By Jared Massie
Stress can be a double-edged sword for leaders. It can heighten awareness and prompt decisive actions, but too much has the potential to paralyze, cloud judgment, and impede logical reasoning. When our stressors seem too weighty for us to bear, can’t it lead us to feel hopeless? As if our cause is lost or our leadership is failing?
The 1977 book Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment details how we make decisions. A key takeaway is that we naturally seek to reduce anxiety and conflict when making stressful decisions. Tough decisions typically bring some degree of internal conflict, so we tend to seek ways to make that hard decision easier to manage. This makes us want to make leadership decisions based more on our emotions than logical reasoning. Making decisions that are affirming and comfortable, specifically when stressed, actually serves our self-interests—a concept known as bolstering.
Bolstering is a form of defensive avoidance—avoiding discomfort and personal accountability. We bolster when we fixate on our own viewpoint and fail to diligently assess the situation. Bolstering often happens when we are forced to make a quick, important decision without ceding responsibility to another person. Leaders in this position may not make the best choice, but the least objectionable one. When bolstering, a leader would exaggerate the benefits of their decision (consciously or not) and ignore drawbacks or negative consequences. This falsely builds us back up, reassures us, and confirms in our minds that we made the right decision.
I want to analyze stress factors that could cause poor decision making. Through the lens of historical case studies I aim to point out instances of bolstering so that military leaders in similarly tough situations can self-identity bolstering characteristics.
What does bolstering look like?
Bolstering can take many forms. If a leader physically removes himself to avoid hearing bad news, he is bolstering. Also, when leaders shut down further suggestions from their team, they avoid further analysis. Another form is to delay making necessary decisions because it is more comfortable to stall our assessment.
An example from my career happened during a training event. I had to get to an observation point so that I could pass target grid coordinates for my boss. I subconsciously let the stress of the moment get to me and did not take time to assess the best method to get him what he asked for. Without much thought, I drove straight through the maneuver area. This was a huge mistake! There were live rifle and mortar rounds being shot in the area, which put myself and my teammates at risk. Fortunately, the unit had paused their training. In that situation, I bolstered because instead of analyzing how to best tackle the request (asking an experienced NCO who knew the area, checking satellite imagery, radioing nearby units) I did what was easiest at the moment. While I might have felt proud to quickly get my boss what he needed, I actually risked the success of multiple training exercises by bolstering.
Case Studies
During the American Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman was faced with two pressures. First, there was political pressure from Abraham Lincoln’s campaign to secure a victory. Second, Sherman was openly frustrated with his subordinate general’s performance. These two factors could have been part of the reason why he launched a failed frontal attack on Confederate troops at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. Despite the failure, Sherman lamely rationalized the assault as necessary for assessing his force’s combat capabilities. As outlined in The Savior Generals by Victor Davis Hanson, Sherman downplayed his unit’s losses even though they lost over 3,000 men. This instance of bolstering showcases how feelings of pressure and frustration can cause a leader to justify a poor decision.
Similarly, Joseph Stalin’s dismissal of intelligence reports about an impending German invasion during WWII exemplifies bolstering. He had unwavering belief in the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, which prevented him from believing the intelligence reports of German advances. As a result, the Soviet Union was inadequately prepared for the German attack. Even after the invasion commenced, Stalin struggled to believe that his nation was under attack.He was firmly entrenched in his belief that Hitler would not invade.
At the battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral “Bull” Halsey had an established desire to attack the Japanese carrier fleet with “overwhelming destructive force.” This caused him to over-rely on shaky intelligence assessments despite warnings not to pursue the enemy. After he realized that he had ordered his forces to chase a Japanese decoy unit, he could have immediately realigned his forces. However, he delayed his response. In fact, he was paralyzed after his boss, Admiral Nimitz, sent the following message: “Where is Task Force 34? The world wonders.” He was so overwhelmed that he retreated into his office and dithered around before making a follow-on decision. Finally, Rear Admiral Robert “Mick” Carney confronted his boss: “Stop it! What the hell’s the matter with you?” For Admiral Halsey, his boss’s reaction stressed him and caused paralysis and frustration.
Lastly, Nikita Khrushchev dismissed the warnings of the U.S. President John F. Kennedy to not send nuclear weapons to Cuba. Richard Lebow and Janice Stein explain in We All Lost the Cold War that Khruschchev had made up his mind about putting nuclear weapons on Cuba, and was unreceptive to any information that challenged his decision. To him, the placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba would prove that the Soviet Union was not an inferior state, and would therefore compel the U.S. to moderate its position towards the Soviet Union. However, we see bolstering demonstrated because Khrushchev routinely insulated himself from any contrary information.
Balancing the Pros and Cons of Bolstering
Bolstering has a positive side. It can resolve residual conflict and allow leaders to move confidently toward solutions. When leaders are stressed and a decision still has to be made, it may not be possible to consider every option. In those instances, confidently choosing what you think is best can show strength and fortitude. It does not automatically mean you are bolstering in the negative sense of the word. Additionally, just because someone sticks with a decision does not mean they are bolstering. Leaders may stand by a decision for reasons other than avoiding problems, and that can be good. Lastly, there are instances where persistence pays off, even in the face of hopelessness, and a hardened method of practice and perseverance yields more fruitful results than changing tactics.
The biggest risk of bolstering is that it lulls decision-makers into thinking that their decisions are optimal. Therefore, leaders must understand if their decision will help or harm their intended results by conducting effective reassessments. This is difficult to do when one’s mind is stressed.
What Next?
There are three things, all centered on self-awareness, which I think can help leaders identify bolstering tendencies. First, reflect on when you have negatively bolstered in the past. Seek to understand the motivation behind one or two of the decisions that you made during a stressful situation. You will be less likely to make the same mistake if you take time to reflect on it.
Next, know how you operate in stressful situations. What are your tendencies, triggering events, and defense mechanisms? An online test such as the Enneagram or Stress Personality Test could help in this journey. These tests should not be an authoritative source on our personalities, but they can provide tools for building self-awareness.
Lastly, use peers to give an outsider’s perspective. Ask coworkers or friends for their opinions on your situation and permit them to challenge you on your current way of thinking about the problem set.
Awareness of bolstering starts with understanding our past tendencies. This helps us anticipate and preempt the same bolstering mistakes in the future. Since feelings of stress and hopelessness are sometimes overwhelming for leaders, we must cultivate an environment that values balanced assessments and open feedback. Strive to make time when time seems to be running out to reassess the situation, ask questions, and adapt to changing circumstances.
MAJ Jared Massie is an Army Sub-Saharan Africa Foreign Area Officer. He is currently studying African Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
