrow analysis of preconceived notions; this
behavior is why some brain teasers fool us. Hence, intentional
divergent thinking must be an inherent first step. If a participant
offers an idea that matches an unstated idea on your list, cross it off,
move on, and offer something not yet raised. This will aid
divergence by getting more ideas on the board, and you can voice
support for the matching ideas during the convergence phase.
Additionally, monitor the process carefully to determine
appropriate timing. Converging too early means you haven't
considered enough options, while converging too late means you
wasted time by diverging too much. The latter often happens when
the initial problem statement is too vague and allows scope creep.
Example
Figure 7.4 Diverge-Convergence Model

This example is a visual adaptation of Divergence-Convergence
(see Figure 7.4) from Russo and Schoemaker, Winning Decisions:
Getting It Right the First Time. This figure or model is a means
for groups developing a better decision process. The Red Teamer
always needs to think in terms of divergence – convergence so
they are aware of what tools they have and when to use them,
where they stand with the problem, what new ideas have emerged
in order to analyze or debate, and where they are going so the
team can converge on the better solution or action.
See Also
Ideal Group Process
Dot Voting
Dot voting is a weighted anonymous feedback method adapted
by the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies. 24 This
GTM tool is designed to identify and rank the group's perspectives
concerning a posed question or problem.
When to Use
Use in time-constrained and/or option-rich environments in
which teams must prioritize their efforts and attention, as there is
simply not enough time to address all legitimate issues. Dot Voting
is a forcing function to identify all potential outcomes possible as
determined by the team and then focus the effort on pertinent
critical outcomes as voted on by the whole group.
Value Added
The value of this approach is as follows:
• Ensures all ideas in groups are presented equally for
consideration.
• Forces each person to prioritize a macro list of ideas by
having just over half as many votes as the total number of issues
(e.g., 7 votes to divide among 12 options), but also gives them
the opportunity to spread votes and emphasize more than one
compelling issue.
• Gives some indication of the weight of each idea with
respect to each other (a group score of 40 is significantly higher
than a group score of 20, even though 20 may be the second
highest score). This can be used to develop what the weighted
/ priority factors for a course of action and/or problem should
be.
The Method
1. Present a question or problem statement and have
participants individually and anonymously pre-commit their
answer on an index card.
2. To maintain anonymity, collect the cards, shuffle them, and
transfer the ideas to a whiteboard or butcher paper. If
anonymity is not a concern, the participants can present their
ideas one at a time until everyone has exhausted their initial
pre-committed list.
3. Group the inputs in the broadest possible way so that no two
topics remaining on the list overlap with each other (i.e., each
topic is distinguishable from each other). All inputs are initially
considered no matter how unusual or extraneous.
4. Number the distinguishable issues worthy of the group's
energy and attention.
5. Each member then writes the macro list of the numbers in
a column on a fresh index card.
6. Explain to the group members that they have a set number
of votes (often half the total number of choices plus one,
though fewer is acceptable; for 12 choices, 6 + 1 = 7 votes).
Round odd numbers down (11 choices = 5.5 + 1 = 6.5 votes,
round to 6 votes).
7. Each member then 'dot votes' the ideas, using all their votes
as determined in step 6, by placing one or more dots next to
the number of the topics they favor. The facilitator identifies
the rules, determining if there is a limit to the number of votes
per entry. Participants can be required to use a one-vote-per-
idea scheme, meaning they will have as many ideas selected as
they have votes. They can be given freedom to vote as desired,
meaning all votes can go to one idea if they so choose, or they
can be limited to no more than two or three votes per idea,
allowing them to weight their preference while still spreading
their votes to multiple choices.
8. Collect the index cards and total the number of votes for
each idea or issue. Use the vote totals to rank the ideas based
on the sentiment of the group; the more dots an idea receives,
the stronger the group feels about that idea. Focus follow-on
effort on the highest-ranking ideas.
Caution
For this to work properly it is absolutely critical that ideas don't
compete against each other during dot voting, so creating
distinguishable issues is a key part of the process. Also ensure group
members clearly understand the voting methodology to avoid
confounding the process.
See Also
5 Will Get You 25
Example
1. Topic: Provide issue, challenge, or solution
2. Group: 5 participants.
3. Pre-committed ideas developed: 21 distinguishable
ideas.
4. Voting: Each participant has 5 votes; individuals can vote
2 times on any one problem and one time on three
problems or vote one vote on five problems.
5. End state: Voting reveals weighted group sentiment
favoring three ideas, on which the group can then focus
their attention using additional tools.
Fishbowl
Military and Cultural Studies from The Surprising Power of
Liberating Structures. 25 The tool is aimed at developing active
reflection, listening, and fresh perspectives.
When to Use
A fishbowl conversation is a form of dialog that can be used
when discussing topics within large groups. Fishbowl conversations
are sometimes also used in larger participatory events.
Value Added
The fishbowl allows the entire group to participate in a
conversation by first observing the discovery process performed by
a smaller group, then performing divergence-convergence based on
those findings. This method often takes less time than if the entire
group were to participate in the discovery phase.
The Method
1. Create a circle of chairs in the center of a larger circle; five
to six is a good number. If you have a very large group,
there may be multiple outer circles.
2. Invite a small group of people that have direct experience
with the challenge into the small circle of chairs at the
center. Ask this group to talk about the challenge together,
sharing stories of their direct experience and insights as
they might do if they were sitting in a coffee shop or at
dinner together. They talk to each other, NOT the
audience. The audience listens and takes notes.
3. Invite the audience to ask questions and share their
insights about the conversation while those in the center
circle just listen. Gather all the questions. You might want
to use index cards or have someone capture all the
questions on chart paper.
4. Facilitate a dialogue between the two circles. Ask
questions to develop ideas and insights. (e.g., What did
you hear that surprised you? How has your perspective on
the issue changed? What questions are still open for you?)
Caution
To include both participants with introverted and extroverted
communication preferences, consider breaking down the dialog
into smaller groups so all perspectives are heard.
See Also
Circle of Voices, Appreciative Interview
Example
1. Topic: Select issue or challenge within group (8-15 indiv.)
2. Develop two sides of the issue and select two individuals or
two small teams to debate the issue for a specified time (5-10 min).
Place two sides in center of group or room with other participants
as audience watching. Only have those two sides in center discuss
their ideas and viewpoints for and against.
3. Outside Participants (5 min). At end of debate, have outside
participants address the points and add ideas and insights pertaining
to the discussion, highlighting and developing innovative ideas,
gaps in logic, and areas of information not known to group.
4. End state (5-10 min). Through the internal and external
discussions, the group fully develops the problem and examines
issues introspectively to drive further discussion through facilitated
questions and development of gaps in logic and knowledge. This
method ensures the group has a foundational understanding of the
issue before tackling associated problems.
Frame Audit
Military and Cultural Studies from the book Winning Decisions. 26
We all have biases that shape the frames through which we view
the world and make decisions. Being aware of frames, both our own
and those of others, improves our view and appreciation of issues in
ways that lead to better decision making.
When to Use
Use this tool to analyze a frame under consideration or
currently in use.
Value Added
It can uncover faulty, unsatisfactory, or less-than-successful
frames, allowing us to reframe an issue in a more logical, helpful
way.
The Method
Separate the frame into individual components and ask:
1. What metaphors are used for the issue(s)?
2. Which issue(s) does the frame address most? Why?
3. What yardsticks and reference points measure success?
4. What does the frame emphasize or minimize, and why?
5. Why do we view the issue(s) in this way? What
experiences frame our view?
6. How is the issue(s) bounded? What is included in the
frame or left out of consideration?
7. Do others think about the issue(s) differently, how so,
and why? How successful are their frames?
Caution
Examining frames is time-consuming, especially when you
analyze the frames of others.
Gallery Walk
This GTM tool was adapted by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies. 27 This tool has multiple stations
staged as a ‘gallery’ of artifacts or ideas for multiple teams to
circulate among and discuss. Each team has role players: leader,
reporter, monitor, and recorder.
When to Use
When sharing external, individual, or small group ideas and
products within a larger group. Great practice for observation,
teambuilding, and learning to work effectively in groups.
Value Added
Answers evolve as groups contribute new ideas during each
round. The facilitator nurtures discussion and involves disengaged
members.
The Method
Teams begin at different stations and rotate clockwise to the
next station after finishing prescribed tasks/questions. After all teams
have viewed all stations, everyone meets for a ‘Report Out.’ The
facilitator collects perceptions and solicits feedback on the process.
1. Prepare the Concept - Strategize the central intent for
the exercise. Prepare steering questions (Bloom's
taxonomy, higher order thinking, examples, etc.)
2. Rehearse - Visualize the process onsite from the point of
view of a participant. Ensure clarity and availability of
materials and space.
3. Prepare the Stations – Create stations based on external
ideas or individual or group products. Position artifacts,
questions, and response space. Decide whether to use
butcher paper, notepads, index cards, scribes, or other
recording techniques.
4. Prepare the Groups (see Figure 7.5) - Divide into teams
and assign roles. Clarify the process and tasks and
distribute writing material. Assign roles:
a. Leader – keeps the group on task and prompts
participation
b. Monitor – keeps track of time and status of other
groups
c. Reporter – presents the group's thoughts to the larger
group during the report out
d. Recorder – records the group's thoughts and
comments throughout the exercise
5. Begin the exercise - Position groups at different stations
and start the clock. The members perform their roles as
the group examines and discusses the material at the
station. After 5 minutes, rotate groups clockwise to the
next station. Continue rotations until every group has
visited every station.
6. Monitor the Groups - Nurture discussions and involve
each player. Rephrase questions to provide hints and
redirect players.
7. Report Out - Give groups 10 minutes to synthesize their
recorded notes. Give each reporter 5 minutes to present
a summary. After all, report out, recap key points and
discuss insights about the process.
Variations
1. To inject additional cooperative learning, switch roles at
each station, allowing participants to experience each
role and its challenges. For greater interaction, add an
‘emissary’ rule to channel queries for the instructor
through one member. To encourage debate, request a
concise consensus at each station, recording pithy bullets
in a ‘public journal’.
2. Gallery Run is a ‘walk’ at ‘run’ speed or a faster pace.
Questions are of lesser scope and/or lower order for less
discussion time. More rounds occur, with each round
completed more quickly. The Report Out will still
engage higher order thinking.
3. Computer Tour - Post on computer(s) rather than the
wall. Groups can post images or change them quickly for
each round.
Example
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4

