Welcome back to The CP Journal, where we break down what it takes to get left of bang.
Bottom Line Up Front
There’s a point when people stop simply talking about how they feel their environment is changing and begin changing their lives to account for it.
They avoid places they used to visit, and they decline opportunities they previously would have accepted. They change their routines and invest in security to reduce their exposure to potential conflict.
Over the past two weeks, I heard versions of these decisions from executives, organizational leaders, and corporate security and public safety practitioners from different industries and in different parts of the country.
What struck me was how openly people discussed them, as though everyone understood why they were necessary.
A Quick Primer on Atmospherics
In the Tactical Analysis Program and in Left of Bang, we use the term atmospherics to describe the collective mood of an area.
An area with positive atmospherics is one where people generally feel comfortable and safe. In an area with negative atmospherics, people may be tense, uncomfortable, or concerned about their safety. We can assess these conditions by observing how people behave as individuals and how they interact with one another.
There are two reasons why we pay attention to atmospherics.
First, understanding the collective mood helps us establish a baseline for what normal behavior looks like in the area you are in. With that baseline established, we can begin looking for individuals whose behavior doesn’t fit.
Second, we want to recognize when the collective mood itself begins to change. These atmospheric shifts can become apparent when people alter their behavior in response to something they’re seeing, experiencing, or perceiving in their environment.
Both observations are valuable, but it’s the second one I’ve been thinking about following my recent travels.
When people change their behavior, they’re providing us with an indication that something about their environment has become significant enough to warrant a response.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the threats they are perceiving are increasing or that their concerns are justified, but their decisions tell us something important about how they understand their operating environment.
And increasingly, I’m seeing examples of people making those decisions.
What People Are Doing Differently
I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to suggest that we’re experiencing negative atmospherics across parts of our society. Anger, hostility, and a willingness to engage in conflict have become familiar topics of conversation.
What interested me during these recent conversations, though, were the ways people described changing their behavior in response to this negative collective mood.
For example:
People withdrawing from events. I spoke with multiple executives who have stopped participating in certain public speaking engagements or at large events, particularly when those events also included other figures who might attract controversy. Their concern is that the potential security risks outweigh the benefits of participating.
People concealing organizational affiliations. I heard from individuals who routinely remove company/organization-branded clothing before traveling, going home from work, or visiting public areas. Some described previously being caught in confrontations simply because of the organization they worked for.
People increasing their security. I met with executives from multiple organizations that are evaluating or increasing security measures at their offices, homes, and other places where they regularly spend time.
These were different conversations, involving different organizations and circumstances. And while I could list additional examples, the specific precautions aren’t necessarily the most important part of what I observed.
What I found to be significant is that people are accepting changes to their routines, limiting certain activities, and investing resources to avoid situations they believe could become threatening with far less resistance than I previously saw. There is a meaningful difference between someone commenting that people seem angrier today and someone deciding to stop doing something they’ve done for years because of that anger.
In the first case, they’re describing their perception of the environment. In the second, that perception has become consequential enough to dictate a change in how they work or live their life.
But even that wasn’t the most interesting part of these conversations.
When Nobody Needs an Explanation
What stood out to me was how comfortable people were discussing these decisions with their peers.
There was very little effort to justify the precautions they were taking or explain why they believed them to be necessary. People spoke openly about declining opportunities, avoiding certain situations, and increasing security, seemingly confident that others would understand their reasoning.
The discussions weren’t necessarily about whether taking these precautions were appropriate or necessary. They were matter-of-fact conversations about what they were doing today and what other changes they were considering.
It was this social dynamic that I don’t know if I’ve seen before.
We might expect someone to explain an unusual decision, particularly one that comes with a financial cost, or personal inconvenience, or professional consequence. When someone changes a longstanding routine, there’s often an expectation that they will explain why.
But when those changes become familiar enough that people don’t feel the need to explain them, we might be seeing a situation where the degree of negative atmospherics has risen to new baseline levels, or what happens when a negative collective mood is present for an extended period of time.
Consider an executive who stops accepting public speaking engagements. On its own, that’s a personal decision based on their assessment of the environment. But when that executive can discuss the outcome (the declined event), without first explaining the conditions (a lacking sense of safety), and have the decision be immediately understood by their peers, it suggests a shared perception about what is necessary in today’s operating environment.
It is no different with someone saying how they take off their company jacket before going out in public. When something that might have previously seemed like an unnecessary precaution is met by head nods and a chorus of “me too,” it shows consensus. Consensus about how to avoid unnecessary conflict AND the need to do it in the first place.
Importantly, I don’t know how recently these behaviors began, nor would I suggest that a series of conversations establishes a nationwide trend. But when people begin treating protective behavior as ordinary, it tells us a lot about the environment they have come to expect.
So What?
I’ve been thinking about what happens if the precautions people described stop being temporary responses and become routine parts of how they live and work.
At what point does declining one public event turn into avoiding those events altogether?
When does removing a company jacket become second nature?
When does additional security become a standing expectation rather than a response to a specific concern?
Each of those decisions may be entirely reasonable for the person or organization making them, but they also have consequences beyond addressing an immediate security concern.
When leaders withdraw from public events, there are fewer opportunities to engage with the people and communities they serve.
When employees feel the need to conceal who they work for, it changes how they interact with the public.
When heightened security becomes a more visible part of everyday life, it influences the way others perceive the safety of the environment.
I’m particularly interested in, and concerned about, what happens when people no longer view these changes as precautions or adaptations. What happens when they simply become how things are done?
That is worth paying attention to because the longer people operate under the assumption that certain activities or interactions are unsafe, the more those assumptions may influence their future decisions. But atmospherics can shift in either direction. Just as the collective mood can turn negative, it can also become positive.
As we work to keep ourselves, our families, our organizations, and our communities left of bang, we need to recognize changes in the collective mood in both directions. The precautions people take can tell us a great deal about how they perceive their environment, so can the precautions they no longer feel the need to take.
Not significantly different than what big-city cops do on a daily basis and have done for at least decades. And when the Army sent me TDY overseas, you simply didn’t wear your uniform off post, and you made sure that you got the terrorism brief and updates—this in the days before GWOT. I’m not sure what that says about the current conditions, but it does give some benchmarks for comparison.