July 14, 2025 • 23 mins
Episode: 00275 Released on July 14, 2025 Description: In this ninth installment of the Before You Leap series on Analyst Talk with Jason Elder, Jason and Randy tackle the complex dynamics of collaboration in law enforcement analysis. They explore the challenges analysts face in task forces, commissions, and working groups—where critical thinking is essential but often constrained by deadlines, group dynamics, and institutional bias. Randy unpacks the influence of identity politics, information silos, and organizational satisficing, emphasizing the importance of candor, humility, and structured analytic techniques. Together, they reflect on how analysts can maintain mission integrity, question assumptions, and navigate collaboration without losing sight of objectivity. Whether you're a line analyst or a team leader, this deep dive offers essential insights for staying grounded in purpose while working with others. 🎧 Listen, share, and keep talking! [Note: Description produced by ChatGPT.] Get to know more about Randy by listening to his episode on Analyst Talk With Jason Elder: https://www.leapodcasts.com/e/atwje-randy-stickley-the-self-promoter/
Name Drops: Related Links: Rethinking Thought https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DJ82G1PL/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Secrets-Mark-M-Lowenthal/dp/1544325061 davecariens.com Book on Amazon https://mattheweaton.net/posts/9-commandments-of-intelligence-analysis-the-kent-analytic-doctrine/ Association(s) Mentioned: Vendor(s) Mentioned: Contact: randall.c.stickleyii@gmail.com; https://www.linkedin.com/in/randall-stickley-36b0a5109/ Transcript: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/36rs8j6zz95ixkyt/BYL09_transcript.pdf Podcast Writer: Podcast Researcher: Theme Song: Written and Recorded by The Rough & Tumble. Find more of their music at www.theroughandtumble.com. Logo: Designed by Kyle McMullen. Please visit www.moderntype.com for any printable business forms and planners. Podcast Email: leapodcasts@gmail.com Podcast Webpage: www.leapodcasts.com Podcast Twitter: @leapodcasts
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Analyst Talk with Jason Elder.
(00:01):
It's like coffee with an analyst,or it could be whiskey with an
analyst reading a spreadsheet,linking crime events, identifying a
series, and getting the latest scoopon association news and training.
So please don't beat that analystand join us as we define the law
enforcement analysis profession.
One episode at time.
How we doing?
Analyst.
Jason Elder here with another LEA podcast.
(00:22):
Deep dive before youleap with Randy Stickley.
Randy, how we doing?
Hey, Jason.
Good, good.
Long time.
No here, bud.
There was a pretty big gap betweenepisode eight and now episode nine,
and, as I'm recording this, I just.
Released episode eight.
So it, it seems like it's fresh inmy mind, but I do know that I've
(00:45):
been hard at work and my spacingbetween recording and publishing
has ballooned to like two months.
So it's been quite a spring.
Into the summer for me.
Yeah.
Tell, tell me about it bud.
I mean, I think the last time we saw eachother was what my first conference bit
this year in March at North Carolina.
Yeah.
(01:05):
Yeah.
And I am glad I am and I'm gladyou're still talking to me after
being neighbors at the hotel andwaking you up early in the morning
to see if you had any toothpaste.
'cause I ran out.
And
I've heard neighbors offercome by and ask for a sugar.
Hey, can I use.
(01:26):
Hey Randy, do you have any toothpaste?
Was a first.
Yeah, I am, but that's good.
It's a memory.
No, , my wife says there'sno end to my neediness, so
I, I think
my wife has said somethingsimilar, but you know that.
They, they get to say that.
All right.
Very good.
Well, I am glad we're still talking.
(01:46):
I'm glad we're still forgingahead with before you leap.
So before you leap, you should what today,
before you leap, you should understandthat mission integrity isn't
guaranteed with silence or ceremony.
We've touched on topics verysimilar to this premise.
We talked about this evenplanning this session, this
was probably, oh God, episode.
(02:08):
Four or five, it's, it'ssomewhere in the mesh.
They're all starting to blend togetherbecause there is a code message
here is that critical thinking is aSwiss army, not only for analysts,
but leaders of analysts and thosethat are positions that kind of
necessitate people or cognitive process.
But where this stems from, quitehonestly, I. Comes from just some
(02:30):
personal observation as well asprofessional that colleagues, peers
that I work with, the nine to five spaceas well as kind of tele professional
at large space that many times themission or the goal of whatever shop
the analytic law enforce, or committee,what have you that mission may get.
Sideline.
Now, when I say sidelined, it kind offelt there's an entire conversation
(02:52):
we can have there about the idea ofMichigan, but I'm not quite going.
What I'm going into issomething a little more chronic.
Systemic is something thatreally has reared its ugly head.
Fight our changes post nine 11.
The idea of identity, politics,proximity, or even personality.
We referenced this, Ibelieve, a couple episode.
Personalities play a huge role,collaborative environment, and
(03:15):
there's no way around that.
Mm-hmm.
Basically, you and I get along aretrue nerds for this profession.
Mm-hmm.
But beyond that, I think we have someMarvel likes and dislikes but you
may have different personal feelingsabout sports, about music, about food,
and the same thing applies to me.
So sometimes those.
Personality traits, they will overwhelmand override good collaborative work.
