Intuition in Risk: Can you Trust Your Gut? Part 1

Uncertainty, ambiguity, confusion, time-pressure, and continuous and sometimes direct threats - the cross-cultural risk environment is a shockingly difficult one to be immersed in, trying to do ministry (often complex projects in challenging environments) as well as manage a household, cook entirely from scratch, and raise a family, all in a foreign language and culture far away from family, with the goal of furthering the Good News.

Many times I had this secret question, "What's a nice girl like me from a farm in Minnesota doing here having to evaluate what Islamic militants will potentially do next and how can I protect my children?" College and pre-field did not prepare me for this!

Usually, a few things need to be in order almost immediately when faced with this environment:  Remembering one's calling, tools to navigate emotions (see Chapter 10 in Facing Danger), and then a good night's sleep so that decisions are made with one's best energy in the risk environment.

While we need to always be listening for the Holy Spirit's leading, the role of intuition, "a gut feeling," should not be dismissed.  There are some specific aspects to when we should "lean in" to what our intuition is telling us, and other situations when it would be less wise.

Firstly, listening to one's intuition does not mean that we can ignore responsible Risk Assessment and Management (RAM), also discussed in Facing Danger and elsewhere. This step cannot/should not be ignored simply as a stewardship principle and to responsibly be able to answer the partners and stakeholders back home, as well as God Himself when we see Him. 

Agility in decision making is an important skill in Risk decision making, although we can learn the RAM method quite fast and do it on the back of a napkin in order to "see" more clearly through all the ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty of risk as described at the beginning.

(Neal and I have strong opinions on the importance of Agility in conducting RAM, because some of the software out there provided for leaders in cross-cultural risk is too difficult and time-consuming.  RAM needs to be able to be done by any of the 445,000 cross-cultural workers world wide.  A housewife should be able to do RAM based on the probability analysis of the 4 factors and taking into account the 6 pages of stewardship outlined in the RAM Action Guide.)

 But sometimes, we've done RAM analysis, we are listening to the Holy Spirit, but we still don't feel we have clear leading.  Then what?

This is where our intuition, our gut feeling may come in. Sometimes, intuition may lead us to make decisions that contradict our deliberate reasoning, and it turns out we were right in that case. Gut feelings enable us to make the quick decision that needs to be made. 

The Gaze Heuristic is often used in both baseball and in aviation.  This "rule of thumb" is defined in baseball as:  "Fix your gaze on the ball, start running, and adjust your running speed so that the angle of gaze remains constant."  In popular wisdom in the field, this concept would be implemented in evaluating one threat over another.  One legitimate threat may attract our attention, but sometimes, our gut will tell us we should be watching another one more closely.  The example used for this is the example of U.S. policy discussions:

When U.S. Senator Russ Feingold noted that the Bush administration was clamping down on Iraq while Al-Qaeda was bubbling up elsewhere, he said, "I would ask you, Secretary Wolfowitz, are you sure we have our eye on the ball?"

This would be a good rule of thumb to apply to the current cancerous spread of Jihadi cells around the world, especially in light of the recent killing in New York by the Uzbek Isis sympathizer.

The gaze heuristic (also called a gaze "rule of thumb) simplifies complex decision making and ignores an amazing amount of information to focus only one aspect of a decision rationale. This unconscious thought, or intelligence is when we make a judgment:

1. That appears quickly in consciousness, 
2. whose underlying reasons we are not fully aware of, and
3. is strong enough to act upon. 

Gut feelings consist of simple rules of thumb which take advantage of the capacities of the brain. This approach to decision making helps when there isn't time to weigh all the pros and cons, and decisions need to be made in an extremely fluid environment (often the risk environment).  It also helps to simplify extremely complex problems and should not be dismissed, even by the most logical and trained folks in the group. But again, self-awareness is important here, especially so that one's emotions are taken into account.  Gut feelings are separate from our emotions, and are often unexplainable.

It's important to realize that making a gut decision is not usually acceptable in our agencies and even in a court of law. But everyone uses gut feelings, or "hunch," or just a "knowing," and this is clearly and scientifically proven to be different that the Holy Spirit's leading, because everyone has a gut feeling but not everyone has the Holy Spirit indwelling.

Part 2 - More on when to use Gut Feelings and when not to: Less is More:

This blog post based on Chapter 1 of "Gut feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious" by Gerd Gigerenzer.

