What to do when disaster ensues
There is no way to ease the burden.
The voyage leads on from harm to harm,
A land of others and of silence.
from "Sestina on Six Words by Weldon Kees" by Donald Justice
If we ever needed a reminder that this is a VUCA world - a strategists’ term meaning “volatile, unpredictable, chaotic, and ambiguous” - the current state of affairs in the USA’s capital city is it. Agencies, jobs, careers, funding, and polices are all being disrupted
Yet, despite the scale of the “volatile, unpredictable, chaotic, and ambiguous” change affecting the federal government and those associated with and depending on it, unexpected big change and its effects is hardly a new phenomenon.
For instance, zeroing in on my career, I see that many of the businesses with which I have been involved have been disrupted by unwelcome big change:
I worked in an aluminum rolling mill. The mill no longer exists, the company that owned it only exists in its aluminum foil brand, and domestic U.S. primary aluminum production, after peaking at approximately 4.64 million metric tons in 1980, fell by 84% to 750,000 metric tons in 2023.
I was an executive for the national trade association that represented savings and loan associations. The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s destroyed that business.
I was a print magazine editor and then I formed a publishing company that published a print magazine. The print magazine business is a shell of its former self, disrupted by social media and video.
As Donald Justice, an American poet who wrote about the universal experience of loss, reminds us, in the face of big change, we often have no choice but to set out on a risky voyage to a new place, a journey that can be burdensome, lonely, and disturbing.
Just as I did during the COVID-19 Pandemic, I feel compelled to offer up what I know as a strategist, researcher on decision making, planner, and business coach about how to function in and even succeed in a VUCA world, be it induced by COVID, Trump administration actions, LA wildfires, New Orleans shootings, DC plane crash, war, business failure, or otherwise.
Let’s break it down into four categories, as follows:
The person. When chaos and dramatic change ensue, what happens to our emotions and how does our emotional journey affect our decision making and outlook?
The pivot. Dramatic change calls many of us to let go of the old and find and pursue (and hopefully embrace) the new. Should we pivot? What is a great pivot and what’s a bad one?
The plan. Running from a past “good” state that has devolved to a “bad” state to a new state without a plan invites failure and even disaster. How should we plan for a quick pivot to reduce the risk of bad outcomes?
The process. Making the pivot demands commitment and diligent follow-through. What’s the best way to map this and manage it to get to the new, better state?
In this post, I will focus on the person.
The Person
You
should look at everything
always
with both your eyes wide open
and not forget that where there is life,
there is shade because there is sunshine,
and that after every night there is dawn.
If you’re thinking of death, look at a tree, smile.
Hope must be defended
desperately.
from “Whoever Loses Hope” by Jesús López-Pacheco
When big change and/or chaos ensue and push away what we have known, relied upon, and been working toward, we suffer a great loss.
Think about what faced the survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bomb blast or families whose savings and livelihoods were wiped out in the Great Depression.
I suggest looking at the journey of a person experiencing great loss through the prism of the the Kübler-Ross Model. In 1969, psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross wrote a ground-breaking book, On Death and Dying, in which she described the stages of emotions which are experienced by a person who is approaching death or is a survivor of an intimate death. (I learned about the Kübler-Ross Model through my late clinical social worker spouse and found it very helpful it as I journeyed through multiple emotional states after her unexpected death seven years ago.)
Since then, Kübler-Ross' model has been extended and adapted to address what people go through when they are faced with the need for great change.
Here's an exhibit that applies the Kübler-Ross Model in a way that is seems especially relevant when we are facing a big loss, great change, and chaos:
A note of caution on applying the Kübler-Ross framework: We don't necessarily move along the stages step by step. We can move into stages in a random order and may sometimes even go back to a previous stage. We may even get stuck in a stage and not move on from there.
What’s going on in our heads?
If we were supremely logical creatures, moving on from big change would seemingly be quicker and easier than it is. But, as I detail in my book, BIG DECISIONS, we humans are plagued by mental biases, traps, flaws, logic errors, and shortcuts that hinder logical decision making and lead to bad decisions. Clearly, our decision making is skewed when we are in the emotional throes mapped out by the Kübler-Ross Change Curve.
Here is a summary of what people generally think and feel and how they behave at each stage along the way and some of the biases, heuristics, and mental errors that drive us or that can be triggered.
Stage 1: Shock
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE SHOCK STAGE
We avoid seeing change, don’t recognize that there can be extreme change that will affect us, don’t see change when it is happening, and surround ourselves with people who see what we see (and don’t see what we don’t see). We think things won’t change, can’t envision a changed future, aren’t paying attention, don’t expect or plan for change, see what we want to see, and are over-optimistic.