Questions Questions Questions Questions
Figure 7.5 Gallery Walk

High Impact / Low Probability

Analysis
Analytic Techniques. 28 This analytical technique is used to
highlight the art of the possible by refocusing attention on
seemingly unlikely yet plausible events that, if realized, will cause
significant impact to the operational environment and disruption
to the projected trajectory. Author, scholar, and risk analyst Nassim
Nicholas Taleb popularized the moniker “Black Swan.” 29
When to Use
This technique can be used throughout the decision and
planning process. Early in the process, it is an excellent vehicle for
encouraging creativity and breaking existing frames and mental
models by challenging people to consider the unthinkable and/or
most plausible. In mid-stride, it can be used as a contrarian
technique to mitigate premature convergence, or fixation on
particular outcomes, such as “most likely.” Lastly, it can be used as
a communication vehicle to dispute strongly held convictions of
decision makers by challenging assumptions and presumptions.
Value Added
Broadens understanding of a problem or situation by exploring
the consequences without challenging the prevailing view.
Additionally, the technique provides rigor and adds robustness to a
‘story’ that can be used to challenge prevailing assumptions and
presumptions and enables self-discovery of issues and concerns.
The Method
• Define the high-impact outcome clearly (see Figure 7.6).
This process is what will justify examining what most
analysts believe to be a very unlikely development. A
Premortem Analysis can help at this point. Plausibility is
critical; it's okay if the outcome has never happened
before, as long as it could happen.
• Devise one or more plausible explanations for or
pathways to the low probability outcome. These should
be as precise as possible, as they can help identify
possible indicators for later monitoring.
• Insert possible triggers or changes in momentum if
appropriate. These can be natural disasters, sudden
health problems of key leaders, or new economic or
political shocks that might have occurred historically or
in other parts of the world.
• Brainstorm with individuals having a broad set of
experiences to aid the development of plausible but
unpredictable triggers of sudden change.
• Identify for each pathway a set of indicators or
observables that would help you anticipate that events
were beginning to play out this way.
• Identify factors that would deflect a bad outcome or
encourage a positive outcome.
Note: This technique is highly effective and complementary
when used with Premortem, Alternative Futures, Indicators
or Signposts of Change, GTM, and What if Analysis.
Caution
Carefully communicate likelihood, while avoiding both
minimization and overstatement. Avoid having the concept
dismissed outright!
Example
Figure 7.6 Figure Diagram to present Analysis

Indicators or Signposts of
Change
This ACT tool was adapted by the University of Military and
Cultural Studies from many external resources. 30 An analyst or
team creates a list of observable events (Indicators, Signposts, or
Measuring Sticks) that one would expect to see if a postulated
situation is developing, e.g., economic reform, military
modernization, political instability, or democratization.
Periodically review the list of observable events or trends to track
events, monitor targets, spot emerging trends, warn of change, or
evaluate the status quo.
When to Use
When required to add rigor to analytical argument and prevent
premature convergence in uncertain and ambiguous environments.
This technique is primarily a complementary technique, adding
value to other techniques serving four primary roles:
1. Adds rigor, depth, and robustness to the story or narrative
created in other explorative and forecasting techniques
like Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, Premortem,
Alternative Futures, “What if…”, etc. It strengthens the
argument and increases the plausibility.
2. Allows events and trends to be placed into context over
time and serves as a “tickler” for detecting changes in the
operational environment, to include the strategic
calculus of stakeholders. This encourages a long view
and more objective interpretation of events.
3. Objectively manages disagreement, especially when
there are sharply divided views on an issue. This
technique can “depersonalize” the argument by shifting
analytic attention to a more objective set of criteria, once
all sides agree on the set of objective criteria used to
measure the topic under study.
4. Aids development of objective criteria required for an
assessment regime or as a qualitative equivalent to
“measures of effectiveness” (MOEs).
Value Added
By providing an objective baseline for tracking events or targets,
signposts instill rigor into the analytic process and enhance the
credibility of analytic judgments. An indicators list included in a
finished product also allows the policymaker to track developments
and builds a more concrete case for the analytic judgments. By
laying out a list of critical variables, analysts also will be generating
hypotheses regarding why they expect to see the presence of such
factors. In so doing, the Red Team can make the analytic argument
more transparent and available for scrutiny by others.
The Method
Whether used alone or in combination with other structured
analysis, the process is the same:
• Identify a set of competing hypotheses or scenarios
• Create separate lists of potential activities, statements, or
events expected for each hypothesis or scenario
o Each Indicator or signpost needs to be:
 Unique
 Valid
 Observable
 Collectable
• Regularly review and update the signpost/indicator lists
to see which have occurred, which have changed, and
which have not occurred.
• Identify the most likely or most plausible hypotheses or
scenarios, based on the number of changed indicators
that are observed
Developing two lists of indicators for each hypothesis or
scenario may prove useful to distinguish between indicators that
show a development is or is not emerging. This approach is
particularly useful in a “What If?” Analysis and High Impact / Low
Probability Analysis, when it is important to make a case that a
certain event is unlikely to happen. It also complements the
Premortem Analysis, to help identify the items that, if achieved,
would result in a flawed assessment or a failed plan. A checklist of
questions to detect possible deception can prevent the analyst from
becoming intellectually paralyzed.
Caution
Like all things, be mindful as signposts and indicators are
subject to cognitive bias, faulty analogy, and underdeveloped theory.
Check and assess prior to using.
Key Assumptions Check

Analytic Techniques. 31 This tool is a simple exercise to clarify the
assumptions in play and ensure that the project does not rest on
flawed premises.
When to Use
Most useful at the beginning of any analytic project, although
testing assumptions can be valuable at any time prior to finalizing
judgments. Key Assumptions Check will explain the logic of the
argument, stimulate thinking about an issue, acknowledge factors
that shape an issue, and identify changes that would eliminate an
assumption. Also, the tool will expose faulty logic, surprising
circumstances, and obscure relationships between factors.
Value Added
Flawed assumptions will quickly waste time and efforts.
Additionally, identifying hidden assumptions is a difficult challenge
for any project, as they are often ideas unconsciously held to be true,
and therefore are seldom examined and almost never challenged.
The Method
List and review the key working assumptions on which
fundamental judgments rest. Consider how the analysis depends on
the validity of a certain premise, which is seldom questioned or
doubted.
1. Write down the current analytic line on the issue for all to
see.
2. Delineate every premise, stated or unstated, that is
accepted as true for the analytic line to be valid [the
assumptions].
3. Challenge each, asking if it must be true and if it remains
valid under all conditions. Then reduce the list to only those
that must be true to sustain the analytic line.
a. Why must it be true?
b. Does it remain valid under all conditions?
c. How much confidence exists that this assumption is
correct, and what explains this degree of confidence?
d. What circumstances might undermine this
assumption?
e. Is this assumption most likely a key uncertainty or key
factor?
f. Could this assumption have been true in the past but
false now?
g. If the assumption proves to be wrong, how does it
significantly alter the analytic line?
h. Has this effort identified new factors that need further
analysis?
4. Sometimes it is difficult to identify which assumption is
the key assumption that needs to be addressed first. The
following is a way to visually depict the key assumption:
a. Create a numbered list of the assumptions (e.g., if
you have five assumptions, label them with numbers
1-5; see Figure 7.7).
b. Encase each number with a geometric shape (e.g.,
inside a circle or square)
c. Determine the relationships among the numbered
assumptions. Does one assumption influence the
other(s)? Does one require the validity of another to
be true?
d. Connect the assumptions. The assumption with the
most linkages is the assumption that needs to be
questioned first. The assumption that has the next
most linkages needs to be reviewed second, and so
forth.
e. If there are any assumptions that have an equal
number of linkages, utilize a weighted anonymous
feedback technique such as Dot Voting to get
unvarnished feedback on prioritization of how to
validate or refute assumptions.
Example
Figure 7. 7 Key Assumptions Check Diagram