Personality Type for RMT/CRT (Risk Management Teams and Crisis Response Teams)

It will come as a surprise to most that I do not feel I am the best suited person, personality-wise, to be a member of a Crisis Response Team, or even a Risk Management Team. I love writing about risk, researching risk, thinking through exegetically how the Bible can specifically help us address Cross-Cultural Risk analysis, management, as well as stewardship issues. I also love consulting on risk because it helps me think through another unique angle on a Theology of Risk and I get to hear what God is doing in another challenging situation to further His kingdom through His saints.

But when it comes to Crisis Management Teams, "that's a whole 'nother ballgame," as we like to say in America.

I recognize that there are few with my experiences and understand what is involved, so I have on occasion accepted to be part of a Crisis Management Team. Neal is really much better suited to this. Really, in the end, the reason we have RMT's and CMT's is because of threats against a team or individuals or because a field worker has been kidnapped or killed, or some other major risk event has taken place or is threatening to take place.

We do this difficult work for the love of our King and His saints serving in dangerous places. But there is wisdom in working to get the best team together for Risk and Crisis Management, and this includes self-awareness and awareness of the personality mix of the individuals and the RMT/CMT mix of folks.

Research has demonstrated fairly accurately the personality type best suited for Risk and Crisis Management and Leadership, and when I compare the results of the studies with those men and women who I have leaned on in crisis, they really match the following descriptions. 

How can you tell that a certain person has the personality type?  I know it when I see it, which really isn't helpful to everyone else.  But it's really a mysterious mix of calmness, reticence to speak until a certain amount of data has been gathered, decisiveness in ambiguity and total clarity of thought and purpose despite immense stress and pressure.

This person, at the exact same time all this is going on, is able to speak calmly and generally graciously but directly and with confidence. It is not more a male trait than female, but seems to be distributed in both genders.  The best Crisis Response Team member and leader is not typically an "A-Type" dominant leader, (usually not), and it is not always a phlegmatic personality, either.

Here are the brief conclusions from a study copied and pasted from this source: 

The results from this study suggest that personality assessment can make a useful contribution to identifying and selecting individuals that are most suited to crises management roles.
It can also help to provide individuals with a more detailed level of feedback in order to understand their own reactions and behaviors under challenging circumstances, and to inform future training programs.
The key areas to assess are:

• Extraversion
• Leadership
• Group orientation
• Emotional stability

Those that are socially confident, influential and comfortable taking the lead are most likely to perform well in crisis situation. Being able to communicate and work well in a team is critical to managing crisis situations, as well as remaining calm under stressful circumstances.
 In addition, other important areas to assess are:

• Ease in decision making
• Work pace

In a crisis, the situation can change at a very rapid pace.
New information can arrive at any time, which may change the course of action that needs to be taken and shifting work force allocation. Individuals need to be able to assimilate this information and make decisions that could have far reaching consequences in a short space of time.
Some unexpected results that emerged from the study were:

• Variety seeking
• Conscientiousness (low)

During a crisis, the situation may be changeable and  ambiguous.
Therefore individuals that are able to cope with ambiguity and change maybe more effective during a crisis. Individuals that have a high need to follow rules and be supervised, may find managing a crisis more challenging.
Those that are too analytical may also find emergency situations challenging – overall too much conscientiousness could get in the way – certainly in emergency situations.

References and further reading:

Choi, J. N., Sung. Y. S. & Kim, M. U. (2010). How groups react to unexpected threats? Crisis Management in Organizational Teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 38 (6), 805-828.
Flin, R. & Slavin, G. (1994). The selection and training of offshore installation managers for crisis management. Health and Safety Executive – Offshore Technology Report, OTH 92 374.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L. and Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization and crisis. Communication Yearbook 21: 231–275.

White Male Effect (WME) and Cross-Cultural Risk Perception

Introduction
There are numerous secular studies on gender and socio-economic differences of risk perception.  A cursory examination will help us in the spiritual endeavor of cross-cultural risk understand how to apply some of this awareness in a wise way as we assess risk as a team in a dangerous, front-line environment.

The goal of this article is to elevate unity and more effective communication between genders and international teams as we work for a common eternal purpose.  Any time we can increase personal awareness of the individual, it will help us understand others better. This reflects the Trinity, as we seek to understand and know ourselves and each other more deeply. We love more deeply that and whom we know.

It is important to only cautiously make generalizations of risk perception between gender and culture groups.  More research and clear methodology of research needs to be done (by those in the clinical mental-health fields).  When using secular research on risk, only some of the research is really helpful to our purpose.  We need to carefully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of that data. Sometimes I re-word the research quotes in order to make it more understandable for the rest of us!