(03:37):
And that doesn't just happenat the line analyst level.
This happens at idea that thingsare done, information siloed, and
I know that's a big buzz word.
It kind of gets folks backs up againstthe wall when we talk about that
because that's a big thing that rearedits head after acquisition report.
We've tried to mitigate those,particularly at the home level
and to some extent level, but.
(03:57):
As time goes on, as we get a littlefurther from that thriving force that
got us into that mindset, we start toslip back into it one, just because,
'cause the idea that applying criticalthought or critically asset role within a
profession at large start to default back.
What makes you and what have we saidthroughout this entire series that we are.
Flawed especially are creaturesthat depend on a base bias and kind
(04:22):
of mission to get us through life.
But that, well, so, and I talkabout this and I, I referenced this
to some colleagues before, but.
There's a really good Mark Lowenthalquote that came from one of my
favorite books on the professionintelligence Secrets to Policy.
Mark Lowenthal has this reallygreat quote, I'm gonna read it now.
He stated that tone and rigor ofintelligence work are said not by
(04:46):
structure, but by by those who understandthat quality intelligence as much on
culture and openness as the access.
So when we do things in an informationsilo or an echo chamber in.
Outgroup kind of perspective.
You're not really opening the doorfor what we call cy or objective.
You start to kind of retreat tosome of these biases that we have.
(05:08):
We've talked about, talked aboutthings such as confirmation biases,
which could even kind of flow anauthority bias where we think that
a, a governing body or an author.
Posture automatically the right oneto go with because of title as of
position, and not because of knowledgeor collaboration, or the idea of
organizational satisfies, which I'mso glad I didn't butcher that word
(05:31):
because I, I have it in my notes here.
I underlined it three timessatis, but effectively that we're
just going with a party line.
Going with a, an organization, like I saidat the beginning, just because it's a norm
doesn't necessarily crack a lot of folks.
And I'll go with a very basic example.
Look at Jim Crow areaof the United States.
A lot of what was being donein the south a lot of folks saw
(05:53):
that as, hey, it's the norm down.
Mm-hmm.
But casual racism and.
Ent.
Racism for that matter wasn't good.
It's not a due just because it's acultural norm didn't make it right.
So with that being said, alot of those unchecked biases
will start to proliferate.
They will start to tribute tomaybe a degraded the mission,
Amis of the aperture with the.
(06:15):
Final goal in mind or even kind of anorganization or professional failing
overall that, so thinking about this,critical thinking does have a play
here, not just at the leadershiplevel, but all the way down line.
I have a big champion for this,and I will continue to say this
just because you're a line analyst.
Does not mean that you don't have,especially if it's one that's based
(06:37):
in facts or is offering some kind ofcontract as opposed to just sitting on
your hands going, well, they said so.
So what I often thought about is allof structured analytics techniques area
or SAT assumption checks that we oftenthink about in these types of roles.
Any times these norms are based onconjecture or maybe haphazard information,
but even forming a mental checklist of,okay, well what, where has this come from?
(07:00):
Where.
C or devil's advocate could be a,a great a as well, quite honestly.
I love contrarian techniques simplybecause it offers that external
perspective or perceived perspective.
If you're somebody that's part of thatorganization, part of that, that are
part of that, but then there's also theidea of red teaming, starbursting and
(07:20):
so many other aspects where we couldlend external cognitive abilities to
objectively look at this and go, yeah,we're not on track anymore, folks.
We're not necessarily achievingthe goal that we set out to do.
And more often than not,many people don't like.
Perceived failure as a leader, perceivedfailure as a unit A, but more often
(07:43):
than not, it's a recommendation so wecan get back on track and actually do.
Which is lend that analytic a businessendeavor, national security entity,
or even private security, make surethat something bad doesn't happen.
Someone has an actionable insight, andthen hopefully an end goal or an end
result enacted upon based on our, again,from large professional scale, this
(08:04):
could be something as simple as makinga more fuel environment for folks to
share information, making a more fuel.
For Rife environment for the nextphase, start honing their skill.
Maybe they won't be a leader within theirprofession or within their unit, but
they would become that person at large.
And Jason and I speaking at conferences,you have podcasts, I go to conferences
and the books and everything.
(08:25):
And there's different ways to go about,sometimes you have to mind folks that
it's not always about speaking inthat echo chamber and speaking in a.
Organizational satisficing way, but moreoften than not, trying to cultivate the
next cadre or the next ball of leadersthat are going to be innovative thinkers,
great collaborators, utilize those corecritical skills with some of these sh
(08:46):
that I as a way to correct mitigateform other biases from professional
level and then ultimately lead us to amore, use that word a lot, but that's.
Truly the only thing that I can think,how do we get a closer harm analytics?
Hmm.
So there's a lot there, right?
Yes.
That's a, that's a, that's a big meatymeatball as someone once told me.
So I think where my mind is heading is.
(09:11):
The role of the analyst in a collaborativeenvironment, whether that be a
commission, a working group, a task force.
There is this stated goal for whatthis group is supposed to achieve.
It's amazing the more criticalthinkers you get in the room, , the
bigger the ballooning gets interms of what is discussed and.
(09:38):
The scope.
These leaders of these types ofgroups have to try to meet deadlines
and keep the group on point.