Mind Mapping
This ACT/GTM tool is adapted by the University of Foreign
Military and Cultural Studies from Anthony Peter Buzan, Mind
Map Mastery. 32 Mind Mapping is a graphical tool that allows users
to diagram ideas and thoughts in ways that both promote clearer
understanding and facilitate further development and creativity.
This visualization process uses text, image, ratio, color, and spatial
arrangement to illustrate concepts and spark associations in the
brain.
When to Use
To visually represent the complex connections of an idea or
topic to achieve better understanding, identify gaps, and spark
creativity. It can be a useful way to take notes, brainstorm, plan,
study, memorize, solve problems, research, or convert ideas into
constructs (see Figure 7.8).
Value Added
In contrast to linear text and traditional note taking,
information is structured in a way that resembles how your brain
navigates it. This visual approach can be particularly useful when
people are overwhelmed with typical blocks and pages of text, as it
is both an analytical and artistic activity. Many software tools build
mind maps, organize them, and save them for later. Characteristics
of mind mapping include:
• The main topic crystallizes as the central focus.
• Key themes radiate from the central focus; branching in
a nodal structure.
• Branches navigate key elements, where 'twigs' appear as
the lesser ideas.
The Method
Get a marker/pen and a blank whiteboard or piece of paper.
Start with a single word, symbol, or image. Let your imagination go
and keep the labels as short as possible.
1. Think of your main theme and write or draw that word
in the center.
2. Branch related subtopics around the topic. Use radial
hierarchy to arrange your branches. Branch related
elements to the subtopics. Attempt to think of at least two
points off each branch. Develop lower-level elements as
you see fit.
3. Amalgamate or look for opportunities to cluster, relate,
conjoin, shorten, and improve labels. Be as visual as you
can. Distinguish notions with the use of font, color,
proportion, symbols, etc. Vary text size, color, and
alignment. Provide copious visual cues.
Figure 7. 8 Mind Mapping

(Reprinted with permission from Brian Tarallo, LizardBrainSolutions.com)
My 15%
Liberating Structures. 33 This has the potential to create
transformational change incrementally by revealing individual
freedom of action.
When to Use
• For any problem solving or planning activity in which you
want individuals to take initiative.
• For any complex challenge or problem that requires many
people to participate and buy-in to change for success to
emerge.
Value Added
This technique can effectively empower and motivate people
who otherwise feel powerless and negative in the face of a complex
situation.
The Method
Most people have about 15 percent control over their work
situation. The other 85 percent rests in the broader context, shaped
by the structures, systems, events, and cultures in which they
operate. This tool helps prioritize focus on the 15 percent within
our control to drive positive change.
1. Ask: What is your 15% contribution to solving the
problem? Where do you have the discretion and freedom
to act without more resources or authority?
2. Ask each person to generate a list of personal actions (My
15%).
3. In small groups, share actionable ideas while others
engage active listening, provide consultation, ask
clarifying questions, and offer feedback. TROIKA and
Yes, and… would work well in this step.
Onion Model
Military and Cultural Studies from Hofstede’s Manifestations of
Culture. 34 This model and framework (see Figure 7.9) for
examining and analyzing culture and its components enables
multiple groups to carry layers of mental programming
simultaneously at varying levels within each corresponding culture.
Caution: While we can often see external manifestations of
membership within a culture, an individual’s core values are deeply
contextual and learned, influencing layers of subsumed Practices.
In other words, core values can often remain unseen or out of reach
for outsiders.
When to Use
Early in any review of culture to expose ignorance, prompt
better questions, and shape an all-inclusive perspective.
Value Added
The Onion Model depicts values wrapped in symbols, heroes,
and rituals. It helps surface manifestations, differences, and
similarities within or among the culture of a country, region, or
group.
The Method
1. Observe or research Symbols, Heroes, Rituals, and
Practices of members within the country, region, or group.
2. If possible, interview individuals within that country,
region, or group.
3. Conduct additional research and interview subject matter
experts. Pay particular attention to why the Symbols,
Heroes, Rituals, and Practices are important.
4. Record the information in the appropriate layer of an
Onion Model (see Figure 7.9). Note that Practices
subsume Symbols, Heroes, and Rituals. For example, the
practice of celebrating Independence Day includes
displaying the U.S. flag (symbol), remembering our
forefathers (heroes), and watching fireworks displays
(ritual).
5. Combine and/or deconstruct the research findings to
postulate Core Values of the group members. For
example, many groups have a flag as a symbol, but the
meaning behind the elements of the flag hold more
importance to the group’s Core Values than the flag itself.
Why does the flag use specific colors and shapes? When
and how is that flag displayed, and what is its significance
in that setting?
6. Populate the model with Core Values.
7. Compare/contrast the model against models of other
groups.
8. Consider adding additional layers when appropriate. For
example:
• a Gender level, according to whether a person was
born as a girl or as a boy
• a Generation level, according to whether a person is
a grandparent, parent, or child
• a Social Class level, according to opportunities
linked with educational, occupational, or social
standings
• an Organizational or Corporate level, according to
how employees are/were socialized in their
workplace
• a National level, according to one's country (or
countries for those who migrated during their
lifetime)
• a Regional and/or Ethnic and/or Religious and/or
Linguistic Affiliation level; most nations are
composed of culturally differing groups: regions,
ethnicities, religions, and language
Figure 7. 9 The Onion Model Manifestation of Culture

Outside-In Thinking
Analytic Techniques. 35 This is a useful tool to alter perspectives and
reveal non-intuitive information. We typically think from the inside
out. As such, we contentedly spend time concentrating on factors
familiar to our experience and field of view. We then belatedly
realize the need for additional categories and fields of data,
prompting more gathering, reworking, and recodifying. We should
have begun by considering the external changes that might, over
time, profoundly affect the field or issue.
When to Use
Most useful early in the conceptualization phase of an
analytical project to identify the full range of basic variables, forces,
factors, and trends that could directly/indirectly shape a
functional/regional issue.
Value Added
A measure of “Outside-in Thinking” early in the analytic
process can reduce the risk of missing important variables. It can
help visualize and assemble an entire set of database fields or
information categories necessary for a thorough research effort.
The Method
Thinking from the outside-in begins with identifying all
variables or factors that might influence how an issue could develop.
Conceptualize the issue in both broader and more fundamental
terms. Uncover additional factors, important dynamics, or relevant
alternative hypotheses.
1. Generalize the description of the issue, topic, or
problem. (utilize Figure 7.10 below to assist on
visualizing the problem)
2. Ask what key forces exist (environmental, technical,
political, social, and economic) upon which we are
unable to exert influence: globalization, social stress,
Internet, or global economy? List those forces.
3. Ask what key factors an actor or policymaker can
influence: market size, customers, the competition,
suppliers or partners, policy, actions, or behavior [allies
or adversaries]?
4. Consider how these forces could affect the analytical
project and determine which ones will actually have an
impact.
5. Establish the necessary data streams.
Variations
Utilize bubble diagrams or mind-mapping techniques to assist
you in visualizing the forces or factors around the issue, topic, or
problem.
Example
Figure 7.10 Outside-In Thinking Diagram

Premortem Analysis
Military and Cultural Studies from Gary Klein, The Power of
Intuition. 36 Premortem Analysis is an exercise for finding key
vulnerabilities in a plan. It might be categorized as a relatively quick
mental simulation.
When to Use
The best time for a Premortem Analysis is prior to war gaming
during the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) when: (a)
wargaming the one selected COA, or (b) wargaming all of the
proposed COAs.
Value Added
People can become overconfident once they have arrived at
their plan. An active inquiry aimed at foiling trouble can negate the
pull of a false sense of security, any consensus, or groupthink. The
divergent phase of the exercise openly embraces objectivity and
skepticism, prompting participants to question a course of action
and its assumptions/tasks.
The Method
Unlike Risk Analysis, begin with the assumption that the plan
has failed.
1. Prepare. At a minimum, participants must be familiar
with the plan.
2. Gather and imagine the plan has failed. Accept the
failure and answer, “What caused it to fail? How did this
happen?”
3. Generate reasons for the failure. Allow participants
several minutes to write down all the possible reasons
they can think of. Do this individually first, so that the
insights and experience of each participant are brought
to bear.
4. Consolidate everyone’s lists into one long list. Solicit
input from each participant, one at a time. Go around
the room and record their ideas on a whiteboard or
poster paper. Continue until all ideas are exhausted. This
divergent phase must follow four rules:
a. The more ideas, the better.
b. Build ideas upon one another. If someone else’s idea
sparks a new idea for you, write it down.
c. Liberate everyone from self-imposed restraints and
fear of criticism or ridicule. Do not filter or evaluate
ideas. This includes body language, eye rolls, nods,
or groans.
d. One subjective modifier could stifle that one saving
fix. While unconventional or wacky ideas may seem
foolish, they can also generate serious thought. Ideas
need not be sensible, reasonable, constructive, or
practical.
5. Revisit the plan. Based on the list of concerns, revisit the
plan and determine how to mitigate each cause.
Determine “ownership” and have the owner develop
suggested modifications to the plan.
6. Keep and periodically review the list. This will help to
keep the possibility of different types of failure fresh in
everyone’s mind as the plan develops or gets
implemented.
Problem Restatement
Military and Cultural Studies from Morgan Jones, The Thinker’s
Toolkit. 37 When presented with problems, we often define them
too broadly, focus on only part of the issue, or make invalid
assumptions. As a result, we identify and settle on solutions too
quickly and fail to resolve the problem. Restating the problem in
creative ways can lead us to reexamine our perspective by helping
us identify the component issues and their relationships, thereby
increasing our likelihood of finding a better solution.
When to Use
When framing a problem, especially if it seems tidy and
straightforward.
Value Added
Restating the problem will often show that it is more complex
than anticipated, but the practice can also reveal hidden pathways
to a solution. By generating new insights into the problem, the
process can help identify root causes, refocusing efforts on the real
problem. The tool becomes doubly powerful when it integrates a
divergent process, restating the problem in as many ways as possible.
The Method
Do any or all of these to improve the problem statement.
1. Paraphrase the problem statement. Restate it using
different words without losing the original meaning. Try
saying the same thing with different words. These
variations put subtle spins on the meaning, triggering
new perspectives or informative insights.
2. Turn the problem on its head. Restate it in an opposite
manner. Similar to Devil’s Advocacy, provide a view
from the opposite direction to reveal a counter
perspective.
3. Expand the view. Restate the problem in a larger
universal context to reveal a too-narrowly-defined
problem statement.
4. Redirect the focus. Look for unexamined variables
affecting the problem frame. Then consciously, openly,
and boldly change the focus of the problem. For
example, if the original focus was boosting sales, change
it to cutting costs.
5. Employ “5 Whys.” Formulate a “why” to the initial
question, then answer it, then do it again, and again, etc.
The effect may reveal insights obscured in the original
framing of the problem, as well as any murky or unclear
thinking.
Caution
The most common pitfalls lie in the problem’s definition. The
definition will often be misdirected, too narrow, too vague, or lack
focus.
Example
• What should we do about readiness?
This example does not identify the problem.
• Unit readiness rates are slipping. How can we get unit
commanders to focus on training?
This example is too narrow and misdirected.
• How do we sway Division HQ to provide more billets
and equipment to increase our capability for X, Y, or Z?
This example contains an assumed solution; if wrong, the
statement again misdirects the focus of the analysis.
• Unit readiness rates are slipping. How can we get unit
commanders to focus on training?
The unit commanders may not be the root problem or lack
focus; if not, pressuring them might aggravate the problem.
Examine the issue. If an assumption is invalid, the statement
misdirects the focus of the analysis.
Shifting the Burden

