Standing Up by Standing Down

Stanislav Petrov may have literally saved your life once, and he may figuratively save it again, if you let his example become your own.

Petrov was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Soviet military back in 1983, and was responsible for monitoring Soviet early warning satellite systems, designed to detect the launch of a nuclear attack against his country by the United States. While working a double shift one night, he was suddenly startled by loudly sounding alarms. Radar indicated that the United States had launched several nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union. To Petrov, it was not unrealistic to believe that the U.S. would be attacking the Soviet Union; it was the Cold War era, after all, and tensions between the United States and Soviet Union were high. So when the alarms sounded, Petrov was under a mandate to initiate communications that would launch a retaliatory response by the Soviets. At the time, the stance of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union was one of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); a “we’ll all go down together” doctrine of military behavior that was, in theory, supposed to decrease the likelihood of nuclear war by ensuring that regardless of who launched the initial attack, the other nation would follow with an equal or more significant response of its own. But now Petrov stood in front of the banks of flashing red lights and wailing sirens, and he had to make a call; retaliate or not? Assume the worst or wait and see? He had his orders, but would he follow them? Could he trust what he was seeing?

So what about you? What if you were in Stanislav’s position? You see the signs; you hear the warnings. You are under attack. How far will you go? Will you retaliate? Will you ensure that everyone goes down together? Will there be no last man standing?

Don’t speak too quickly. As I read Petrov’s story, I couldn’t help but think how each of us face similar, but much less dramatic, choices on a daily basis. How many times have each of us felt unjustly attacked, challenged, or threatened, and have chosen to respond in kind? How many of us, if we are to be honest with ourselves, hold our own doctrines of Mutually Assured Destruction? How many of us live by the creed, “I may not have started it, but I’m going to finish it.”? Sadly, I know I adopt that stance far too often. I bristle at perceived insults and launch a counter-attack, ready to defend myself, even if it is harmful to the other person and me. 

Fortunately for the rest of us, Stanislav Petrov "stood down". And in doing so, he probably saved the world as we know it, because the alarm was a false one. There were no incoming missiles, just faulty radar and alarm systems. But had he followed his training and protocol, and informed those in charge that an unprovoked attack was underway and annihilation was imminent, the USSR may have responded with a nuclear “counter-attack”. Then the US (who had not actually launched any missiles in the first place) would believe that the Soviets had launched an initial and unprovoked attack and, as part of the MAD doctrine, would have responded with a strike of our own…creating a real war where none originally existed. The fact that you and I are here today may be largely due to the actions of Stanislav Petrov and his unwillingness to assume the worst.

Petrov was not lauded as a hero by the Soviet government. In fact, the public didn’t know about his actions until after the fall of the Soviet Union. After the initial incident, he took an early retirement and lived unremarkably on a retirement pension of about $200 a month. Finally, in 1998, a former colleague wrote a book in which he mentioned Petrov’s actions on that fateful day, and then the whole world knew what the Soviets hand known for over a decade: one lone man made a decision that may have saved the world as we know it.

There are two lessons here that are worth taking away from Petrov’s story:  

Examine your assumptions very carefully, for they tend to become your reality. Had Stanislav Petrov trusted that the alarms were real, he would have initiated a response with devastating results for all involved. A perceived demise would have become a real demise. This is a lesson that we all need to take to heart. Operating under false assumptions about another’s intent can lead to escalation of conflict in which no party wins. So, examine your assumptions, identify the course of action that will result in the least collateral damage, and proceed accordingly. Whether it is in the quantity of your years, or in the quality of your years, the life you save by choosing to “stand down” may be your own. 

Doing good does not necessarily result in admiration and praise from others. Do good anyway. Petrov chose to stand down because he believed it was the right decision at the time. No one initially gave him an award or party for doing so, and you will not always be praised for doing good either. In fact, doing good may cost you friends, disrupt your career, and make you vulnerable. So, you alone must decide if you will live a life based on conviction or one based on convenience. Will you do the easy thing, or will you do the right thing? If you choose to do the right thing, be prepared to stand alone. A life lived in the pursuit of excellence is not for the faint of heart. 

If you are standing in a conflict today, and are choosing to do what is right rather than what is tempting, I congratulate you. If you have chosen to follow your conscience rather than the path of least resistance, I applaud you. And if you are focusing on controlling your impulses rather than on controlling other people, I admire you. 

As it turns out, we often stand tallest when we choose to “stand down”.

Who Decides if Criticism is Constructive?

Raise your hand if you like to be criticized.

Yeah…me neither.

Webster's dictionary defines criticism as "Disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings". But, I doubt you need a dictionary to tell you what criticism is any more than you need a dictionary to tell you what pain is. You know it when you feel it.

Perhaps in some (and by "some", I mean very few) cases criticism is warranted, but even then, the likelihood of it bringing about the effect the criticizer was hoping for is going to be on the low side (and by "low", I mean almost non-existent). Why is that? Because people don't like pain and criticism is painful; therefore, as a way of shielding ourselves from the pain, we disregard the validity of the negative things being said about us. This isn't an intentional, conscious, decision. It is the ego protecting itself, and we all do it.  This is what makes the concept of "constructive criticism" so highly unlikely.

We all need to rid ourselves of the notion that we can give someone constructive criticism. We cannot. If constructive criticism exists at all, it exists only at the discretion of the receiver - never the giver - because criticism can never be truly constructive until it is received and acted upon. It is only the receiver that has the power to transform the message, no matter how true or well-intentioned, into something useful or constructive. If the person being criticized doesn’t choose to positively interpret and apply what you have said, then the criticism isn’t constructive at all, regardless of your intent.

Let me offer an example that may help to illustrate the point. I used to have a dog that was incredibly good at leaping into the air and catching anything I threw at him; balls, Frisbees, sticks…he could catch them all. He would launch himself gracefully into the air, arc his body, adjust for the flying object's trajectory, and land gracefully back on all fours with the thrown object proudly gripped in his mouth. Success! Big fun! What a game! However, when I launched the stick at my husband's head his response was less agreeable. As it turns out, he was not as enthused about the “catch-the-stick-in-your-mouth” game as my dog was. One was primed to receive, the other was not. And so it is with criticism.

If there is any other way to make a point about something (and there usually is) avoid using criticism as the delivery method. Unless your receiver is already willing and prepared to deal with the sharp-pointed sticks you’re throwing at his head, he’s unlikely to see the value of the exchange. 

There are alternative approaches with a much better track record, and they are worth learning. Some of the most effective, in my experience, are presented in Marshall Rosenberg's books, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, and Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change Your World . Whether you use these books or other resources, the point is to identify and adopt approaches that have the greatest chance of success, and to discard those which are likely to lead to hard feelings and resistance. 

On the very rare occasion when we must point out another's faults or shortcomings, we would be well advised to follow the advice of newspaper columnist Frank "Parson" Clark, who wrote: "Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man's growth without destroying his roots."

I still, on occasion, act more like a hurricane than a gentle rain, but I’m learning. How about you?