So then you have a situation though,where some of the points being brought
up are very valid and should be flushedout, but the group either doesn't have
the time, resources, or energy to do it.
And so there's, this idea.
(10:00):
That, okay, you want me to be a criticalthinker, but we also have to fit in
this box in fitting this timeline.
So it's very frustrating that we're tryingto flush out everything to make sure
we covered everything, but at the sametime, we are handcuffed by the timeline.
(10:21):
Yeah, you raised a bunch ofgreat points supporting that.
And then you also gave me a word.
One of the things that you have tobe really careful about is if you
don't know, oh, this is one of thesebig fos that I, I hate to see from
anyone, let alone someone in political.
But if there is ambi on cancer and say.
I will get back.
(10:42):
I used to train people.
That was one of the biggest that I usedto have a problem with was people that
along the way, what's the big, verymilitude of this particular problem?
And they go well.
And they would try to muddle through it.
Say, oh, I'll find thatanswer and get back.
I used to train people, we used to gothrough briefings and fake briefings
where they would say the same thingand it's like, okay to say I don't part
(11:02):
of that transit aspect now that could.
Play into the authority biasthat we talked about earlier.
Where is this perception?
'cause someone has a positionof leadership, acts in form
of leadership, or has a shifttitle, they have to have the end.
I learned this a long time ago, evenfrom my first analytic boss, that the
leaders always don't have the answer.
Sometimes you would say something or comeup with a question that even stumped.
(11:25):
A team lead, a director, a deputydirector, or what have you, and I can even
speak from my nine to five perspective.
There are time my team memberswill come to me and ask me a
question as I don't have the heartor the professional board bs.
You can ask any one of them.
I will say, Hey, I'm not thatlearned on that yet, but I'll get
back to that is a nice little verbalcontract state that I have the.
Candor and the kind of obligation toshare information, to share insights,
(11:50):
to collaborate further, and I think alot of folks miss that, particularly
whenever they get a fancy title ora, a seat of perceived power under
their belts, because that's justsomething that we're accustomed to.
To, and that's a whole notherpsychological discussion that
I think we would have to get a,a clinical psychologist in here
to talk about complex touch.
, Yeah.
Because I think, I think it's definitelyhard for analysts , to turn it off
(12:13):
and turn off the critical thinking andsometimes to, we're we're told so often
to think outside the box in some scenarioyou have to, you not, not go down so
many rabbit holes and stay focused.
And as I mentioned, the moreplayers you get involved in on the
team, the more complex it can be.
(12:34):
It falls into play there that everydecision of the working group commission
task force has the potential of having abias because either the, group is voting.
To go in a certain direction or theleader is making a decision that leads
the group into a certain direction.
(12:56):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think it's also not only importantfrom an organizational health standpoint
now, organization being any collection ofpeople that work on this kind of centric
goal, but also we've talked about thisbefore and you hit on it, but analytic.
Help from the analyst back what doesthis do from the, the kind of fervor
(13:16):
that someone lends to a project,the kind of it tenacity somebody
has, or the passion somebody has?
I know not many people are passionateabout some task forces that
they're a part of because mm-hmm.
The very graphic andviolent nature of some, but.
For those that are true nerds,which I would argue about, anyone
who becomes full are a cognitivenerd, whether you realize it or not.
(13:38):
And it's a proud badge to wear,but they'll start to degrade that,
that will start to erode and it'salmost leading and gets, I, I use the
analogy on suck right outta your sail.
Mm-hmm.
Or just a boat in adult boat.
And I think that's one of theworst feelings ally to have.
And if we were going to get pastthat, we really need to start having
more candid conversations about.
(14:00):
Better collaboration, better inclusivity,better communication overall.
So I think those are some big bedrocksthat lend themselves to committees,
task groups, everything talked about.
Yeah,
I think the advantage of thetask force is at least there's
normally a target involved.
You know what, you know what?
You'd be surprised though.
I mean, sometimes people like tohaggle, like, oh, it's this target.
(14:22):
Well, no, it's a secondarytarget over here.
But that's that, that's part of a, sitcomin my head that I live with constantly.
Yeah, and I, I think the, theidea of questioning assumptions,
status quo and norms, yes.
I, I think this can be particularlydifficult in these situations.
(14:43):
This, this, I. Collaborative environmentbecause you are also working with
people that it's, their identity.
You're dealing with either theirjob or their status or their title
or their responsibility, and.
It may be a situation where criticallythinking about their position or
(15:08):
maybe stuff that they did or theirresponsibility as part of this,
and of course, it's just naturalfor humans to get defensive when
you're gonna start questioning.
Their roles, responsibilities,their past actions.
Let's talk a little bit about thatportion of this, dealing with just
(15:29):
humans and people's emotions asyou're trying to critically think you
have to take into account like what.
People's roles are in this group.
Absolutely.
And no one likes to be questioned.
If you have poured so much personalbandwidth into a project topic
or a mission, like we said inthe very beginning of all this.
(15:50):
Mm-hmm.
No one likes to be questioned.
However, when it comes to thosequestions, rather than getting
defensive and, and I'm guilty of this,I'm sure you are, and just mm-hmm.
Every list is.
It's almost one of those times yougotta take a step back, take a vote.
You know what, only way aroundthis is to tell the truth.