This ACT/GTM tool was adapted by UFMCS from Peter
Senge, The Fifth Discipline. 38 Often a problem exists that will
generate symptoms that appear to require immediate attention.
However, for various reasons, the underlying source of the problem
is not addressed and only the symptoms are treated. Peter Senge has
called this phenomenon “Shifting the Burden.” According to
Senge, “Solutions that address only the symptoms of problem, not
fundamental causes, tend to have short term benefits at best. In the
long term, the problem resurfaces and there is increased pressure
for symptomatic response. Meanwhile, the capability for
fundamental solutions can atrophy.”
When to Use
To develop alternative perspectives and options and find
leverage points residing in the system.
Value Added
Efforts directed only at a symptomatic solution may appear
beneficial at first, but only serve to exacerbate the problem over
time, often with debilitating side effects. The problem could also
mutate into something different if the solution does not address it,
causing current symptomatic solutions to no longer be effective.
The Method
The Method. There are four steps to building a “shifting the
burden” model (see Figure 7.11).
1. Examine the symptoms (Identify the ‘problem symptom’)
2. Examine what you are doing to address the problem
symptom (Identify one or several ‘symptomatic solutions’
that might relieve the symptoms for a while)
3. Decide what fundamental efforts are needed to address
the issue (Identify the ‘fundamental solution’)
4. Review possible negative ‘side effects’ from the
symptomatic solution (Identify the second and third
order effects from your initial actions)
Figure 7.11 Build Your Own - Shifting the Burden Model

Senge suggests the way to deal with a shifting the burden
structure is to simultaneously weaken the symptomatic response
effort while strengthening the fundamental response. The
challenge for a Red Team is to identify correctly the fundamental
problem. While this process may sound simple, it can be more
complicated in finding the fundamental solution. Dietrich Dörner
identifies this in his book Logic of Failure when he mentions that,
“human beings developed a tendency to deal with problems on an
ad hoc basis…they solved some immediate problems but did not
think about the new problems that solving the old ones would
create.” Addressing the fundamental issues will take both patience
and persistence.
Red Team Application: The “Shifting the Burden” model
structure comprises two balancing (stabilizing) processes. Both
balancing loops try to correct the same problem symptom, but one
addresses symptoms while the other addresses the underlying
problem(s).
The addition of problem and perspective elements to the
structure along with ACT and GTM tools to diagnose them make
Senge’s structure a richer framework for Red Teams to develop
alternative perspectives and options (see Figure 7.12). Identifying
the problem symptom as Senge suggests is a good place to begin,
but rather than proceeding from there to identifying the
fundamental solution (convergent thought process) this model
recommends a close examination of the underlying problem(s) and
perspective(s) before moving on to the solution(s). Begin by
restating the problem. Sometimes restating a problem shows there
is more than one problem. Try to show there is more than one
problem or identify the problem symptom. Several tool
recommendations are included in the illustration.
Figure 7.12 Shifting the Burden with ACT-GTM Tools

Example
Senge uses the example (see Figure 7.13) of reacting to stress
to illustrate his point. In his model, the problem symptom is
STRESS. The symptomatic solution is ALCOHOL. The side
effect is HEALTH (deterioration). While the fundamental solution
is a REDUCED WORKLOAD. Said another way, people feel
stressed due to an increased workload or multiple competing
demands on their time. The person resorts to drinking to get
immediate relief from the stress. However, the alcohol does not
address the root problem of reducing the workload and has an ill
side effect of deteriorating health. In this case, continued alcohol
consumption can lead to an ultimate addiction. This example can
be illustrated below:
Figure 7. 13 Shifting the Burden Example Diagram

There are three clues in identifying the presence of a ‘shifting
the burden structure’: (1) A problem exists that gets worse over time;
(2) The overall health of the system gradually worsens; and (3)
There is a growing feeling of helplessness. Situations of
‘dependency’ (e.g., using alcohol to combat stress) are classic
examples of burden shifting.
Stakeholder Mapping
Military and Cultural Studies from the work of J. Bryson, L. Bourne,
and D. Walker. 39 Stakeholder Analysis is a method of systematically
identifying and building information about the interests and
abilities of key parties who can affect or are affected by a given
action or situation. Stakeholder Mapping is a type of stakeholder
analysis that prioritizes unattended (non-key) stakeholders while
also evaluating how action to address the unattended will impact
the behavior of the key stakeholders.
When to Use
Stakeholder mapping is useful as a method for anticipating the
interests, perceptions, and values of specific individuals in complex
situations. It can be used to understand and anticipate the
perceptions and actions of different groups of people during
operational planning, strategy formulation, campaign design, or
innovation. It is also a scalable tool that can be used in greater or
lesser detail depending on the specific purpose and the time
available.
Value Added
Plans and decisions can be sabotaged by a lack of appreciation
for the perspectives, interests, and capabilities of individuals or
groups that turn out to be critical participants. Stakeholder
mapping is a method to avoid such errors; as such, it can augment
and increase the effectiveness of other Red Teaming tools like the
Onion Model and 4 Ways of Seeing.
The Method
Stakeholder Mapping is a broad two-step procedure.
Step 1 - Stakeholder Identification & Attention: Identify all
relevant stakeholders: those actors that are affected by, or can affect,
the issue at hand. Divergent thinking is the key to compiling as
complete a list as possible. Now focus examination on those groups
and individuals not considered in the original stakeholder analysis.
Step 2 - Stakeholder Examination & Prioritization: Depending
on the time available and the purpose for the stakeholder mapping
effort, there are several options for examination.
1. Cultural Analysis: When conducting any planning
activity, a cultural analysis of the stakeholders can be
invaluable. The Onion Model is useful here.
2. Analysis of Interests: Examine each stakeholder’s
underlying interests, not just their stated position. Identify
areas of mutual interest (for building coalitions) and interest
gaps (for anticipating opposition). 4 Ways of Seeing is useful
here.
3. Power and Influence Analysis: Examine each
stakeholder’s sphere and fidelity of influence. In
organizational settings, stakeholder power takes on several
forms:
a. Position power: from statutory/organizational
authority
b. Personal power: from relationship influences or
traits
c. Political power: objectives & means to achieve
them. 40
Step 3 - Stakeholder Silhouette: Depending on the time
available and the purpose for the stakeholder mapping effort, there
are several options for examination.
1. Plot a Combined Interest/Influence diagram (see Figure
7.14), showing stakeholders by degree of anticipated support
(X- axis) and influence over the issue (Y- axis). This creates a
picture to inform a plan of action.
2. Develop a recommended action plan with clear goals to
increase stakeholder support while adjusting or responding to
levels of influence.
Figure 7. 14 Combined Interest-Influence Diagram