As I often repeat in our RAM Training, the secular research on risk began looking at business and gambling risk, although now it is much more broad and includes many of the modern-day risks we all face as a global family.  So we have to take the data with "a grain of salt" since we are engaged in what is clearly a high-risk endeavor but we do have the power of the Holy Spirit Who helps us to respond differently then all the data can possibly predict!

Additionally, more research on analyzing the secular data and applying it is a skill of analysis and synthesis. I welcome critical feedback on where I have wrongly interpreted and applied the psychological research.

Studies on WME
In general, numerous studies suggest that white males tend to rate risk lower, and less problematic than women and all other culture groups.1  Women in general feel more vulnerable in risk,2  especially in types of risk where there are social inequalities and where the "less powerful" are more subject to risk.  This seems to fit the scenario for men and women where Christ-following foreigners are living in a hostile extremist environment!

Men who rate risk lower than others:

"tend to be better educated, had higher household incomes, and were politically more conservative. They showed greater trust in authorities and institutions, were anti-egalitarian and did not want to share [power to make decisions on risk with the general public.]"3

Being anti-egalitarian is especially problematic in the mission field and Church. More women are serving as missionaries then men (see the discussion at the bottom on this debated statistic).4  Males in leadership demonstrate wisdom to listen to their teammates with humility because human lives are at stake in the risk situation.  The Biblical principle of stewardship of Kingdom resources means that we carefully listen to both men and women who are risking their lives on the field.

Historically, white males have generally experienced less vulnerability and perceive less injustice in their experience, thus rate risks lower than all other groups. Gender and to a lesser extent race, remains a robust predictor of risk perception.5

Another thesis on differences in risk perception are related to perceived power, control, and vulnerability.

"This thesis would suggest the gender and race differences that are regularly found in risk perception originate not just because of substantive differences in power to control risk but also because people with less power over risks feel more likely to be at risk and feel risk to be inequitably distributed" (Satterfield, et al., 2004). 

There are several influencing factors to consider when evaluating a team's response to risk and their readiness to remain in or press forward in cross-cultural risk.

Factors to consider are a person's perceived vulnerability as well as exposure to a risk and their perceived lack of power or control over the risk and outcome will cause them to rate risks much higher than others (with more power and control).

Researchers are trying to look at causes other than the White Male Effect (WME). Is it possible that gender differences are less significant than social inequity? When one group of researchers looked at this in Sweden (Olofsson and Rashid, 2011), they found that

"Ethnicity serves as a marker of inequality and discrimination in Sweden. Consequently, ethnicity, in terms of foreign background, mediates inequality resulting in high risk perception."6

This only confirms what we already know and experience on a daily basis - we feel at higher risk being a foreigner in a strange land!  I am much better educated as a white woman, having 4 degrees, but as a minority foreigner living in a Muslim extremist culture, I definitely feel much more at risk in general. I appreciate this scientific research by psychologists and Dr. Breakwell who makes it understandable for me, but sometimes I just want to say, "Of course! I didn't need research to tell me that!"

A person's perceived vulnerability is evaluated both in how they are handling it mentally and materially.  Mental vulnerability can be explored in dialogue, helping someone evaluate their self awareness of their anxiety level.  It also incorporates discussion on exposure to multiple stressors over time.  A sense of vulnerability is increased when being subject to multiple stressors and hazards.

This is similar to stress resiliency training, where we teach front-line workers that "stress is accumulative." In the same way, it seems that the feeling of vulnerability is also cumulative: exposure to multiple streams of hazards (threat of kidnapping, murder, robbery, rape, sexual abuse on the street, etc) at one time wear a person down and cause them to feel more vulnerable in general.

Some Beginning Application for Cross-Cultural Risk
The issue of gender on risk perception impacts risk decision-making, communication, and risk management. Becoming aware of the background factors of how people perceive the level of risk will help us to ask better questions of one another.  Leaders who are aware of these issues will actually cause their teams to have increased trust in their leadership, simply by taking the time to listen to the fears and the perceived level of risk, and not dismissing it.

When I shared about the WME with a group of white male missionaries in October 2016, I asked them what suggestions they have for other white men about addressing this issue.  They promptly responded with: "Include women and other nationalities in the risk assessment and mitigation."

As a woman regularly living in a risk situation with children, I would add the following: It is easy to respond to someone's feeling of vulnerability and anxiety in risk with facts, figures, and a rational danger response.  I would encourage leaders, whatever color and gender they are, to listen well and be slow to try to "fix" the other person, even when you disagree with the risk perception they are sharing. As a leader, it is important to listen for the underlying fear, but also for their intuition, and for the Holy Spirit's voice through those He has given you to shepherd and lead through risk.