Only way around this tocandid share that information.
Also share where some of those short.
Mm-hmm.
And I think that's also an occupationalprofessional blind spot that we have.
(16:15):
And I don't know if we're gonna.
Through it soon, but people feellike if they're not the one with all
the answers room, then they failed.
And I'm here to tell you that's afallacy, that that is a self-imposed bias.
That we know if, if we all kneweverything about every topic, then
our roles are either gonna be utterlysuperfluous or nothing bad ever happened.
Mm-hmm.
That's superfluous nature be that weknow everything, therefore nothing
(16:38):
can happen without us knowing.
Mm-hmm.
But then also you render yourself.
I think that candidness or I feelthat this should be a bigger,
bigger part of this from the lineanalyst, your leaders and everything.
So this, conversation reminds merecently interviewed David Cariens for
his new book, outrageous InvestigatingMass Shootings, and which he goes
(17:01):
into the book, his frustrationswith commissions that he was on to
investigate mass shootings in Virginia
It's interesting what a commissionor a group, what they're tasked
to do because they're normally,they are trying to identify issues
in order to change the future.
(17:23):
Okay, this is how do, how dowe do it better the next time?
One of David's frustrations that hequickly experienced with the commissions
is there was a consensus in the groupthat they didn't want to hash out
all the details of the shootings.
They felt that it wasreinvestigating , what had happened.
Not that you're questioning every little.
(17:44):
Motive or whatever happenedin critical times, right?
There's certain times whereyou can't have democracy.
A decision has to be made and you makethe decision it's one person's decision.
You don't have time to get 17 opinions onthe matter, given that in that particular
time period, when you're at the commissionlevel, when, you're at this time where
(18:05):
you're reviewing what happened in orderto change policy and parti procedure,
that is very much the time to review.
And state what happened, what went wrong?
Or maybe not even wrong, butmaybe like, okay, the in, in the
future we need to do it this way.
We're gonna, we need to tweak that.
But it's, but it's difficultbecause again, people don't
(18:28):
want to relive the past.
They only want to move forward.
But it's, it's almost that thinglike how do you move forward when
you're not going to review the past?
There is that the old adage that Ithink's been overused the hell that,
those who don't know their past feed it.
But I will say, and I'll go toanother big tenant in the intelligence
(18:48):
thought space, particularly from the
ethics of intelligence space.
Going back to Sherman, Kent's ethics,one of the biggest principles that
he preached was having that candidadmission of shortcoming, not thinking,
you're infallible, not sitting.
There you are, you.
I'll take a line fromdead, not analytic, Jesus.
You're, you're somebody who can havefaults, and that's perfectly fine, as
(19:09):
long as you know what that fault was.
Prove upon that.
And carry forward with thatnew line of thinking, I think
really hit on that there.
But I think it's definitely worth givingthe Sherman tent buzzword out there
because quite honestly, it's somethingthat every analytic profess should
truthfully have in the forefront they workon, whether it be a product, a working
group, task force, or anything else.
. All right.
(19:29):
Very good.
This is obviously a, apretty intense topic.
Lots to go over.
One of the things that also remindsme of that I've talked to several
people that were part of real timecrime centers or fusion centers, is.
Just how many rabbit holes doyou go down as you're trying to
work on something in real time?
(19:50):
And how, when, when do you stop?
When do you start when does the returnon investment no longer be there?
As we're gonna wrap up here, we don'thave a, a recipe for the listeners, right?
Right.
There's no recipe to say like, Hey,when you're in these situations with
collaboration, you should do X, Y, and z.
(20:12):
Critical thinking, but you shouldn'tgo overboard and do A, B, and C.
So it isn't something that we cangive you a special recipe for.
This is very abstract topic theinteresting part of this conversation
is it gets into the biases, it gets intopersonalities, and it gets into group,
(20:35):
dynamics, there's a lot there that weobviously can , go into, but I just gonna
wanna bring us back a little bit andkinda summarize us and give us some final
thoughts as we finish up this episode.
Yeah, no, I, I completely agree.
There's, there's definitely a lot,you know I know a lot of colleagues of
mine say there's a lot of meat on thebone, but I think we have a really good
(20:56):
foundation for understanding what this.
Our grounded kind of problem is a lotof our discussions, we try to ground
'em, but I think this one in particular,we're, we're speaking more at the, in
the weeds kind of perspective, whichis great, but I wanna make sure that
we lend proper time and due diligenceto the discussion of how does this
impact e everything in the analyticperspective, particularly for the analyst.
(21:19):
So.
One thing I will say is how do you knowwhere enough's enough, and we talked about
this, I even think the last episode aboutwhat's the, what's the burnout look like?
When you start feeling like you'renot getting anywhere and you're not
making any headway, that's where yougotta take that professional fortitude
kind of step back and go, I'm not.
Producing, I don't feel anything, orI'm not necessarily or conversely, even
(21:44):
getting too attached to it, there'sthat removal of the objectivity.
So I think another great point movingforward maybe another conversation
is what does that fortitude look likeand how does that lend itself to some
of these principles that we've talkedabout for the last eight, nine episodes.
Yeah.
Alright.
So we want to hear from you on the topic.
So if, listen to this and youwant to give your own perspective,
(22:06):
we'd love to hear from you.