Caution
Keep these points in mind:
1. Results are subjective, imprecise, and vulnerable to biases.
2. Stakeholders change with time. Old stakeholders
evolve/adapt, gaining or losing power, or even changing their
interests as the situation unfolds. Furthermore, new
stakeholders can emerge.
3. If leaders, teams, and staffs are mindful that other people
will likely not perceive and interpret the world the same as
they do, then Stakeholder Mapping can help them make
better plans, decisions, and policies.
4. Both axes must be considered; in some cases, a stakeholder
with minor opposition but high influence may be more
important to the success of a plan than one with strong
opposition but no influence. In other cases, the opposite may
be true.
State–Elaborate-Exemplify-
Illustrate (SEE-I)
This ACT tool was adapted by UFMCS from Gerald Nosich,
Learning to Think Things Through. 41 SEE-I may also be called the
C-I paradigm. It is a method of clarifying ideas or a means to
understanding a particular idea better.
When to Use
When sharing ideas, this tool structures communication in a
clear, meaningful, and lasting way.
Value Added
SEE-I can help individuals or groups refine important topics
in a richly fused manner for themselves or others. The process can
be iterative as each participant cycles through and revises prior steps.
The Method
Clearly state the idea, add your own description, give an
example, and then close with an illustration. SEE-I has four steps:
1. State the idea clearly/succinctly in a single sentence; “The
idea is …”
i. Example: Learning is the act of gaining knowledge or
ability.
2. Elaborate on the idea in a deeper paragraph; "In other
words, ...”
i. Example: In other words, learning is the process by
which we gain some specific knowledge or skill
(ability), in some depth. The process occurs through
repeated reception, letting the neural network of
mind/body adapt to the repeated input. Internalizing
the knowledge deepens the learning. When I learn
something, I try to say it back, explain it, use it, and
integrate it.
3. Exemplify the idea in a concrete/counter example, "For
example, ...”
i. Example: If someone learned about the American
Civil War, they should be able to describe its
features, its effects on later society, and reference
multiple accounts. Or, a child could learn to ride a
bike by guided practice and chance falls. Conversely,
the child could repeatedly fall and never learn.
4. Verbally or visually illustrate the concept.
i. Example: “It's just like riding a bike, you never
forget.” Alternately, you could draw a picture of
someone riding a bike.
Example
1. “This is what I think. The concept of _______________

basically means ________________________________.”
2. “This is what I mean by it. In other words, ___________

_____________________________________________.”
3. “For example, _________________________________

_____________________________________________.”
4. “Let me illustrate with an analogy. Imagine __________

_____________________________________________.”
Storytelling
Military and Cultural Studies. 42 Linguists most conservatively
estimate the evolution of oral language at a minimum of 175,000
years prior to the development of written language. Consequently,
humans are wired to learn via storytelling.
When to Use
Storytelling can be used to establish a personal connection
with an audience, to set a scene, to give or reinforce meaning, to
provide context for the data being presented, or a variety of other
purposes.
Value Added
Stories can be memorable; as we share a story, both the teller
and the listener visualize the information being shared. As the
information is incorporated into a compelling storyline, the story
grabs and holds the attention of the listener. Hence, we innately
elevate the quality of the dialogue. Most importantly, the listener
more readily retains the information, and can accurately recount it
in the future.
The Method
There are many techniques and structures for good storytelling,
like the inclusion of metaphors and analogies, audience
participation, surprise twists, and providing a moral to the story. Still,
the storyteller should manage a few key characteristics, including
context, level of detail, and length.
Context: Relate the story to the current discussion or topic
presented.
Level of detail: Provide enough detail at the right level of
complexity to make a point; do not sidetrack with distracting
extraneous data.
Story length: Present under time-constraints, in a length of
time suitable to the venue and listener. In a meeting, the storyteller
must limit the duration in an effort to allow listeners openings to
draw out specific items of interest for discussion, so as not to
interfere with the group’s objective.
See Also
Fishbowl and Who Am I?
String of Pearls
This ACT tool is adapted by the University of Foreign Military
and Cultural Studies from the Army Directed Studies Office
(ADSO). 43 We tend to examine most plans horizontally, looking for
synergy across the tasks. However, this tool examines a plan
vertically, linking major tasks to their assumptions, dependencies,
and potential effects. It guides a rigorous search for liabilities
precipitated by the plan itself.
When to Use
String of Pearls is best suited to a parallel planning process (see
Figure 7.15), where the staff continues to plan separately while the
Red Team independently assesses the plan, i.e., investigating effects
and assumptions. Additionally, it can be used in concert or stand
alone, i.e., an analysis of an enemy plan to surface differing
strategies. Either way, exposing critical vulnerabilities in the plan
allows the command to mitigate those liabilities.
Figure 7.15 String of Pearls – Planning Process

Value Added
At a minimum, this tool informs the command of risks
associated with the plan, identifying liabilities that need mitigation.
As a plan unfolds, factors change, unintended consequences may
occur while intended do not, and/or vulnerabilities may not endure.
This is a means to “seeing” the cumulative effects in a plan:
exposing wishful thinking, faulty assumptions, dependencies,
vulnerabilities, etc.
This tool and its procedure:
• Identifies weaknesses and risks within a plan.
• Highlights the need for sequel and/or branched plans.
• Prevents the “unanswered” or “assuming the problem
away.”
• Prompts the command to consider unintended
consequences.
The Method
Examine and visually communicate the sensitivity of the plan,
isolating the vulnerabilities and effects of the plan, according to
each task.
1. String the Pearls.
a. Identify the major tasks [pearls]:
b. Depict the pearls [major tasks] across the entire plan.
2. Grade the Pearls (see Figure 7.16).
a. Make a spider-web diagram of each pearl.
b. Identify valid assumptions, key dependencies, and
possible consequences:
i. What waves ripple from the plan?
ii. What messages are sent, and who receives them?
iii. How will they “interpret” them?
c. Group the pearls by phase, layer, objective, or other.
d. Make a diagram with all attributes vertically across the
plan.
Figure 7.16 Grade the Pearls

3. Find the Critical Pearls (see Figure 7.17).
a. Compute/tally the frequencies.
b. Specify linked cases and weigh the vertical sensitivity: a
Risk Assessment. What gets derailed? The greater the
number, the greater risk.
c. Depict attributes vertically.
Figure 7.17 Find the Critical Pearls

4. Speak to the Critical Pearls (see Figure 7.18).
a. Capture cumulative vertical consequences in need of a
closer look. Recommend revisiting these tasks or writing
branch plans to mitigate the consequences; adapt to the
time available.
b. Prepare to brief. In the end, the image must demonstrate
these findings and conclusions.
c. Highlight the key findings. Prioritize sensitive tasks, e.g.,
it may be significant if the same dependency exists in 15
of 20 tasks, or not if seven of 20 tasks invite the same
consequence.
Figure 7.18 Speak to the Critical Pearls

Caution
1. The attributes are not weighted. Ergo, two effects may
have only one arrow; yet, one might ignite a civil war (clearly
more important than running out of fuel).
2. Any task associated with an invalid assumption will be
subject to failure or risks. Furthermore, if staffs consider
assumptions that are valid but unnecessary, they position
extra work in their way, creating unnecessary roadblocks in
the process.
3. Communicate the big ideas with minimal distractions.
Apply consistent standards and naming conventions.
4. Allow sufficient time for analysis and build out. Include a
legend.
Attributes
Assumption is a fact that you do not know but must assume to
carry on the planning process. This assumption augments an
unknown and has two characteristics. It is: (a) essential to solving
the problem [necessary] and (b) likely to be true [valid].
Dependency is a fact at the time of planning, a critical
condition or precursor (predecessor) necessary for successful
execution of the task (successor). Task B can even depend on Task
A, or vice versa.
The difference is chronological. There will be planning
assumptions and execution dependencies. “Where is it listed
during mission analysis, facts or assumptions; is the answer available
at the time of the analysis?” Assumptions can be re-worded into
dependencies, but that defeats the purpose of this analysis.
[Assumption] We assume fuel will be available.
[Dependency] Our execution will depend on fuel.
1st Order Effect is the act of execution; occurs in the physical
domain.
2nd Order Effect is the feeling about the execution; occurs in
the affective domain.
3rd Order Effect is the thought about the execution; occurs in
the cognitive domain.
Cascading Effect follows a chain of causality; an If—then
pattern.
The point : Explore the potential in each change of the
environment.
For example (Somalia):
Task: Disarm populace.
1st Order Effect: Populace surrenders personal weapons.
2nd Order Effects: “I feel emasculated because we can’t protect
ourselves against the intruders.”
3rd Order Effects: Crime is rising, “I’m angry at the coalition
for taking away my ability to protect my family.”
Examples
Visit Red Team Central for more examples of the String of
Pearls. https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/ufmcs-red-team-
central/.
S-W-O-T Analysis
Military and Cultural Studies. 44 This framework, Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, is designed to view a
situation and its potential outcomes from four different perspectives.
When to Use
While SWOT can be used at any time, it is especially
beneficial early in any analysis effort. Used in conjunction with the
4 Ways of Seeing, the tool can offer powerful insight. However, give
some consideration to which of the two tools should be used first,
and which should follow.
Value Added
SWOT helps to holistically reduce personal and cultural biases.
The Method
SWOT is a framework that adds value by essentially forcing the
Red Team to think through the various perspectives of a given
situation
1. Diagram four quadrants labeled: Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, & Threats. (See figure below)
2. Brainstorm entries for
each of the four quadrants.
3. Consider the scope of
positive/negative consequences
and respective impacts between
quadrants or actors. Identify
disconnects and plausible
inferences of potential conflict.
Example
Analysts might recognize they are dealing with multiple
political leaders on an economic issue within an area and must
consider the interaction between the factions. The Red Team could
analyze the potential inferences that actively affect the region’s
economy. Given the numerous actors, multiple iterations of
SWOT Analyses with 4 Ways of Seeing would help consider factors
influencing actor behavior as well as how each actor might view the
others.
Team A / Team B Analysis