1. Breakwell, Glynis. The Psychology of Risk. 72.  
2. Ibid., 74
2. Ibid., 73. 
4.  Barret and Johnson's report suggests otherwise, but see the discussion here. I would concur that Barret and Johnson's findings do not seem to be consistent with the anecdotal evidence. It would be helpful to know how they calculate there are more men then women on the mission field, as that number does not seem accurate historically or today. See their report and the discussion here: http://oscaractive.ning.com/forum/topics/shocking-mission-statsfacts 

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php
Farther down on the Oscar page, Marti Smith pasted in a portion of an article she wrote on men and women on the mission field. Marti Smith said:

In many places and kinds of work there are many more women than men... but if you add together all kinds of missionaries everywhere the trend is not so strong, as Mike points out. Wonder how they get those figures? But here are some more anecdotal things I used in a paper on the topic.
A. The Significant Presence of Women in Missions
In spite of the challenges women in many times and places have faced by following God’s call in missions, they have followed him in numbers. By 1910 more women than men were serving in missions. (1) In the coming years the numbers of women would continue to climb until women in some areas outnumbered men by 2:1. (2) Statistical studies on the topic are few, but one in the late 1980s, a survey of 19 mission agencies representing 20,333 missionaries, showed that 56 percent of them were women, with unmarried women outnumbering unmarried men six to one. (3) A more recent report, from 2002, found that some 54 percent of Southern Baptists’ 5,241 missionaries were women, about a fourth of them single. (4)
In short-term missions as well as in situations that are considered too dangerous to send families, including many areas with a Muslim majority, the foreign mission force is composed largely of workers who are single, and a majority of these laborers are women. Representatives of Frontiers, which works solely in the Muslim world, report that they are seeing women respond to the call in great numbers. In 2002 women comprised 75 percent of their short-term team applicants. (5)
Anecdotal evidence produces similar numbers. In a 2002 personal interview, a woman working with Operation Mobilization reported that of the 100 people working with her agency in one Asian country, 60 were women and 40 were men; and in ratios that seem fairly typical, these included 35 married couples, 25 single women, and five single men. Colleagues currently studying in Yemen say the expatriate community in their city includes 26 couples, two single men, and 21 single women. We must conclude that women have a significant presence in the mission force: not that of a minority, but a majority.

(1) Ruth Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya (Grand Rapids: MI, 1983), p. 232.
(2) Tucker, p. 232.
(3) Howard Erickson, “Single Missionary Survey,” Fundamentalist Journal, January 1989, p. 27, cited in John Piper’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), p. 23. The foreword to this book, which addresses single men and women, includes some very helpful thinking on the topic of singleness and includes thoughts from a number of single missionaries throughout history.
(4) Mary Jane Welch, “Obedient and Faithful,” The Commission 65:5 (July-August 2002), p. 8. Also available at www.archives.tconline.org/Stories/JulyAug02/obedient.htm. The Commission is the magazine of the International Missions Board, the mission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Most of the articles in this issue deal with missionary women serving in challenging mission fields.
(5) Frontiers, www.frontiers.org, accessed March 15, 2004.

5. Ibid., 74. 
6. Ibid., 75

Risk and Decision Making, Part 2 "Emotional and Psychological Analysis"

In Risk and Decision Making, Part 1, I mentioned the four major areas influencing Decision Making for the Global worker in a high-risk situation: 

1. Spiritual Analysis
2. Emotional/Psychological Analysis
3. Stewardship and Information Analysis
4. Perceived Benefits and Losses

For each area, questions may be formulated to help in the progress of decision making about a risk. In the last post, I mentioned three main questions asked for the Emotional and Psychological Analysis:

1. What are my strong emotions in this risk situation and what about the risk is impacting me the most? 
2. How am I behaving in comparison to predicted behavior in risk? 
3.  Which of the 5+ biases are influencing my decision making?

For the first question, we must primarily evaluate the level of fear and the level of anger being experienced. It is important (and surprising!) to be aware that:

Fear – appears to dampen efforts at risk mitigation. We feel paralyzed and overwhelmed. The Biblical admonition in English to “not fear” means in Hebrew to not turn into wax, to not be paralyzed, to not remain passively in fear.

Fearful people make pessimistic judgments about a hazard.

Anger – angry people make more optimistic judgments and more commonly think that the risks are much lower, that it won’t happen to us and that if it does, we can do something about it.

