Great article CP Journal! We're sure you know that in the military, risk-assessments are some of the most misunderstood and underutilized tools in the toolbox. We have another, often misunderstood point to add that you may discuss in your book (which we will read) because it has to do with your key point on decision-making. Most people look at the purpose of risk assessments to MINIMIZE or mitigate risk. Sometimes this is the case. However, in the military context (and perhaps some other contexts like high-stakes stock trading that we are not as familiar with) the point of a risk-assessment may be to MAXIMIZE calculated risk. In short, "how much risk can I get away with?" We all know the various mottos and quotes from military history that say you can't win without taking risks. The question is, how much risk is calculated and responsible and at what point does it become excessive? How many positions can I leave undefended if I want to concentrate maximum forces for the decisive operation? Are there actions I can take that can hedge against contingencies that allow me to take even more risk? This mindset obviously doesn't apply to all disciplines but it may be a useful consideration for some, like aggressive military operations. Once again great article and we look forward to any comments you might share. We look forward to reading more from you.
While I admittedly wasn’t thinking about situations where you want to **maximize** risk when I was writing this, I absolutely agree with you. Those situations, though, demand the highest standard of assessment, which reinforces the point I was trying to make.
Using your example, the decision to leave a military position undefended (or with a minimally acceptable level of defenses) will sound much cooler in the general’s memoir detailing the successful operation than it will to the Marine or soldier receiving the order to defend the position with a skeleton guard force.
That’s obviously the leader’s prerogative, as long as it has to be considered intentionally and not left to their gut feeling. I think that further reinforces the need to be able to produce assessments fast, keep them accessible, and continually current and reflective of their situation, so they can make the decision and accept the risk thoughtfully.
If it sets that bar as the standard for combat operations, then they should be able to meet it in less consequential situations too. That is something worth developing before heading overseas!
Thanks for reading and the comment—it has gotten me thinking about a few other applications, which I appreciate.
We agree with all your points and like we said, we agree with all the points in your original article as well. In many ways our comment was just an example of what you had already said. You emphasize that the purpose of the risk assessment is to help a leader make a decision. Our comment was one example of the kind of decision a military commander might need to make where a risk assessment would be helpful. How would a commander make the DECISION of which positions to leave undefended in the example we gave? By using the exact logic and methodology you described in your original article and a good risk assessment would be critical for helping him do that. So once again we agree on all counts we were just adding some examples. Great discussion and feel free to add more insights.
Great article CP Journal! We're sure you know that in the military, risk-assessments are some of the most misunderstood and underutilized tools in the toolbox. We have another, often misunderstood point to add that you may discuss in your book (which we will read) because it has to do with your key point on decision-making. Most people look at the purpose of risk assessments to MINIMIZE or mitigate risk. Sometimes this is the case. However, in the military context (and perhaps some other contexts like high-stakes stock trading that we are not as familiar with) the point of a risk-assessment may be to MAXIMIZE calculated risk. In short, "how much risk can I get away with?" We all know the various mottos and quotes from military history that say you can't win without taking risks. The question is, how much risk is calculated and responsible and at what point does it become excessive? How many positions can I leave undefended if I want to concentrate maximum forces for the decisive operation? Are there actions I can take that can hedge against contingencies that allow me to take even more risk? This mindset obviously doesn't apply to all disciplines but it may be a useful consideration for some, like aggressive military operations. Once again great article and we look forward to any comments you might share. We look forward to reading more from you.
While I admittedly wasn’t thinking about situations where you want to **maximize** risk when I was writing this, I absolutely agree with you. Those situations, though, demand the highest standard of assessment, which reinforces the point I was trying to make.
Using your example, the decision to leave a military position undefended (or with a minimally acceptable level of defenses) will sound much cooler in the general’s memoir detailing the successful operation than it will to the Marine or soldier receiving the order to defend the position with a skeleton guard force.
That’s obviously the leader’s prerogative, as long as it has to be considered intentionally and not left to their gut feeling. I think that further reinforces the need to be able to produce assessments fast, keep them accessible, and continually current and reflective of their situation, so they can make the decision and accept the risk thoughtfully.
If it sets that bar as the standard for combat operations, then they should be able to meet it in less consequential situations too. That is something worth developing before heading overseas!
Thanks for reading and the comment—it has gotten me thinking about a few other applications, which I appreciate.
We agree with all your points and like we said, we agree with all the points in your original article as well. In many ways our comment was just an example of what you had already said. You emphasize that the purpose of the risk assessment is to help a leader make a decision. Our comment was one example of the kind of decision a military commander might need to make where a risk assessment would be helpful. How would a commander make the DECISION of which positions to leave undefended in the example we gave? By using the exact logic and methodology you described in your original article and a good risk assessment would be critical for helping him do that. So once again we agree on all counts we were just adding some examples. Great discussion and feel free to add more insights.