You can either comment on oursocial media, LinkedIn, Facebook X,
or any of the association forums.
You can also email us atlea podcasts@gmail.com.
All right, Randy.
Let's do a nice little summaryas best we can to finish up this.
(22:29):
So before you leap, you should what?
Before you leap, you should understandthe mission and not let you know.
Silence.
Identity politics or any other meansof bias or avenues of bias, throw you
off of that mission and objectivity.
All right.
Well, very good.
Appreciate your time as always, Randy.
(22:50):
Until next time, think before you leap.
Thank you,
Jason.
Talk to you soon, bud.
All right, take care.
Bye.
Thank you for making it tothe end of another episode of
Analyst Talk with Jason Elder.
You can show your support by sharingthis and other episodes found
on our website@wwwpodcasts.com.
If you have a topic you would likeus to cover or have a suggestion for
(23:12):
our next guest, please send us anemail at Elliot podcasts@gmail.com.
Till next time, analysts, keep talking.
Welcome to Analyst Talk with Jason Elder.
(00:01):
It's like coffee with an analyst,or it could be whiskey with an
analyst reading a spreadsheet,linking crime events, identifying a
series, and getting the latest scoopon association news and training.
So please don't beat that analystand join us as we define the law
enforcement analysis profession.
One episode at time.
How we doing?
Analyst.
Jason Elder here with another LEA podcast.
(00:22):
Deep dive before youleap with Randy Stickley.
Randy, how we doing?
Hey, Jason.
Good, good.
Long time.
No here, bud.
There was a pretty big gap betweenepisode eight and now episode nine,
and, as I'm recording this, I just.
Released episode eight.
So it, it seems like it's fresh inmy mind, but I do know that I've
(00:45):
been hard at work and my spacingbetween recording and publishing
has ballooned to like two months.
So it's been quite a spring.
Into the summer for me.
Yeah.
Tell, tell me about it bud.
I mean, I think the last time we saw eachother was what my first conference bit
this year in March at North Carolina.
Yeah.
(01:05):
Yeah.
And I am glad I am and I'm gladyou're still talking to me after
being neighbors at the hotel andwaking you up early in the morning
to see if you had any toothpaste.
'cause I ran out.
And
I've heard neighbors offercome by and ask for a sugar.
Hey, can I use.
(01:26):
Hey Randy, do you have any toothpaste?
Was a first.
Yeah, I am, but that's good.
It's a memory.
No, , my wife says there'sno end to my neediness, so
I, I think
my wife has said somethingsimilar, but you know that.
They, they get to say that.
All right.
Very good.
Well, I am glad we're still talking.
(01:46):
I'm glad we're still forgingahead with before you leap.
So before you leap, you should what today,
before you leap, you should understandthat mission integrity isn't
guaranteed with silence or ceremony.
We've touched on topics verysimilar to this premise.
We talked about this evenplanning this session, this
was probably, oh God, episode.
(02:08):
Four or five, it's, it'ssomewhere in the mesh.
They're all starting to blend togetherbecause there is a code message
here is that critical thinking is aSwiss army, not only for analysts,
but leaders of analysts and thosethat are positions that kind of
necessitate people or cognitive process.
But where this stems from, quitehonestly, I. Comes from just some
(02:30):
personal observation as well asprofessional that colleagues, peers
that I work with, the nine to five spaceas well as kind of tele professional
at large space that many times themission or the goal of whatever shop
the analytic law enforce, or committee,what have you that mission may get.
Sideline.
Now, when I say sidelined, it kind offelt there's an entire conversation
(02:52):
we can have there about the idea ofMichigan, but I'm not quite going.
What I'm going into issomething a little more chronic.
Systemic is something thatreally has reared its ugly head.
Fight our changes post nine 11.
The idea of identity, politics,proximity, or even personality.
We referenced this, Ibelieve, a couple episode.
Personalities play a huge role,collaborative environment, and
(03:15):
there's no way around that.
Mm-hmm.
Basically, you and I get along aretrue nerds for this profession.
Mm-hmm.
But beyond that, I think we have someMarvel likes and dislikes but you
may have different personal feelingsabout sports, about music, about food,
and the same thing applies to me.
So sometimes those.
Personality traits, they will overwhelmand override good collaborative work.
(03:37):
And that doesn't just happenat the line analyst level.
This happens at idea that thingsare done, information siloed, and
I know that's a big buzz word.
It kind of gets folks backs up againstthe wall when we talk about that
because that's a big thing that rearedits head after acquisition report.
We've tried to mitigate those,particularly at the home level
and to some extent level, but.
(03:57):
As time goes on, as we get a littlefurther from that thriving force that
got us into that mindset, we start toslip back into it one, just because,
'cause the idea that applying criticalthought or critically asset role within a
profession at large start to default back.
What makes you and what have we saidthroughout this entire series that we are.
Flawed especially are creaturesthat depend on a base bias and kind
(04:22):
of mission to get us through life.
But that, well, so, and I talkabout this and I, I referenced this
to some colleagues before, but.
There's a really good Mark Lowenthalquote that came from one of my
favorite books on the professionintelligence Secrets to Policy.
Mark Lowenthal has this reallygreat quote, I'm gonna read it now.