So when big, bad change is suddenly thrust upon us in a way that we can’t ignore it, we are shocked.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT SET US UP TO BE SHOCKED ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF BIG, BAD CHANGE
Bad news avoidance. Most people see the need for change as bad news, and our tendency whether individually or in groups is to avoid bad news.
Black Swan blindness. The underestimation of the role of the Black Swan - an outlier event that is outside the realm of regular expectations because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. A Black Swan event has an extreme impact.
Change blindness. When a change in a visual stimulus is introduced and the observer does not notice it, likely due to the fundamental limitations of human attention.
Confirmation bias. We tend to subconsciously ignore or dismiss anything that threatens our world view by surrounding ourselves with people and information that confirm what we already think (Also called "myside bias.)"
Forever changeless trap. Thinking that the current condition will never change.
Future blindness. We are unable to take into account the properties of the future.
Inattention blindness. When people fail to notice unexpected salient stimuli, due to a lack of attention rather than a vision issue. This occurs when it is impossible process to all the stimuli present.
Normalcy bias. Not planning for or reacting to a disaster which has never happened before. A belief people hold when considering the possibility of a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned.
Observer effects. Being influenced by what one expects to see or desires to see. Those who expect to see something and are highly motivated to see it are more likely to see it, that is, to interpret ambiguous stimuli in a manner that's consistent with what they think or want to see.
Optimism bias. Our tendency to be over-optimistic, to overestimate favorable and pleasing outcomes.
Stage 2: Denial
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE DENIAL STAGE
We dig into our belief that what is happening can’t be true, avoid the bad news, neglect or discount the evidence of big change, and stick with our familiar beliefs. We react without thinking, try to pick apart the evidence of change, double down on our prior commitments, and ignore the new situation. We devalue the evidence of change, rationalize away opposing evidence and logical argument, stick with what we see as established norms, beliefs, or paradigms, and our past behavior, and engage in wishful thinking.
In essence, we strive to deny, bury, or discount the bad news.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT SET US UP TO DENY THE NEW REALITY OF BIG CHANGE THAT WILL UPSET OUR WORLD
Backfire effect. People can react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.
Bad news avoidance. Most people see the need for change as bad news, and our tendency whether individually or in groups is to avoid bad news.
Base-rate neglect. What has worked for us before and our propensity to apply rules generally help us function, but sometimes we erroneously apply those rules and our experience to current problems where the facts don’t apply. We neglect the less obvious evidence and go with what we see as "tried and true," even when the background information is more predictive of what will happen.
Bayesian conservatism. The tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence.
Belief bias. Our tendency to be influenced by prior knowledge about the world in evaluating conclusions and to accept them as true because they are believable rather than assessing if they are logically valid.
Disconfirmation bias. People tend to subject disagreeable evidence to more scrutiny than agreeable evidence, which they tend to accept uncritically based on prior beliefs. (Also called “motivated skepticism.”)
Escalation of commitment. A more extreme version of the sunk cost effect where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong and increased investment would not rescue the effort. (Also called the “Concorde effect” and “irrational escalation.”)
Irrationality. An action taken or opinion given with inadequate use of reason. Using the two mental systems approach of Daniel Kahneman, it is not deploying our mind’s “thoughtful” System 2 where needed and not interfering with the mistakes that “automatic” System 2 is likely to produce.
Ostrich effect. Ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Reactive devaluation. Devaluing proposals only because they seemingly come from an adversary.
Self deception. A personality trait and an independent mental state combining a conscious motivational false belief and a contradictory unconscious real belief. The process of denying or rationalizing away opposing evidence and logical argument and convincing ourselves of something so we don’t reveal that we know about our deception. Most of us are wired to have an overly positive self image, overestimate the control we have over our lives, and are unreasonably optimistic.
Semmelweis reflex. We tend to reject new evidence that contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.
Sunk-cost effect or fallacy. Our tendency to persist in achieving a goal due to already committed expenditure and investment, including effort and attention, even when the prognosis for success is poor. We tend to persist in a failing action because we are justifying our previous decision. It’s a mistake in reasoning in which the sunk costs of an activity - instead of the future costs and benefits - are considered when deciding whether to continue the activity. The greater the size of the sunk investment, the more people tend to invest further, even if the return on added investment appears not to be worthwhile. Sometimes described as "throwing good money after bad," because the resources and effort are already lost, no matter what you do now. (Also called the “investment trap” and “persistence of commitment.”)
Wishful thinking. The formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.
