How often do we hear about surprise attacks and the effectiveness they have on a potential enemy.  Some surprise attacks have been heralded as victories while others have been declared infamy – it’s all a matter from which side it’s received.

A former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, once warned “When the enemy is in range, so are you”.  Surprise is a two-edged weapon.  On one side there is the hope that the opposition will be caught off guard.  On the other there is the risk that they may possibly have been forewarned but also be forearmed.

Surprise is about the realisation of risk.  An expected risk shouldn’t come as a surprise.  However, even if knowing that something may well happen, it will come as a shock to some.  This is particularly so if a risk is deemed ‘rare’.  The possibility of such low likelihood is argued away even if the consequences are catastrophic.  While not being dismissed it ends up lurking in the ‘green’ undergrowth of a risk register as a ‘rare risk’.

Black Swans

Rarity in risk has been around for centuries.  The Roman poet Juvenal mentioned the rarity of a black swan as, presumptuously, 1,900 years ago it did not exist:

“a bird as rare upon the earth as a black swan”.

Dutch explorers in Western Australia led by Willem de Vlamigh some 1,572 years later found one such swan along with a bevy of others. Nothing can be as surprising as finding something that isn’t supposed to exist and that something true was wrong.

The Black Swan theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in 2001 and that Black Swan events are a surprise to those who see them as well as a major effect.  However, so the theory goes, and when rationalized by that great gift of hindsight, they could have been foreseen if all available data had been accounted for, i.e. predictable!

Predictable Surprises

Ever had, or been to a surprise birthday party?  The guest of honor, far from being invited is kept none the wiser and follows their usual routine.  A party on one’s birthday is reasonably predictable so a ‘surprise’ is foreseeable, and ‘surprise’ can be, at worst feigned, or, at best, short-lived.

But ‘predictable surprises’ normally refer to disasters.  Max Bazerman and Michael Watkins defined an unpredictable surprise in a 2004 Harvard Business School article as “any event or set of events that take an individual or a group by surprise, despite prior awareness of all the information necessary to anticipate the events and their consequences”.

These surprises occur because a threat is not recognized.  This is because of optimism bias or an illusion of control bias, a failure to prioritize the identified threat thereby effectively ignoring it.  Even if prioritized, by not having or mobilizing the resources to deal with it then it’s effectively ignored.  Ignoring a predicable surprise is done at one’s peril and history is peppered with examples.  But what about unpredictable surprises?

Unpredictable Surprises

Take again the ‘surprise birthday party’.  If the uninvited guest of honor changes their usual routine, then the planned surprise backfires.  The guest carries on in complete ignorance but for the erstwhile surprisers there may be embarrassment or disappointment or even anger because of wasted time and effort.  In hindsight a normal party may have been better – after all surprises can cut both ways.

We often hear “Expect the unexpected” encouraging people to be prepared for unforeseeable events or rather unpredictable surprises.  In the words of Oscar Wilde:

“To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect.”

Such intellect requires consideration of possible abstract matters through the objective application of education, knowledge, and experience.  Unfortunately, with human bias and either an aversion against risk or inclinations toward it then intellect can be overridden or at least swayed by emotion and subjectivity.

Dealing with surprises can be difficult but what about surprises for surprises’ sake?

Surprise!  Surprise?

What about the situation whereby a surprise is generated, either innocently or even manipulatively?  For example, the perceived threat of a new disease, or that the sky will fall, or the sun will burn-out, or we will run out of oil, or that carbon is bad.

Such scenarios are based upon some forecast or other to raise awareness.  These may serve as forewarning but without the benefit of any alternative view(s) a singular view could be considered as scaremongering or rumormongering?  After all there are three sides to every coin and possibly several facets.

Without transparency one-sided potential threats can generate our innate reactions of fight or flight.  In the absence of anything tangible to flee from, or fray with, then adrenalin accumulates and for populations who are kept constantly on their toes, anxiety results.

Once the event occurs, if it occurs, the anxiety of constant expectation can give way to the euphoria of relief.  The surprise has happened but the mitigation measures which have also been generated and pushed onto an increasing anxious population are already in pace thereby placating the fear that once ruled.  As with any surprise, real or otherwise, acknowledgment, prioritization and resource allocation will provide mitigation.

Conclusion

Real surprise by its very nature catches people off guard but an intellectual approach may well offset the unexpectedness.  However, in true human nature such surprises will inevitably be the subject of a detailed postmortem.

Some people with the benefit of hindsight may grasp ego-building credit for predicting the surprise and enjoy that “I told you so moment” or the opportunity to blame somebody else.  Some may even come up with some theory or piece of objective evidence showing that it’s not really a surprise despite having taken everybody aback.

But, despite the real surprises and their predictability or unpredictability, the contrived and generated surprise through the rigour of propaganda will eventually eventuate and any postmortem will be far from transparent…surprisingly?