He stated that tone and rigor ofintelligence work are said not by
(04:46):
structure, but by by those who understandthat quality intelligence as much on
culture and openness as the access.
So when we do things in an informationsilo or an echo chamber in.
Outgroup kind of perspective.
You're not really opening the doorfor what we call cy or objective.
You start to kind of retreat tosome of these biases that we have.
(05:08):
We've talked about, talked aboutthings such as confirmation biases,
which could even kind of flow anauthority bias where we think that
a, a governing body or an author.
Posture automatically the right oneto go with because of title as of
position, and not because of knowledgeor collaboration, or the idea of
organizational satisfies, which I'mso glad I didn't butcher that word
(05:31):
because I, I have it in my notes here.
I underlined it three timessatis, but effectively that we're
just going with a party line.
Going with a, an organization, like I saidat the beginning, just because it's a norm
doesn't necessarily crack a lot of folks.
And I'll go with a very basic example.
Look at Jim Crow areaof the United States.
A lot of what was being donein the south a lot of folks saw
(05:53):
that as, hey, it's the norm down.
Mm-hmm.
But casual racism and.
Ent.
Racism for that matter wasn't good.
It's not a due just because it's acultural norm didn't make it right.
So with that being said, alot of those unchecked biases
will start to proliferate.
They will start to tribute tomaybe a degraded the mission,
Amis of the aperture with the.
(06:15):
Final goal in mind or even kind of anorganization or professional failing
overall that, so thinking about this,critical thinking does have a play
here, not just at the leadershiplevel, but all the way down line.
I have a big champion for this,and I will continue to say this
just because you're a line analyst.
Does not mean that you don't have,especially if it's one that's based
(06:37):
in facts or is offering some kind ofcontract as opposed to just sitting on
your hands going, well, they said so.
So what I often thought about is allof structured analytics techniques area
or SAT assumption checks that we oftenthink about in these types of roles.
Any times these norms are based onconjecture or maybe haphazard information,
but even forming a mental checklist of,okay, well what, where has this come from?
(07:00):
Where.
C or devil's advocate could be a,a great a as well, quite honestly.
I love contrarian techniques simplybecause it offers that external
perspective or perceived perspective.
If you're somebody that's part of thatorganization, part of that, that are
part of that, but then there's also theidea of red teaming, starbursting and
(07:20):
so many other aspects where we couldlend external cognitive abilities to
objectively look at this and go, yeah,we're not on track anymore, folks.
We're not necessarily achievingthe goal that we set out to do.
And more often than not,many people don't like.
Perceived failure as a leader, perceivedfailure as a unit A, but more often
(07:43):
than not, it's a recommendation so wecan get back on track and actually do.
Which is lend that analytic a businessendeavor, national security entity,
or even private security, make surethat something bad doesn't happen.
Someone has an actionable insight, andthen hopefully an end goal or an end
result enacted upon based on our, again,from large professional scale, this
(08:04):
could be something as simple as makinga more fuel environment for folks to
share information, making a more fuel.
For Rife environment for the nextphase, start honing their skill.
Maybe they won't be a leader within theirprofession or within their unit, but
they would become that person at large.
And Jason and I speaking at conferences,you have podcasts, I go to conferences
and the books and everything.
(08:25):
And there's different ways to go about,sometimes you have to mind folks that
it's not always about speaking inthat echo chamber and speaking in a.
Organizational satisficing way, but moreoften than not, trying to cultivate the
next cadre or the next ball of leadersthat are going to be innovative thinkers,
great collaborators, utilize those corecritical skills with some of these sh
(08:46):
that I as a way to correct mitigateform other biases from professional
level and then ultimately lead us to amore, use that word a lot, but that's.
Truly the only thing that I can think,how do we get a closer harm analytics?
Hmm.
So there's a lot there, right?
Yes.
That's a, that's a, that's a big meatymeatball as someone once told me.
So I think where my mind is heading is.
(09:11):
The role of the analyst in a collaborativeenvironment, whether that be a
commission, a working group, a task force.
There is this stated goal for whatthis group is supposed to achieve.
It's amazing the more criticalthinkers you get in the room, , the
bigger the ballooning gets interms of what is discussed and.
(09:38):
The scope.
These leaders of these types ofgroups have to try to meet deadlines
and keep the group on point.
So then you have a situation though,where some of the points being brought
up are very valid and should be flushedout, but the group either doesn't have
the time, resources, or energy to do it.
And so there's, this idea.
(10:00):
That, okay, you want me to be a criticalthinker, but we also have to fit in
this box in fitting this timeline.
So it's very frustrating that we're tryingto flush out everything to make sure
we covered everything, but at the sametime, we are handcuffed by the timeline.
(10:21):
Yeah, you raised a bunch ofgreat points supporting that.
And then you also gave me a word.
One of the things that you have tobe really careful about is if you
don't know, oh, this is one of thesebig fos that I, I hate to see from
anyone, let alone someone in political.
But if there is ambi on cancer and say.
I will get back.
(10:42):
I used to train people.
That was one of the biggest that I usedto have a problem with was people that
along the way, what's the big, verymilitude of this particular problem?
And they go well.
And they would try to muddle through it.
Say, oh, I'll find thatanswer and get back.