Stage 3: Frustration and Anger
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE FRUSTRATION AND ANGER STAGE
We see ourself as a victim and look for someone to blame, are stressed out, and jump to unwarranted conclusions. We lament the unfairness of the situation, want to resist what is happening, and find it overwhelming. We see what we want to see rather than examining the evidence. Our fear and anger are amplified and warp our judgment. Our view is that there are winners and losers and we are on the losing side.
In short, we feel attacked and vulnerable.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT COME INTO PLAY AFTER WE NO LONGER CAN DENY THAT BIG CHANGE IS UPON US
Defensive attribution hypothesis. When we accord more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe or as our similarity to the victim increases.
High stress. Creates a higher rate of perception errors and bad decisions.
Jumping to conclusions. Judging or deciding something minus all the facts and therefore reaching unwarranted conclusions. Poor decisions can result when we draw a conclusion without acquiring sufficient relevant evidence, provided the time was available to acquire and assess the evidence and the effort to get the evidence was justifiable.
Just-world hypothesis. The tendency for people to believe that the world is fundamentally just and fair, which leads to the viewpoint that the morality of our actions determines our outcomes, i.e., those who do good will be rewarded and those who do evil will be justly punished.
Reactance. How a person tends to think or act when they perceive a threat to their freedom. The tendency is to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
Salience bias. Our tendency to focus on and make judgements based on items or information that are more prominent or emotionally striking while ignoring items or information that do not grab our attention.
Selective perception. What we expect influences what we perceive. We tend to perceive things based on our frame of reference and process sensory information in a way that favors one category or interpretation over another. This can lead to bias because we are more likely to attend to information that aligns with our existing values and beliefs.
Stimulated limbic system. We tend to make more perception errors and worse decisions when we are anxious, stressed, in pain, in a state of fear, angry, depressed, and in an emotional state.
There's got to be a winner trap. Misapplying the idea of winners and losers to situations that do not call for winners and losers. Viewing a situation as a zero-sum game that splits the existing pie rather than seeing win-win solutions that grow the pie.
Stage 4: Depression
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE DEPRESSION STAGE
We are stuck between the old and the new, and see only what has befallen us. We think things will not change for the better and can’t see a better future. We see ourself as a loser for being in the position we are in. The big change and its impact on us fills our thoughts. We see anything we might do as likely to make things worse. We dwell on our losses and previous losses. We don’t see a way out of our situation and are pessimistic about things to come. We regret our actions and inaction and can’t see things getting better.
This stage is the low point, where we finally accept that the old is gone but don’t see where to go from here.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT AFFECT US IN THE DEPRESSION STAGE
Cognitive dissonance avoidance. Avoiding the discomfort of trying to hold two competing ideas or theories in our head at the same time. We want our attitudes and behavior to be in harmony. When there is dissonance between our attitudes or behaviors, we seek to eliminate the dissonance by, for example, by changing our thinking to match our actions.
Focalism. Paying too much attention to the central event and overlooking surrounding events that will affect the central event’s impact.
Forever changeless trap. Thinking that the current condition will never change.
Future blindness. We are unable to take into account the properties of the future.
Guilt by association. Opposing someone's reasoning because of who they are, often because of what group they are associated with. When a person is said to be guilty of error because of the group with whom they associate. (Also called “opposition.”)
Impact bias. People often overestimate the intensity and duration of an event that affects them.
Loss aversion or avoidance. We tend to treat losses as more important than gains when directly compared to or weighed against each other. This asymmetry leads us to focus more on avoiding losses than on obtaining gains.
Mood-congruent memory bias. Information recall is affected by our current mood. We tend to more easily remember events that match our current mood.
Narrow framing. When projects or choices are evaluated one at a time, rather than in an overall portfolio. This can lead to an extreme unwillingness to take risks.
Pessimism bias. Some people, especially those suffering from depression, tend to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.
Regret. Because people dislike feeling regret and have great regret about things they can fix, regret motivates people to act. When people feel regret or to avoid regret, they are highly likely to act.
Shrunk life effect. When we expect a setback, we tend to overestimate how long we will be disappointed. We don’t recognize that humans adjust to setbacks.
Stage 5: Experimentation
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE EXPERIMENTATION STAGE
Healthy humans are not likely to get stuck in the depression stage. We want to do something, so we try things. Our mind recalibrates to accept small gains as progress. We see that others are doing things and that we ought to be trying, as well. Acting helps resolve our discomfort because it demonstrates that we want to move on. We look for immediate wins because we don’t yet have a clear picture of our future. We think we are a better person than one who wallows in loss. Our small wins provide evidence that things may not be as bad as we thought. We start pushing ahead. As we try things, the pain of our big loss starts to fade and how we view our big loss is tempered by our small wins. We sense that our luck may be changing. Acting helps dissipate our regret over what happened. We are drawn to action because we see that we don’t have much more to lose.
