By Tom Parker

Tom Parker is one of the UK’s more active and experienced white water coaches. He is a Level 5 Coach, British Canoeing National Trainer and Rescue 3 International Instructor Trainer. To find out more about the courses he runs, head to www.tomparkercoaching.co.uk

The human factor #3

How flawed thinking leads to danger on the river

Welcome, again, to The Human Factor, a series of articles exploring how flawed thinking and bias leads to issues on white water. So far, we have explored our analytical and intuitive approaches to decision making, their pros and cons and some of the biases that can creep insidiously into our thinking, affecting the plans we make and the decisions we make.

The power of planning

We know that by taking time to come up with a plan before we head out to the river, we can iron out a lot of potential issues. Done appropriately, it forces us to take an analytical approach to deciding on our actions, making us consider if they really are the right thing to do. However, we have to appreciate that any plan is speculative. Whilst we can control certain elements of the plan, such as who is in the group, the equipment we take, the time we set off, etc., there are things we have no say over; the water level and the weather for example. We can mitigate against these uncontrolled variables by having a number of alternative plans for different scenarios. An obvious example is having a high water option for the eventuality that we arrive at our intended section and find that it is too high for our tastes.

All of this seems common sense but, unsurprisingly, there is a bias ready to catch us out: defaulting. This is possibly best summed up as ‘preferring what we know and knowing what we prefer’. In the example, we’ve chosen the initial section of river for a good reason. Maybe it’s our favourite section of white water. Maybe we’ve never run it before and now we’ve managed to create an opportunity. The point is; we have a desire to run that section often exacerbated by referring to it as ‘Plan A’. Therefore, by inference, alternatives will be known as ‘Plan B and C’. We’ve already introduced a bias into our thinking there by using labels that we are used to viewing in a linear form. This subtly suggests to us that B and C simply aren’t as good with the result that we will be less likely to switch plans even if it makes good sense to do so.

Familiarity with the various sections in our plans can also compound the tendency to default. If the section featured in Plan A is very familiar to us and those in Plans B and C less so, we will be less likely to change plans even when it is clearly a good decision to do so because it will require a lot of type two thinking. We’ll tend to shy away from this because we know it’s a lot more mental effort than the type one thinking we could use in a more familiar environment. Clearly, this isn’t a sound way of making a decision about going into a risky environment and yet it’s something we easily fall foul of.

The perceived scarcity of the environment also massively affects our willingness to default. The idea of scarcity of the resource is worth clarifying; by this, I mean how regularly the section has the appropriate water levels needed or how regularly we are able to create an opportunity in our busy lives to head to the section. Crucially, it’s our perception of scarcity that counts here. If we perceive that our opportunities to paddle a particular section are very limited, either through levels or time, we will be far more likely to default to our original plan, regardless of how sensible that is.

Adaptability – nothing is set in stone

The point I’m really trying to stress here is that a plan can be a valuable tool in structuring our thinking and managing risk, but only if the information it is based on is accurate and we continue to analyse our plan in action and change it if needed. The big problem with this is that it requires a lot of type two thinking, logically assessing new information as it arises. Consequently, another example of defaulting is postponing decisions; kicking the can down the road if you will. Consider the following scenario:

You and your friends have been keen to paddle a particular section of river for some time. You manage to get a free weekend and the weather looks favourable, with rain forecast. You arrive at the river to ideal levels but it is raining hard. Unfortunately, one of the drivers gets lost on the shuttle, which means that by the time the drivers return, the level has increased significantly.

The environment has changed but due to a feeling of limited opportunity, the group choose to carry on. The river is faster and more difficult than anticipated, with one of the group struggling to make the moves required. Whilst nothing serious has gone wrong yet, the signs are there and a reassessment of the plan is clearly required. At this point though, it is very easy to postpone reassessing the plan because that would require a lot of effort and we choose to believe that we can handle the situation. This highlights the human tendency to postpone decisions despite the clear need to consider our course of action.

What happens next? Who knows? Maybe a lengthy swim and a lost boat for one of the team, maybe not, maybe worse.My point is that we can massively reduce the chances of this sort of thing happening by taking time to think about what we are doing and by sharing the mental load.

Sharing the load – many heads make light thinking?

This simple strategy helps spread the effort on analysing action and coming up with solutions throughout the group. It simply requires people to be willing to ask the following questions of each other:

• What are we actually doing?
• Why are we doing it like that?
• What else could we do?

It’s straightforward and can be remarkably effective, provided we create an atmosphere in which people feel they can ask questions without being judged negatively, regardless of their experience, as it spreads the load of analysis throughout the group. It does take practice however, as those with less experience tend to exhibit a reluctance to question decisions made by those with more experience because they feel they lack the expertise. Clearly, experience is not a reliable safeguard against poor decision making and the simple act of someone asking for a decision to be explained can highlight problems and force the more experienced to take note. Predictably, there are biases that can stop this tool working and we’ll have a look at them in the next issue…