I used to train people, we used to gothrough briefings and fake briefings
where they would say the same thingand it's like, okay to say I don't part
(11:02):
of that transit aspect now that could.
Play into the authority biasthat we talked about earlier.
Where is this perception?
'cause someone has a positionof leadership, acts in form
of leadership, or has a shifttitle, they have to have the end.
I learned this a long time ago, evenfrom my first analytic boss, that the
leaders always don't have the answer.
Sometimes you would say something or comeup with a question that even stumped.
(11:25):
A team lead, a director, a deputydirector, or what have you, and I can even
speak from my nine to five perspective.
There are time my team memberswill come to me and ask me a
question as I don't have the heartor the professional board bs.
You can ask any one of them.
I will say, Hey, I'm not thatlearned on that yet, but I'll get
back to that is a nice little verbalcontract state that I have the.
Candor and the kind of obligation toshare information, to share insights,
(11:50):
to collaborate further, and I think alot of folks miss that, particularly
whenever they get a fancy title ora, a seat of perceived power under
their belts, because that's justsomething that we're accustomed to.
To, and that's a whole notherpsychological discussion that
I think we would have to get a,a clinical psychologist in here
to talk about complex touch.
, Yeah.
Because I think, I think it's definitelyhard for analysts , to turn it off
(12:13):
and turn off the critical thinking andsometimes to, we're we're told so often
to think outside the box in some scenarioyou have to, you not, not go down so
many rabbit holes and stay focused.
And as I mentioned, the moreplayers you get involved in on the
team, the more complex it can be.
(12:34):
It falls into play there that everydecision of the working group commission
task force has the potential of having abias because either the, group is voting.
To go in a certain direction or theleader is making a decision that leads
the group into a certain direction.
(12:56):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think it's also not only importantfrom an organizational health standpoint
now, organization being any collection ofpeople that work on this kind of centric
goal, but also we've talked about thisbefore and you hit on it, but analytic.
Help from the analyst back what doesthis do from the, the kind of fervor
(13:16):
that someone lends to a project,the kind of it tenacity somebody
has, or the passion somebody has?
I know not many people are passionateabout some task forces that
they're a part of because mm-hmm.
The very graphic andviolent nature of some, but.
For those that are true nerds,which I would argue about, anyone
who becomes full are a cognitivenerd, whether you realize it or not.
(13:38):
And it's a proud badge to wear,but they'll start to degrade that,
that will start to erode and it'salmost leading and gets, I, I use the
analogy on suck right outta your sail.
Mm-hmm.
Or just a boat in adult boat.
And I think that's one of theworst feelings ally to have.
And if we were going to get pastthat, we really need to start having
more candid conversations about.
(14:00):
Better collaboration, better inclusivity,better communication overall.
So I think those are some big bedrocksthat lend themselves to committees,
task groups, everything talked about.
Yeah,
I think the advantage of thetask force is at least there's
normally a target involved.
You know what, you know what?
You'd be surprised though.
I mean, sometimes people like tohaggle, like, oh, it's this target.
(14:22):
Well, no, it's a secondarytarget over here.
But that's that, that's part of a, sitcomin my head that I live with constantly.
Yeah, and I, I think the, theidea of questioning assumptions,
status quo and norms, yes.
I, I think this can be particularlydifficult in these situations.
(14:43):
This, this, I. Collaborative environmentbecause you are also working with
people that it's, their identity.
You're dealing with either theirjob or their status or their title
or their responsibility, and.
It may be a situation where criticallythinking about their position or
(15:08):
maybe stuff that they did or theirresponsibility as part of this,
and of course, it's just naturalfor humans to get defensive when
you're gonna start questioning.
Their roles, responsibilities,their past actions.
Let's talk a little bit about thatportion of this, dealing with just
(15:29):
humans and people's emotions asyou're trying to critically think you
have to take into account like what.
People's roles are in this group.
Absolutely.
And no one likes to be questioned.
If you have poured so much personalbandwidth into a project topic
or a mission, like we said inthe very beginning of all this.
(15:50):
Mm-hmm.
No one likes to be questioned.
However, when it comes to thosequestions, rather than getting
defensive and, and I'm guilty of this,I'm sure you are, and just mm-hmm.
Every list is.
It's almost one of those times yougotta take a step back, take a vote.
You know what, only way aroundthis is to tell the truth.
Only way around this tocandid share that information.
Also share where some of those short.
Mm-hmm.
And I think that's also an occupationalprofessional blind spot that we have.
(16:15):
And I don't know if we're gonna.
Through it soon, but people feellike if they're not the one with all
the answers room, then they failed.
And I'm here to tell you that's afallacy, that that is a self-imposed bias.
That we know if, if we all kneweverything about every topic, then
our roles are either gonna be utterlysuperfluous or nothing bad ever happened.
Mm-hmm.
That's superfluous nature be that weknow everything, therefore nothing
(16:38):
can happen without us knowing.
Mm-hmm.
But then also you render yourself.
I think that candidness or I feelthat this should be a bigger,
bigger part of this from the lineanalyst, your leaders and everything.
So this, conversation reminds merecently interviewed David Cariens for
his new book, outrageous InvestigatingMass Shootings, and which he goes
(17:01):
into the book, his frustrationswith commissions that he was on to
investigate mass shootings in Virginia
It's interesting what a commissionor a group, what they're tasked
to do because they're normally,they are trying to identify issues
in order to change the future.