Analytic Techniques. 45 The Team A / Team B exercise is useful for
an analysis and comparison of competing points of view. In a
community or across agencies, a critical decision, longstanding
issue, or competing hypotheses obstruct effective support. Often
senior officials can learn more from weighing well-argued cases
than from reading reports that mask substantive differences.
When to Use
When the policymaking community has at least two
competing views on a key issue and is willing to commit significant
time and resources.
Value Added
This technique may surface and describe important analytic
differences within the expert community. It makes the key
information and linked assumptions more transparent.
Highlighting alternative views forces individuals to search for new
information that can confirm or disconfirm differing hypotheses. In
addition, the exercise can position individuals to argue the other
side, exposing mind-sets for further reflection.
The Method
Charter separate teams to contrast the views. Review all data to
capture essential differences and develop arguments. Judge the
merits of each, pose questions, and reach an independent verdict
on the strongest.
Analysis Phase: Conduct the exercise on an important issue to:
• Identify each competing hypothesis or point of view.
• Task a team to develop the best argument for each.
• Review pertinent information to bolster respective
hypotheses.
• Standardize each presentation with an explicit
argument, logic behind the argument, key
assumptions, and key evidence.
Debate Phase: Present and rebut each argument in parallel
fashion:
• Charter an independent jury of peers to question the
teams.
• Schedule a formal debate or an informal
brainstorming.
• Present, critique, rebut, and defend each case.
• Compile the jury’s findings, request for further
research, and/or recommendation for possible next
steps.
Think-Write-Share
Military and Cultural Studies. 46 Think-Write-Share (T-W-S) is
designed to provide users a structured approach to critically think
through any question and serves as a starting point for hearing all
voices in any discussion. This tool is very effective for enabling
critical and creative thinking.
When to Use
Groups can employ T-W-S before the employment of any ACT
and GTM tools. This sequence provides any participant in a group
discussion or meeting the time needed to independently develop
and refine original ideas before presenting them for consideration
by the group.
Value Added
Think-Write-Share is designed to mitigate fast thinking,
grandstanding, thinking aloud, spring-butts/spot-light rangers, and
the highest paid person’s opinion (HIPPO). It supports reflection,
increases reasoning, increases understanding, and creates new ideas.
The tool allows time to create space between a question being asked,
and the time an individual needs to think about it. Too often when
collaborating with others, groups are challenged with dynamics that
stifle the emergence of valuable ideas. Introverts usually develop
better thoughts on their own, while extroverts synthesize the
dialogue from others to create their improved ideas. T-W-S is the
tool often used to foster critical and creative thinking for all group
activities, no matter the size.
The Method
Facilitator: Identify a priming question for the participants to
answer. Consider using 6 Words to get the participants to think at
the core of their ideas.
Self: THINK about the question. This engages individual
thinking. WRITE down as many ideas as you can. Do not self-
censor. Continue to write and revise to develop and refine your
ideas. Transferring thoughts by writing them down forces the mind
to engage in slow thinking and reflection of your thoughts.
Group: Identify a GTM tool for the group to share each other’s
ideas in a methodical manner. SHARE your ideas in a pair or
within a small group.
Example
1. Before utilizing the tool, the facilitator is responsible for
developing a priming question for the group to answer.
The question needs to target key concepts of what the
group is focusing on – demonstrating understanding,
solving problems, building knowledge, examining
information, or making recommendations.
2. STATE: Clearly state the question - “What are the key
issues or challenges within your organization?” Provide a
specific amount of time to the group - “THINK for 5
minutes…”
3. ELABORATE: “Keep an open mind and withhold
judgment. WRITE down your ideas.”
4. SELECT: Facilitator should select the appropriate GTM
tool (Circle of Voices, 1-2-4-Whole Group, Circular
Response, etc.) that supports the outcome they are trying
to create. “We will SHARE our ideas with a Circle of
Voices.”
5. VARIATION: Facilitator can interchange Think-Write-
Share with Think-Draw-Share. If you are trying to get
participants to visualize a desired end state or complex
ideas, drawing a diagram, model, or illustration can
clarify ideas the participants are not able to express in
words.
TRIZ
Military and Cultural Studies from the work of G. Altshuller and D.
Mann. 47 TRIZ is a Russian acronym for Theoria Resheneyva
Isobretatelskehuh Zadach, which means, “Theory of Inventive
Problem-Solving.” The tool was first developed by Russian naval
officer Genrich Altshuller, who analyzed hundreds of thousands of
patents and concluded that almost all of the significant inventions
were based upon one or more of some 40 fundamental principles.
TRIZ can be an effective tool for inventive problem solving,
but it is also one of the more challenging Red Teaming tools.
Becoming proficient with it will likely require some study and
practice.
When to Use
Red Teams should use TRIZ when their organization is trying
to find a solution to a problem that appears to have contradictory
characteristics or parameters, meaning efforts to improve one will
have negative effects on the other.
For example, combat capabilities developers designing future
combat vehicles might care about the vehicles’ survivability,
mobility, and lethality, among other characteristics. In order to
enhance the vehicle’s survivability, they might opt to add more
armor. However, the additional armor would increase the vehicle’s
weight and therefore reduce its mobility. This situation, as depicted
in Figure 7.19 below, is called a Problem of Contradiction, and
would be the type of problem for which one might use the TRIZ
method.
Value Added
The TRIZ method can help problem-solvers better understand
the system with which they are dealing by facilitating a more precise
identification of the parameters and variables of a given problem.
This additional precision helps avoid the unintended consequences
that sometimes occur when complex problems are erroneously
viewed as simple or linear. TRIZ can also help problem solvers
integrate their system 1 thinking with their system 2 thinking in
order to develop a creative solution that would have otherwise
escaped them.
Figure 7. 19 Problem of Contradiction

The Method
Step 1 – Identify the Specific Problem and the
Contradictions.
It is often useful to write the problem out in a succinct narrative.
In the example above, the initial design problem might be:
How can I increase the armor protection of the tank without
decreasing its mobility?
Step 2 – Identify the Conceptual Problem
(Contradiction). Turn the specific problem into a conceptual
problem. In this step, you should make the problem generic and
identify the generic characteristics that are in conflict, using the
TRIZ matrix that can be accessed at:
www.innovation-triz.com/triz40/triz_matrix.xls
In this example, two of the characteristics that are in conflict are:
Strength (In this case, the ability of the armor to prevent
penetration by enemy projectile), and
Weight of a mobile object (In this case, the tank).
Step 3 – Identify the Appropriate Inventive Principles.
Returning to the TRIZ contradiction matrix and looking at the
intersection on the matrix of Strength as the “Characteristic to be
improved” (which is characteristic #14 down the left side) and
Weight of a mobile object as the “Characteristic that is getting
worse” (characteristic #1 across the top of the matrix), yields four
potential Inventive Principles to be explored:
# 1 Segmentation – Divide an object into independent parts
# 8 Counterweight – Compensate for the weight of an object
by combining it with another object that provides a lifting
force
# 40 Composite materials – Replace homogeneous materials
with composite ones, and
# 15 Dynamicity – a. Characteristics of an object, or outside
environment must be changed to provide optimal
performance at each stage of an operation, b. If an object is
immobile, make it mobile. Make it interchangeable, c.
Divide an object into elements capable of changing their
position relative to each other.
Step 4 – Identify the Specific Solution. Explore the
Inventive Principles and find a way to apply them to solve your
specific problem. In the case of the tank armor, the designers
utilized Inventive Principle #40 and developed a composite armor
that is lighter and stronger than homogenous steel.
Troika Consulting (Ad Agency)

