Chicken

What I learned from a random episode of Survivor...also clips from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Master and Commander

A few years ago, I was scrolling through TV channels and came upon an episode of Survivor. I’ve only watched a handful of seasons, but I thought it would be interesting to watch this episode. I could tell it was early in the season, it might have even been the pilot episode. The contestants were getting very hungry, and they needed to eat something. One of the male contestants came across a small animal, maybe it was a chicken. He declared that he was going to capture, kill, prepare, and cook the animal for the team. The female contestants were visibly horrified, and they begged him not to do it. He thought they were quite funny as he shrugged them off to go about his business. They collapsed in tears.

SMASH CUT to the female contestants chowing down on chicken wings from the freshly butchered animal a short time later.

I collapsed in laughter as I watched this unfold, which I am sure was the point of editing the show the way they did. Begging someone not to kill an animal and then stuffing your face with it?! Ridiculous, but great television.

---

A lot of times in our organizations there are people who are the first to criticize the action of the team, and then are the first to partake in the benefits of the organization. In fact, for these types of people, there’s almost nothing the organization can do right. They constantly complain saying things like, “why are we doing this instead of that?” and “don’t they know that if they do X then bad thing Y will happen?!” I am ashamed to admit that I, too, have been one of these people at one point or another. A lot of the time these people are not wholly incorrect in their assessments of the consequences of an organizations actions, but they are not aware of the alternatives and trade-offs that led to a decision.

Most of the time organizations are forced to choose between only a handful of bad options. When faced with bad options, the decision comes down to an analysis of the risk involved. Sometimes the best decisions are the ones that avoid the optimal outcome, but also avoid the costliest or most dangerous outcome.

Last year my headquarters received a task from our higher headquarters to provide soldiers for a certain exercise. The exercise was very expensive and very important for the Army. Based on the requirements for the task, we could only choose between two of our available sub-units. On paper, it made sense to choose Unit A because they did not have much going and they had plenty of manpower and resources available. Unit B was extremely busy with multiple training events and other requirements that we had given them. If that was all you knew, then it would have made sense to choose Unit A.

But Unit A also had an additional requirement: they were the “On Call” unit in case an emergency happened somewhere in the world and they needed to respond. If we sent them to the exercise and then had to pull them out early to respond to the emergency, then the entire multi-million-dollar exercise would have to be severely cut short. This would have wasted a lot of money, time, and manpower.

So, the decision was made to assign the exercise to Unit B. The staff of Unit B was rightly upset. They were already overtasked with a bazillion other things, and supporting this exercise would have a pretty big impact on them. But our higher headquarters wouldn’t take “no” for answer. They were ordering us to send people, and so we had no choice.

But the crucial part of the decision was when senior leaders sat down with the Unit B commander and explained why it had to be his unit. The option of sending Unit A was more optimal but it also incurred an unacceptable amount of risk.

---

Going back to the Survivor episode, the guy who killed the chicken and fed the group was a really quiet fellow. He ignored the chastisements of his fellow contestants and simply did what needed to be done. The unfortunate thing is that he was the first one voted off the island. I wonder what would have happened if he had been a little more assertive in his communication:

“Hey! HEY! What do you want?! You want to be hungry? You don't want me to get you food? If you’ve got some better idea to deforest the island, cultivate the soil, and grow soy beans to make tofu, go right ahead. You’ll starve to death before you knock over the first tree.”

Sometimes one must be a little gruff in one’s communication to get the point across. Trying to calmly explain something to a hysterical person is likely to make them more hysterical. A quick verbal shock to the system might knock them out of their hysteria. Had he taken a more assertive stance, he might have been able to remain on the island.

Either way, the lesson is the same: when you must choose between a number of bad options, it is best to explain your logic to others, even if they disagree. Your tone of voice is up to you, and rhetorical questions are optional.

Have a great week!