(17:23):
Okay, this is how do, how dowe do it better the next time?
One of David's frustrations that hequickly experienced with the commissions
is there was a consensus in the groupthat they didn't want to hash out
all the details of the shootings.
They felt that it wasreinvestigating , what had happened.
Not that you're questioning every little.
(17:44):
Motive or whatever happenedin critical times, right?
There's certain times whereyou can't have democracy.
A decision has to be made and you makethe decision it's one person's decision.
You don't have time to get 17 opinions onthe matter, given that in that particular
time period, when you're at the commissionlevel, when, you're at this time where
(18:05):
you're reviewing what happened in orderto change policy and parti procedure,
that is very much the time to review.
And state what happened, what went wrong?
Or maybe not even wrong, butmaybe like, okay, the in, in the
future we need to do it this way.
We're gonna, we need to tweak that.
But it's, but it's difficultbecause again, people don't
(18:28):
want to relive the past.
They only want to move forward.
But it's, it's almost that thinglike how do you move forward when
you're not going to review the past?
There is that the old adage that Ithink's been overused the hell that,
those who don't know their past feed it.
But I will say, and I'll go toanother big tenant in the intelligence
(18:48):
thought space, particularly from the
ethics of intelligence space.
Going back to Sherman, Kent's ethics,one of the biggest principles that
he preached was having that candidadmission of shortcoming, not thinking,
you're infallible, not sitting.
There you are, you.
I'll take a line fromdead, not analytic, Jesus.
You're, you're somebody who can havefaults, and that's perfectly fine, as
(19:09):
long as you know what that fault was.
Prove upon that.
And carry forward with thatnew line of thinking, I think
really hit on that there.
But I think it's definitely worth givingthe Sherman tent buzzword out there
because quite honestly, it's somethingthat every analytic profess should
truthfully have in the forefront they workon, whether it be a product, a working
group, task force, or anything else.
. All right.
(19:29):
Very good.
This is obviously a, apretty intense topic.
Lots to go over.
One of the things that also remindsme of that I've talked to several
people that were part of real timecrime centers or fusion centers, is.
Just how many rabbit holes doyou go down as you're trying to
work on something in real time?
(19:50):
And how, when, when do you stop?
When do you start when does the returnon investment no longer be there?
As we're gonna wrap up here, we don'thave a, a recipe for the listeners, right?
Right.
There's no recipe to say like, Hey,when you're in these situations with
collaboration, you should do X, Y, and z.
(20:12):
Critical thinking, but you shouldn'tgo overboard and do A, B, and C.
So it isn't something that we cangive you a special recipe for.
This is very abstract topic theinteresting part of this conversation
is it gets into the biases, it gets intopersonalities, and it gets into group,
(20:35):
dynamics, there's a lot there that weobviously can , go into, but I just gonna
wanna bring us back a little bit andkinda summarize us and give us some final
thoughts as we finish up this episode.
Yeah, no, I, I completely agree.
There's, there's definitely a lot,you know I know a lot of colleagues of
mine say there's a lot of meat on thebone, but I think we have a really good
(20:56):
foundation for understanding what this.
Our grounded kind of problem is a lotof our discussions, we try to ground
'em, but I think this one in particular,we're, we're speaking more at the, in
the weeds kind of perspective, whichis great, but I wanna make sure that
we lend proper time and due diligenceto the discussion of how does this
impact e everything in the analyticperspective, particularly for the analyst.
(21:19):
So.
One thing I will say is how do you knowwhere enough's enough, and we talked about
this, I even think the last episode aboutwhat's the, what's the burnout look like?
When you start feeling like you'renot getting anywhere and you're not
making any headway, that's where yougotta take that professional fortitude
kind of step back and go, I'm not.
Producing, I don't feel anything, orI'm not necessarily or conversely, even
(21:44):
getting too attached to it, there'sthat removal of the objectivity.
So I think another great point movingforward maybe another conversation
is what does that fortitude look likeand how does that lend itself to some
of these principles that we've talkedabout for the last eight, nine episodes.
Yeah.
Alright.
So we want to hear from you on the topic.
So if, listen to this and youwant to give your own perspective,
(22:06):
we'd love to hear from you.
You can either comment on oursocial media, LinkedIn, Facebook X,
or any of the association forums.
You can also email us atlea podcasts@gmail.com.
All right, Randy.
Let's do a nice little summaryas best we can to finish up this.
(22:29):
So before you leap, you should what?
Before you leap, you should understandthe mission and not let you know.
Silence.
Identity politics or any other meansof bias or avenues of bias, throw you
off of that mission and objectivity.
All right.
Well, very good.
Appreciate your time as always, Randy.
(22:50):
Until next time, think before you leap.
Thank you,
Jason.
Talk to you soon, bud.
All right, take care.
Bye.
Thank you for making it tothe end of another episode of
Analyst Talk with Jason Elder.
You can show your support by sharingthis and other episodes found
on our website@wwwpodcasts.com.
If you have a topic you would likeus to cover or have a suggestion for
(23:12):
our next guest, please send us anemail at Elliot podcasts@gmail.com.
Till next time, analysts, keep talking.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!