Lest we think that emotional analysis is overly psychological or spiritual, a good place to start with someone is to use H.A.L.T. – are they Hungry, angry, lonely, tired?  Sometimes, the world looks better after a good night of sleep or a nap. Sometimes in risk, we are not eating enough calories to fuel our body because we are so stressed. EAT! Eat something healthy as a spiritual discipline and endurance strategy, and you'll be able to handle your emotions better!

The second question, "How does my behavior compare to the predicted behavior in risk?" The problem with answering this question is that the secular psychological research indicates that we act out of our biases, and our biases are culturally dependent (varying between cultures) and also gender different. 

I would add to the complexity of interpretation that our approach to risk is also based on our cultural theology - the theology imported by the church we grew up in. "Cultural Theology" is a term I use to indicate some of our theology is (incorrectly) based on our home (passport) culture, the particular cultural values we impart to the text (roles of men and women, for example) based on how we choose to interpret and read the original text (not textual criticism but translation criticism!) 

Translation is always interpretation (can't remember who said that), but more and more I am dismayed when I see how the text has been translated far from the original Hebrew or Greek, due to the cultural-theological bias of the translators. While it sounds like I am transgressing from the point, I would like to point out that one of the main problems of resiliency for the cross-cultural worker in extreme high risk is a theological problem, not a white male problem (see the bias mentioned below).

I am indebted to Glynis Breakwell for all of the following discussion on risk, from his book, The Psychology of Risk. Secular psychological research is of great value to the church, and we ignore it to our peril. However, there is little research on the effect of the Holy Spirit on people's behavior in uncertainty.  There is some research on the role of belief and effect on behavior in uncertainty. Do keep in mind that the majority of the research is based not on cross-cultural uncertainty but more on business risk, comparisons of the threat of impact of natural (and terrorist or manmade) disasters, and gambling. 

So with that caveat, here are some general guidelines for leadership and member care workers that we can consider utilizing to explore the decisions that need to be made in risk: 

1. Look for extremes - either of denial of the risk, overly optimistic about the risk, or overly pessimistic of the risk. 
2. Be aware of what researchers describe as "the white male effect." The research is solidly conclusive that white males perceive the risk as much lower than all other groups (women and other culture groups).
3. Too focused on primarily one aspect of the risk - perhaps they are not taking into account a holistic risk analysis (See the RAM Action Guide for more).  

For the third question, what are the primary "biases" people can have? These include: 

1. Using Data that is appropriate, based on one's "biases" for or against the risk. This means choosing to cite data that is equivalent in nature. A common major error cross-cultural workers make is to compare two data sets that are unrelated. For example, the traffic accident rate in an international city compared to terrorist attacks against Christian expatriates. These two data sets are not comparable, and the terrorist attack is not as statistically predictable as the traffic accident rate.  It's important to ascertain if there are statistical associations between Data Set A and Data Set B.  Note that people incorrectly assume patters occur in what are truly random events. We also need to learn to handle the information - is it actually predictive in nature?
2.  Ability to remember - people assume the probability is higher that an event will happen if they can remember an instance of the event. So we can easily have predictability bias. If we are pre-occupied with a personal major fear of a certain hazard, we rate it as higher probability that it will happen. We also perceive higher probability if we can easily imagine it happening!  If the social situation (media, church back home) says it can happen, we fear it more and think it will more likely happen.  The problem with this is we become consumed with something that does not necessarily have in reality as high of probability of happening as we perceive.
3. First piece of information: we rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered, "anchoring" all of our risk perception and thought about this.  Instead we need to adjust based on additional data coming in, and not the first piece of data.
4. Egoism - we tend to view ourselves as engaging in less "risky" behavior as others, and that others are more likely to experience negative consequences. It is a form of denial, that "it won't happen to me."
5. Hindsight Bias - this is when something negative happens, and we say after the event, “I knew that all along.”Typically people given information about an event after it occurs will say and think that they could have or did predict it.We engage in what researchers call, "meta self-delusion" because we feel that we have a greater sense of control over the future when we can feel we predicted the past.

Hopefully, using the awareness of how humans have responded in risk studies, we can become more self-aware of how we are reacting, and use this awareness as a guide to asking ourselves honest questions in the risk situation.  Asking - and answering - honestly, with authenticity, and inviting the Holy Spirit to give clarity as to when we are deceiving ourselves. 

Jeremiah 17:9 states, "The heart is more deceitful than anything else and mortally sick. Who can fathom it?"

Future discussion: Prospect Theory: An Analyis of Decision Under Risk by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman