System Maintenance: Scheduled from 21 Feb 1600 - 21 Feb 2100 GMT Users may experience intermittent degradation of APAN applications and services.

Fault vs. Possibility

Might as well get this conversation started...

 

I once had a Red Team leader who frequently claimed a Red Team’s job was to tell people they are wrong. Red Team engagements led by that individual had little positive impact on the command. Why should that be the case?

 

When we enter into discussions thinking our purpose is to find fault, we create a negative atmosphere. People form ideas and models of reality that they embrace as their own. That sense of ownership leads to negative emotions when others question or find fault with those ideas or models. Quite simply, most people don’t like being told they’re wrong because claiming fault in an idea is often seen as claiming fault in the person who came up with the idea.

 

Short of teaching people to divorce themselves from their ideas (a gargantuan task), how can we engage as a Red Team without the stigma of being known as the people who swoop in and tell everyone they’re wrong? Instead of challenging or taking something away (a person’s belief in their idea), focus on providing them with something new.

 

If you need a new vehicle and are told you can choose between a black car and a white car, you might be perfectly content. On the other hand, how would you feel if someone then came in and told you that you could choose from blue, red, yellow, green, silver, or gold as well, and that you weren’t limited to a car, but could choose from a car, truck, SUV, or motorcycle? Would you like it when people reveal new possibilities or provide additional options? Most people would, even if they decide in the end that the white car is the one that suits their needs the best.

 

Red Teaming can be a similar endeavor, focusing on providing people with options they didn’t realize they had instead of on potential faults of the choices they already considered. Red Teams would develop much more positive reputations if people thought of them as a way to reveal options and possibilities instead of as a way to find mistakes, especially when pointing out those mistakes is seen as finding fault in the people who made them.

  • Wade Forbes
    Neil, this is an excellent perspective. To further your point, Bryce Hoffman captured in his book that Steve Rotkoff said, "Don't be an a$$hole! If there is one red teaming rule you should never break, that is it. You can be smart. You can be critical. You can be contrarian. You can be right. But don't be a jerk about it." Later in that section, Hoffman reminds his readers that red teams are "only successful if they make the rest of the organization successful, too. And a red team can only do that if it works with the rest of the organization, rather than against it."

    During my years a red teamer, I have challenged myself by wondering if it's possible to red team with strangers? A dominant part of my approach towards successful red teaming is outreach and relationship building because quite frankly, people who know you are more likely to listen (notice I didn't say change their mind) to you and your perspective.

    Thank you for posting this.
  • Anthony Alfidi
    The art of selling someone on making a needed change is to make them think it was their own bright idea in the first place. "Sir/Ma'am, here are the recommended improvements you directed us to identify. We can help you implement them so the organization looks great, as you've repeatedly emphasized in your guidance."
Related