Red Team Reviews of Uphill Briefings

A Red Team review of a work product is a review conducted by a team of knowledgeable individuals who simulate the behavior of the "customer" — the ultimate recipients of the work. This simulation gives the authors of the work product, often referred to as the Blue Team, a chance to practice the kind of interactions they will eventually have with the Customer. By prior arrangement, the Red Team focuses on specific attributes of the work product, though the members of the Blue Team might not be aware of the details of this arrangement.

Red Team reviews were originally developed for the fields of defense analysis and intelligence analysis. In the military and intelligence contexts, the work products in question are intended to address issues that arise in adversarial exchanges, such as military engagements, espionage, terrorism defense, and cybersecurity. Red teaming works well in such applications because the Red Team itself can act as a simulated adversary — often referred to as the "enemy" — even when the interaction with the Blue Team is conducted as a "table-top" exercise.

Red Team reviews can be helpful tools well beyond the set of contexts related to military engagements. [TraDoc 2018] For example, red teaming has found application in cybersecurity [Cyderes 2020], proposal authorship [Singh 2022], and public relations [Bashir 2021].

A Red Team review of an uphill briefing can cover both the content and delivery of the briefing. In practice, the Red Team plays the role of the Customer. They receive briefing materials in advance of the simulated briefing just as the Customer would in the actual briefing. They act as audience as the Blue Team delivers the briefing. They might comment and ask questions during the briefing. Following the briefing they convene to write a report evaluating the briefing materials, the Blue Team's delivery during the briefing, and the briefing as a whole.

Structure of the review

The objectivity The objectivity of the members of
the Red Team is protected because
they played no roles or minimal roles
in development of the work productof the members of the Red Team is protected because they played no roles or minimal roles in development of the work product. Because the review occurs before delivery, the result of the review can guide corrective actions to improve the product and its delivery.

But briefings are not military engagements. In briefings there is no enemy or adversary. There are no attacks or counter-attacks. But there is a simulated customer, played by the Red Team. In a Red Team review of an uphill briefing, skeptical and assertive questioning replaces the attacks and counter-attacks of military engagements and espionage.

The structure of a Red Team review of an uphill briefing is straightforward. The Blue Team presents its briefing to the Red Team, which plays the role of the senior managers who will eventually receive the briefing. The Red Team will have been charged with examining particular aspects of the briefing, such as elements of the content, or delivery style. Typically, during the review, the Red Team tries to emulate the anticipated behavior of the actual Customer. In this way, the Red Team can explore the effectiveness of the Blue Team as it responds to the Red Team's simulation.

Following the simulated briefing, the Red Team compiles an evaluation of both the content of the briefing and the Blue Team's performance. The evaluation addresses the objectives previously agreed upon, and any other results deemed significant. Red and Blue can then discuss the evaluation together.

A weakness of Red Team reviews

It is the ability of red teaming to simulate adversarial contexts that makes it a useful tool for briefers who represent their teams in review contexts. By conducting a Red Team review of the briefing before delivering it to executives, the team can identify vulnerabilities in its message in advance of the actual delivery.

But Red Team reviews have a significant weakness. Although they can reveal vulnerabilities and missed opportunities in the work product and its delivery, Red Team reviews reveal little about what they might have missed. That is, beyond the vulnerabilities and missed opportunities that a Red Team review does reveal, there could be additional vulnerabilities and missed opportunities even more significant than those discovered.

Last words

One other risk associated with Red Team reviews of uphill briefings is that they can cause lasting harm. The members of the Red Team are tasked with playing the role of senior managers. Some zealous role-players might behave in ways that damage their relationships with members of the Blue Team, with consequences that persist long after the simulation comes to a close.

Two risk mitigation measures are recommended. The first and most important is adoption of behavioral norms that protect against such mishaps. Some training will be required so that all participants understand the norms and their importance. Second, and optionally, one participant can be designated as a facilitator. The primary responsibility of the facilitator is calling a temporary halt to the simulation if one or more of the norms are violated. With those two measures in place, a Red Team review of an uphill briefing can be safe and productive.  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Project Management:

Is It Blame or Is It Accountability?

When we seek those accountable for a particular failure, we risk blaming them instead, because many of us confuse accountability with blame. What's the difference between them? How can we keep blame at bay?

Durable Agreements

People at work often make agreements in which they commit to cooperate — to share resources, to assist each other, or not to harm each other. Some agreements work. Some don't. What makes agreements durable?

Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: III

Skip-level interviews — dialogs between a subordinate and the subordinate's supervisor's supervisor — can be hazardous. Here's Part III of a little catalog of the hazards, emphasizing subordinate-initiated skip-level interviews.

Risk Creep: I

Risk creep is a term that describes the insidious and unrecognized increase in risk that occurs despite our every effort to mitigate risk or avoid it altogether. What are the dominant sources of risk creep?

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: I

Planners and members of planning teams are susceptible to patterns of thinking that lead to unworkable plans. But planning teams also suffer vulnerabilities. Two of these are Group Polarization and Trips to Abilene.

See also Project Management and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info