In the Experimentation Stage, we start to see possibilities and begin to feel and test our way out of the pit of depression.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT LEAD US TO AND DRIVE EXPERIMENTATION
Action-oriented bias. Our tendency to favor action over inaction, whether it is to our benefit.
Adaptation level. The mental reference point we use in decision making for evaluation. Outcomes better than the reference points are seen as gains. Those below the reference point are losses.
Categorization. We naturally gather examples over time and put them into mental categories that we devise. We match the incoming information with some prior example in our memory that shares some of the characteristics of the new information. (Also called “similarity matching.”)
Cognitive dissonance avoidance. Avoiding the discomfort of trying to hold two competing ideas or theories in our head at the same time. We want our attitudes and behavior to be in harmony. When there is dissonance between our attitudes or behaviors, we seek to eliminate the dissonance by, for example, by changing our thinking to match our actions.
Current moment bias. We tend to favor immediate payoffs over later payoffs. When exposed to the possibility of two positive outcomes, we most often opt for the shorter-term outcome. We have difficulty imagining ourselves in the future and changing our behaviors and expectations accordingly, We desire to enjoy pleasure now and to delay pain. This leads us to make choices today that our future selves would prefer we had not made. (Also called “hyperbolic discounting” and “present bias.”)
Dunning–Kruger effect. Our tendency to hold overly favorable views of our intellectual and social abilities relative to others. We overestimate how much we possess desirable qualities, relative to others, or underestimate our negative qualities relative to others, to bolster self-esteem. (Also called "above average effect," "illusory superiority," “inability to self assess,” “Lake Wobegon effect,” "leniency error," "primus inter pares effect," “sense of relative superiority,” and "superiority bias.")
Exaggerated expectation. When real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than expectations.
Force can do It trap. Thinking that we can force a solution on a situation.
Immune neglect. After an emotional event, people tend to rationalize it to make sense of it, which dampens its emotional impact.
Misinformation effect. Memory of an event becomes less accurate because of interference from information received after the event. In essence, we tend to incorporate post-event information into our memory of the event, even if that information is incorrect.
Positive expectation bias. Our sense that our luck has to change, and that good fortune is on the way. It contributes to the "hot hand" misconception in games. It ignores the fact that repetitions of many things are independent events – what’s already occurred has no bearing on what will occur.
Regret. Because people dislike feeling regret and have great regret about things they can fix, regret motivates people to act. When people feel regret or to avoid regret, they are highly likely to act.
Risk seeking. People tend to want to take on risk when faced with a low probability of gains or a high probability of losses.
Stage 6: Decision
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE DECISION STAGE
Our experimentation shows us the way forward and the validity of this way is reinforced as we work with it and talk about it. Our small wins appear to give us an edge and we see these wins as evidence that we are on the right track. We are no longer fixated on the big change that befell us but rather on our new course. What we are now doing is beginning to feel normal. We envision good outcomes from our new course and commit to it. We discount how things might not go well and are optimistic about obtaining positive results. In our moment of commitment, our new wins fill our mind rather than our prior big loss. We have reframed our situation to be one offering hope and progress. The continuing wins that our decision will produce are most salient in our mind. We see the course we have chosen as aligned with our values and beliefs.
Simply, time and experimentation lead us to a new path. Moving away from our loss, we decide to take this path.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT BRING US TO MAKING A DECISION ABOUT OUR FUTURE
Anchoring effect. Our tendency to compare and contrast only a limited set of items because we tend to fixate on a value or number that in turn gets compared to everything else.
Availability cascade. A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing public repetition.
Cumulative advantage. An initial advantage follows someone and can compound. The effect of reputation developed through luck. We benefit from past successes. (Also called the “Matthew effect.”)
Experimenter's bias. The tendency for experimenters to promote data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to diminish data that seem to conflict with their expectations.
Fading affect bias. The emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades faster than the emotion associated with positive events.
Mere exposure effect. Our tendency to like something merely because of our familiarity with it.
Observer effects. Being influenced by what one expects to see or desires to see. Those who expect to see something and are highly motivated to see it are more likely to see it, that is, to interpret ambiguous stimuli in a manner that's consistent with what they think or want to see.
Optimism bias. Our tendency to be over-optimistic, to overestimate favorable and pleasing outcomes.
Planning fallacy. Our tendency to underestimate task-completion times, due to the optimism bias and the ease of imagining a successful outcome versus all the things that could go wrong.
Positive expectation bias. Our sense that our luck has to change, and that good fortune is on the way. It contributes to the "hot hand" misconception in games. It ignores the fact that repetitions of many things are independent events – what’s already occurred has no bearing on what will occur.
Recency effects. The more recent our experience is with a piece of information, the more it tends to influence us. We tend to be most influenced by what we have last seen or heard.
Reframing. Changing the way we look at situations, experiences, events, ideas, or emotions and, thus, changing our experience of them.
Salience bias. Our tendency to focus on and make judgements based on items or information that are more prominent or emotionally striking while ignoring items or information that do not grab our attention.
Selective perception. What we expect influences what we perceive. We tend to perceive things based on our frame of reference and process sensory information in a way that favors one category or interpretation over another. This can lead to bias because we are more likely to attend to information that aligns with our existing values and beliefs.
Stage 7: Integration
WHAT WE THINK AND FEEL AND HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE INTEGRATION STAGE
We become our own champion because we have climbed out of the pit and set a new course. The agony and lack of clarity about the path ahead fade from our memory. We feel like our whole self again, acting in ways that are consistent with our long-standing beliefs and commitments. We did it! Our growing success says a lot to us about our worth. We feel like we are back in familiar mental territory. We believe that we found the best course using our knowledge and skill and that luck played little in the result. We are back to a status quo worth defending because we have invested in it and it is bringing desirable results.
Although what we are doing is different than what we were doing before big, bad change befell us, we feel like we are whole again and our focus is on the future.
MENTAL TRAPS AND BIASES THAT FOSTER OUT SENSE OF BEING A WHOLE PERSON OF VALUE
Champion bias or effect. People’s tendency to evaluate a plan or proposal based on the track record of the person presenting it more than on the facts supporting it.
Choice-supportive bias. The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were. (Also called "rosy retrospection.")
Commitment heuristic. Our tendency to believe that a behavior is correct to the extent that it is consistent with our prior commitments. This helps us avoid the need to constantly rethink how to respond when a new situation presents itself.
Egocentric arrogance or bias. When people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would credit them for. Also, recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one's grades as being better than they actually were. We tend to rely too heavily on our own perspective, and to claim more success and have a higher opinion of ourself than reality would confirm are appropriate. We seem to need to boost our ego.
Expectation bias. When an individual's expectations about an outcome influences perceptions of their or others' behavior.
Familiarity heuristic. Our tendency to believe that our behavior is correct if we have done it before. We use our past actions as proof that a behavior is appropriate.
Illusion of control. We tend to overestimate our degree of influence over external events.
Opportunity costs. The forgone benefits that would have accrued from an option that was not chosen. People tend not to recognize that when they do anything they are paying an opportunity cost for it, because they could have been doing something else instead.
Post hoc interpretation. We create stories to explain results after the fact. We see an effect and come up with a plausible cause. The problem is that we don’t really know how much of the result can be attributed to skill and how much to luck.
Reversion to the mean. When an outcome that is extreme is followed by one that is closer to the average. Systems that involve a lot of luck revert to the mean for the group over time. (Also called “regression to the mean.”)
Status quo bias. We tend to normalize our current situation as our reference point and defend and reinforce the status quo, leading us to view deviations from the status quo as riskier, less desirable, or too much effort. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged, even at the expense of individual and group self-interest. (Also called “system justification.”)
Sunk-cost effect or fallacy. Our tendency to persist in achieving a goal due to already committed expenditure and investment, including effort and attention, even when the prognosis for success is poor. We tend to persist in a failing action because we are justifying our previous decision. It’s a mistake in reasoning in which the sunk costs of an activity - instead of the future costs and benefits - are considered when deciding whether to continue the activity. The greater the size of the sunk investment, the more people tend to invest further, even if the return on added investment appears not to be worthwhile. Sometimes described as "throwing good money after bad," because the resources and effort are already lost, no matter what you do now. (Also called the “investment trap” and “persistence of commitment.”)
Where are you on the curve?
If you have been walloped by unwanted big change, whether it be Trump administration actions, LA wildfires, New Orleans shootings, DC plane crash, war, business failure, or something else, I hope this interpretation of the Kübler-Ross Change Curve helps you see where you are in finding normalcy and what’s ahead.
At the least, know that you are not alone in your thoughts and emotions and that it’s highly likely that there will be sunshine on the other side.
In future offerings on the theme of adapting to big change, look for insight on making the pivot to something better, how to plan for a great pivot, and how to map and manage your follow-through to get to the new, better state.