Liberating Structures. 48 This technique provides participants
immediate feedback from two other group members. Through
peer-to-peer coaching, individuals provide insight, options, and
potential solutions to problems shared with each other in this small
group exercise.
When to Use
To provide options when a problem or obstacle blocks progress.
Value Added
The process typically works best when group participants have
diverse skills, knowledge, and experiences. A ten-minute time limit
for each round of consulting (time spent on each individual issue)
is preferable.
The Method
Step 1 (1-2 Minutes): Each person should individually reflect
on a challenge he/she faces, or a situation for which advice is
desired. Participants form into groups of 3-4, sitting knee-to-knee
with no obstacles separating them.
Step 2 (3-5 Minutes): The session begins with one person
acting as the client sharing an issue, while others act as consultants,
listening carefully, considering the issue. When the client has
finished speaking, the consultants ask any questions required to
clarify their understanding of the problem.
Step 3 (5-7 Minutes): The client then separates from the
group, backing up slightly or turning around, and listens (without
comment) to the consultants’ discussion. The consultants discuss
the issue as if it were their own, generating possible courses of
action, solutions, or advice. The client then provides feedback on
the potential value of the suggestions/insights generated in the
exchange. The group resets the clock, and the next participant will
take their turn as the client, until all participants have had a turn.
Caution
To fully benefit from the process, clients should listen and
absorb the consultants’ suggestions without judgment. Unlike a
typical exchange, in which we too often try to explain to others why
their suggestions will not work, attempt to solicit unbiased input
and actually consider it.
What If Analysis
Analytic Techniques .49 Expectations of what will occur often lead
to disregard of other less intuitive and less-likely outcomes. For
example, the expectation that one side in a conflict will have the
advantage of superior firepower can prevent people from asking,
"What if that is not the case?" This tool does not dwell on the
consequences of the event as much as it moves directly to showing
what to watch for. An individual or team can use this tool as a means
to uncover/explain how an event of substantial impact (negative or
positive) might unfold.
When to Use
To prepare for a critical judgment about an event, particularly
when that judgment rests on limited information.
Value Added
This tool provides the policymaker with a thoughtful caution
to accepting conventional wisdom without considering the costs
and risks of being wrong. It presents an opportunity to hedge bets,
even if an event remains unlikely. It removes the argument of
probability and shifts focus to how it occurs, suspending the debate
over likelihood to study enablers and indicators. It unveils causes of
the event and signposts for its imminence.
The Method
Clearly state the conventional analytic line, decide which
outcomes are too important to dismiss, and assume the event has
occurred, e.g., death of a leader, natural disaster, or some event that
starts a chain of others.
1. Single out triggering events that permit the scenario to
continue to unfold, making the “what if” more plausible.
Develop a chain of argumentation based as much on
logic as evidence to explain how this outcome could
have come about.
2. Specify what must occur at each stage of the scenario. In
concrete ways, “think backward” from the event.
3. Identify plausible pathways [scenarios] to the unlikely
event. Often more than one appears possible. For each
scenario:
a. Generate a list of “observable signposts” that indicate
the event is beginning.
b. Consider the scope of the positive and negative
consequences and their relative impacts.
4. Monitor the indicators developed on a periodic basis.
See Also
Premortem Analysis
Who Am I?
This ACT/GTM tool was developed by the University of
Foreign Military and Cultural Studies.50 “Who Am I?” (WAI) is a
story-telling exercise in which individual participants share
watershed moments with the group. It is not an oral biography or
resume, but rather an individual’s choice of life-changing events
that he/she perceives changed the way they think – both negative
and positive – to share. The experience requires introspection and
reflection for maximum benefit and attentive listening from other
participants. The goal is to enhance the individual’s self-awareness,
while at the same time creating cohesion and relationship bonding
within the group.
When to Use
The ideal time to use WAI is when a group is initially forming
or reforming. However, WAI may also be effective when groups
reorganize, take on new missions, or deploy.
Value Added
WAI develops relationships between members of a group that
might otherwise take months or years to develop. In many cases,
groups do not have that much time, yet high levels of trust are
required for their work environment. Sharing watershed moments
through WAI not only assists with group cohesion, but also helps
participants improve self-awareness and reflection skills.
The Method
There are four elements to the WAI activity.
First: Individuals reflect on their own watershed moments. An
effective method to accomplish this is to journal about key life
events and their meaning, thinking about which events to share
with the group. For some individuals, a drawing may be helpful to
add to the journal to express reflective thoughts and feelings.
However, the watershed moments are only shared orally; there are
no slide or other required presentations.
Second: The participants share their stories one at a time for
15-20 minutes each.
Third: This element is simple but should not be taken for
granted: listening. Other participants listen, without adding
comments, suggesting solutions, or reacting at all.
Fourth: The participants should journal on the same day they
shared their story to reflect on their WAI experience.
Optional Additions
While not used during the exercise, visuals may help
participants during the reflection portion of the exercise. The Peak
& Valley Drawing (see Figure 7.20), from David Sibbet, Visual
Meetings – How Graphics, Sticky Notes & Idea Mapping Can
Transform Group Productivity, is one way to sketch watershed
moments visually in a journal.
Figure 7. 20 Peak and Valley Drawings

Yes, And…
Military and Cultural Studies from B. Kulhan, Getting to Yes And:
The Art of Business Improv. 51 This positive technique is useful for
building upon the ideas of others to help them improve their
concept. When someone replies to an idea with “Yes, but…” it
implies the receiver did not respect the idea from the sender. It also
sends signals that the receiver is shutting down the sender’s idea,
potentially causing the sender to have a heightened emotional state.
Using this tool, every participant shares an idea, and in turn, every
participant embellishes that one idea. Each originator is responsible
for submitting the final version of their enhanced idea to the
collective knowledge at the end of the exercise.
When to Use
When seeking constructive ways to build on ideas. This
technique works best in groups of 3-4, but not larger than 6.
Value Added
This technique encourages the group to listen more fully to
each other by building on previous statements. It propagates a
collection of strong ideas.
The Method
1. Begin with everyone thinking individually about the
issue at hand.
a. Write down your thoughts.
b. Form small groups sitting knee to knee in a circle or
square.
2. Person 1 (the first person) shares their idea.
a. Person 2 (clockwise or counter) supports and
embellishes upon Person 1’s idea by starting, “Yes,
and…”.
b. Continue around the small group until everyone has
donated an embellishment to Person 1’s idea.
3. Person 2 shares their idea.
a. The small group repeats the same process, “Yes,
and…”.
4. Continue until the last person’s idea is fully embellished.
5. Submit the final version of each idea to the collective
knowledge.
End Notes
1
Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless, The Surprising Power of
Liberating Structures (Seattle: Liberating Structures Press, 2013)
2
University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies, Internal Documents
(Fort Leavenworth: UFMCS, 2018)
3
4
Taiichi Ohno, “Ask ‘Why’ Five Times About Every Matter,” (2006),
http://www.toyota-global.com/company/toyota_traditions/quality/
mar_apr_2006.html
5
6
Ken Booth, Strategy and Ethnocentrism (New York: Routledge, 2015)
7
Larry Smith, “Six Word Memoir,” (2006), https://www.sixwordmemoirs.com/
about/#story-of-six-words
8
Peter Schwartz, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an
Uncertain World (New York: Doubleday, 1996)
9
10
Richards J. Heurer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (Central Intelligence
Agency, 1999), 95-110
11
University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies, GroupJazz References -
Internal Documents (Fort Leavenworth: UFMCS, 2018)
12
13
M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley, Asking the Right Questions – A guide
to Critical Thinking (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2007)
14
15
R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without
Giving In, 2d Edition (New York: Penguin Books, 1991)
16
Alex Osborn, How to Think Up (McGraw Hill, 1942)
17
Stephen Brookfield, The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and
Responsiveness in the Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006)

18
Stephen Brookfield, The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and
Responsiveness in the Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006)
19
20
21
22
Richards J. Heuer Jr and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured Analytic
Techniques for Intelligence Analysis (Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press,
2015)
23
Morgan D. Jones, The Thinkers Toolkit: 14 powerful techniques for problem
solving (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998), 80-86.; J. Edward Russo
and Paul J. H. Schoemaker, Winning Decisions: Getting It Right the First
time (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 162
24
25
26
J. Edward Russo and Paul J. H. Schoemaker, Winning Decisions: Getting It
Right the First time (New York: Doubleday, 2001)
27
28
2015)
29
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly
Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007)
30
2015); Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time: the
Uses of History for Decision Makers (New York: The Free Press, 2011);
and J. Edward Russo and Paul J. H. Schoemaker, Winning Decisions:
Getting It Right the First time (New York: Doubleday, 2001)
31
2015)
32
Tony Buzan, Mind Map Mastery - The Complete Guide to Learning and
Using the Most Powerful Thinking Tool in the Universe (London:
Watkins Media Limited, 2018)
33
34
Geert H. Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for
Survival, Rev. and Expanded 3rd ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 6
35
2015)
36
Gary Klein PhD, The Power of Intuition: How to Use Your Gut Feelings to
Make Better Decisions at Work (New York: Currency Doubleday, 2003)
37
Morgan D. Jones, The Thinkers Toolkit: 14 powerful techniques for problem
solving (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998), 80-86
38
Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization (New York: Doubleday, 2006)
39
John M. Bryson, “What to Do When Stakeholders Matter: A Guide to
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques.” A paper presented
at the National Public Management Research Conference, 9 – 11
October 2003, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute,
Washington, DC; L. Bourne and D. Walker, “Visualizing and Mapping
Stakeholder Influence.” Management Decision Vol 43, No. 5 (2005):
649-660
40
Yukl, Leadership in Organizations (Sydney: Prentice–Hall, 1998)
41
Gerald M. Nosich, Learning to Think Things Through – A Guide to Critical
Thinking Across the Curriculum (New York: Prentice-Hall, 2001), 170
42
43
44
45
2015)
46
47
Genrich Altshuller, “40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation.”
Translated by Lev Shulyak. (2001) Worcester, MA Technical Innovation
Center; and Darell Mann, “An Introduction to TRIZ: The Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving.” Creativity and Innovation Management Vol
10, no. 2 (2001): 123 -125
48
49
2015)
50
51
Kelly Leonard and Tom Yorton, Yes, And (New York: Harper Collins, 2015)
Bibliography
Altshuller, Genrich, 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation
(Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center, 2001)
Amabile, Teresa M., Creativity in Context (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996)
Berens, Linda V., Understanding Yourself & Others: An Introduction to the 4
Temperaments, 4th Ed. (Huntington Beach, CA: Radiance House, 2010)
Booth, Ken, Strategy and Ethnocentrism (New York: Routledge, 2015)
Bourne, Lynda, & Walker, Derek; “Visualising and Mapping Stakeholder
Influence”; Management Decision 43, No. 5, 2005 pp. 649-660, RMIT
University, Australia.
Brookfield, Stephen D., The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and
Responsiveness (San Francisco: Wiley, 2015)
Browne, M. Neil, & Keeley, Stuart M., Asking the Right Questions – A Guide to
Critical Thinking (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2007)
Bryson, John, M.; “What to Do When Stakeholders Matter: A Guide to
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques”; National Public
Management Research Conference, Washington, DC, 9-11 October 2003.
Buzan, Tony, Mind Map Mastery - The Complete Guide to Learning and Using
the Most Powerful Thinking Tool in the Universe (London: Watkins
Media Limited, 2018)
Cohen, Ronald, & Naroll, Raoul, The Political System, A Handbook of Method
in Cultural Anthropology, Eds. (New York & London: Columbia Press,
1970)
Connerley, Mary L., & Pedersen, Paul, Leadership in a Diverse and
Multicultural Environment: Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005)
Cox, Taylor, Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice
(San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993)
Dacey, John S., Fundamentals of Creative Thinking (Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books, 1988)
Demarest, Geoffrey, Winning Irregular War (Fort Leavenworth: Foreign
Military Studies Office, 2014)
Fisher, Roger, & Ury, William, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without
Giving In, 2nd Ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991)
Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973)
Goodenough, Ward, Hunt, Culture, Language, and Society, 2d Ed. (Menlo Park,
CA: Benjamin/Cummings Pub, 198)
Haight, Gretchen; "Managing Diversity"; Across the Board, 27, no. 3, p. 22, 1990.
Hamlin, Kaliya, "Unconference Methods: Fish Bowl Dialogue”
(http://unconference.net/unconference-methods-fish-bowl-dialogue/)
Harris, Marvin, Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches: The Riddles of Culture (New York:
Random House, 1989)
Hofstede, Geert H., & Hofstede, Gert Jan, Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, 3rd
Ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 201)
Holyoak, Keith J., & Thagard, Paul, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995)
Heuer, Richards J., Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (Central Intelligence
Agency 1999)
Heuer, Richards J., & Pherson, Randolph, Structured Analytical Techniques for
Intelligence Analysis (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011)
Joint Chiefs of Staff, CJCSI 3126.01A. Language, Regional Expertise, and
Culture (LREC) Capability Identification, Planning and Sourcing, p. H-1
31 (The Jojnt of Staff Information Mangement Division, January 2013)
Joint Chiefs of Staff, JP 2-01.3 Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational
Environment (The Joint Staff Information Mangement Division, 21 May
2014)
Jones, Morgan D., The Thinkers Toolkit: 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem
Solving (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998)
Keirsey, David, & Bates, Marilyn, Please Understand Me: Character &
Temperament Types, 3rd Ed. (Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis, 1984)
Klein, Gary, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1999)
Kounios, John, & Beeman, Mark, The Eureka Factor: Aha Moments, Creative
Insights, and the Brain (New York: Random House, 2015)
Kluckhohn, Florence Rockwood, & Strodtbeck, Fred L., Variations in Value
Orientations (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1961)
Kulhan, Bob, Getting to Yes And: The Art of Business Improv (Redwood City,
CA: Stanford University Press, 2017)
Leonard, Kelly, & Yorton, Tom, Yes, And (New York: Harper Collins, 2015).
Levi-Strauss, Claude, The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1967)
Liberating Structures, “Including and Unleashing Everyone, 15% Solutions”
(http://www.liberatingstructures.com/7-15-solutions/)
Lipmanowicz, Henri, & McCandless, Keith, The Surprising Power of Liberating
Structures (N.p.: Liberating Structures Press, 2013)
Lubart, Todd I.; “Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future”;
Creativity Research Journal, 13, Nos. 3&4, pp. 295-308, 2001.
Mann, Darell; “An Introduction to TRIZ: The Theory of Inventive Problem
Solving”; Creativity and Innovation Management, 10, no. 2, pp. 123 -125,
2001.
Neustadt, Richard E., & May, Ernest R., Thinking in Time: the Uses of History
for Decision Makers (Riverside, CA: Free Press, 2011)
Nosich, Gerald M., Learning to Think Things Through - A Guide to Critical
Thinking Across the Curriculum (New York: Prentice-Hall, 2001)
Ohno, Taiichi. “Ask ‘Why’ Five Times About Every Matter” (http://www.toyota-
global.com/company/toyota_traditions/quality/mar_apr_2006.html)
Olton, R.M.; “Experimental Studies of Incubation: Searching for the Elusive”;
Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 9-22, 1979.
Osborn, Alex, How to Think Up (New York: McGraw Hill, 1942)
Runco, M. A., & Ivonne, C., “Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity”
In Problem Finding, Problem Solving, and Creativity, pp. 40-7, Norwood,
NJ: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1994.
Russo, J. Edward, & Schoemaker, Paul J. H., Winning Decisions: Getting it
Right the First Time (New York: Doubleday, 2002)
Salmoni, Barak A., & Eber, Paula, Operational Culture for the Warfighter:
Principles and Applications (Washington, DC: Marine Corps University,
2011)
Schwartz, Peter, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an
Uncertain World (New York: Doubleday, 1996)
Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization (New York: Random House, 2006)
Sifonis, Cynthia, & Chernoff, Adrian, & Kolpasky, Kevin; “Analogy as a Tool for
Communicating about Innovation”; International Journal of Innovation
and Technology Management, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 2006.
Smith, Larry, “Six Word Memoir”, 2006 (https://www.sixwordmemoirs.com/
about/#story-of-six-words)
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
(New York: Random House, 2007)
University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies, Internal Documents, Fort
Leavenworth: UFMCS, 2018
Wallas, Graham, Stages in the Creative Process, in the Creativity Question
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 69-73, 1976)
Wallas, Graham, The Art of Thought (New York: Harcourt, 1926)
Yukl, Gary, Leadership in Organizations (Sydney: Prentice–Hall, 1988)
Zinni, Anthony, Non-Traditional Military Missions in Capital "W" War: A Case
for Strategic Principles of War (Washington, DC: Marine Corps University,
1998)
This publication is available publicly at
https://usacac.army.mil/organizations/ufmcs-red-teaming/.
Registered All Partners Access Network users may also use
https://community.apan.org/wg/tradoc-g2/ufmcs-red-team-central/.
DISTRIBUTION
This handbook is approved for public release.
Distribution is unlimited.
Published May 2019.
Red Teaming is a flexible cognitive approach to support decision-
making, specifically tailored to each organization and each situation,
conducted by skilled practitioners, and normally conducted under a
charter from the organization’s leadership. It intertwines Applied Critical
Thinking and Groupthink Mitigation tools in a structured manner to expose
information and courses of action that may otherwise have been overlooked.
Red Teaming also requires practitioners who foster Cultural Empathy and
are committed to a continuous journey of Self-Awareness and Reflection.

Red Team Handbook 9.0 Edited 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Red Team Handbook 9.0 Edited 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Red Team Handbook 9.0 Edited 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is Red Teaming and what are its core principles?

What is Red Teaming and what are its core principles?

How can someone enroll in UFMCS courses?

How can someone enroll in UFMCS courses?

A product of the TRADOC G–2

Operational Environment Enterprise

THE ARMY’S GUIDE TO

UFMCS Red Teaming Central

Class Descriptions, Scheduling, and ATRRS Enrollment

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES................................................... vii

List of Tables and Figures

Handbook Committee Chad Mitchell

Why Do We Red Team?

What is Red Teaming?

Four Principles of UFMCS

"Only as you do know yourself can your brain

Figure 2.1 Self-Authorship Diagram

To achieve mastery; Concepts, theories,

To preserve the organism; Belonging, stability,

Table 2.1 Personality Dimensions® Needs and Values

Emotional Intelligence is both the natural ability and the

Figure 2.2 Emotional Intelligence Framework

Introspection allows us time to look inward, remove outside

"Cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete. And, worse than that,

Often, we tend toward oversimplification of cultural

When seeking to interpret, understand, or analyze a culture,

Some Definitions of Culture

Some Cultural Frameworks

Cultural Analysis for the Red Teamer

Figure 3.1 The Onion Model

Figure 3.2 Functional Systems Approach

Environment: Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills (Thousand

Applied Critical Thinking

What is Applied Critical Thinking?

The Time Factor

Recency Bias – the expectation that events and

Mirror Imaging – the expectation that others

Figure 4.1 Examples of Bias

Time for Red Teaming

Creating Space and Time

Group Dynamics and Groupthink

“The only thing harder than getting a new idea

The Creative Thought Process

Figure 6.1 Creative Thought Process - Problem Finding

Figure 6.2 Creative Thought Process - Preparation

Figure 6.3 Creative Thought Process - Ideation

Stage 4: Idea Verification

Figure 6.4 Creative Thought Process - Idea Verification

Figure 6.5 Creative Thought Process - Idea Communication

by Mark A. Runco (Norwood, NJ: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1994),

Red Teaming Tools,

Figure 7.1 Ideal Group Process

Table 7.1 ACT - GTM Matrix

Table 7.2 Four Ways of Seeing

5 Will Get You 25

Alternative Futures Analysis

Within each quadrant, we then develop colorful prospective

Analogy Suitability Analysis

COIN; saw Iraq

Table 7.3 Analogy Suitability Matrix