Getting Comfortable With Grey Areas

One of the things I see junior analysts struggling with the most, especially if they have only recently left university, is adjusting to the lack of absolutes in intelligence, and getting comfortable operating in grey areas. We will hardly ever have all the information we would like before having to make a decision or recommend a course of action. We can’t predict the future, so can never know for sure how a scenario will play out.

What if our conclusion is wrong? What if we make a mistake? These are realities we have to accept, even as we try our best to avoid them.

It’s something that can take time to get comfortable with, so below are some pointers to help you on your way.

Understand the difference between forecasting and fortune telling

As intelligence analysts we can provide assessments on future outcomes without falling into the trap of fortune telling if we conduct a thorough and objective assessment, use appropriate likelihood language, and don’t talk in absolutes.

Fortune telling: "There will be no more attacks from the group in the region"

Forecasting: "Based on the diminished capabilities of the group, and the increased resources of the military to combat them, their attacks are likely to reduce in the short term. However, the intent remains to attack targets associated with foreigners, and so occasional, small scale attacks cannot be ruled out."

Measured use of qualifying language

While we need to use appropriate qualifying words like ‘unlikely’, ‘almost certainly’ etc to assign probabilities to our assessments, going overboard and cramming our report full of them because we lack confidence in our assessment is going to water down its impact.

‘Reportedly’ especially is a word that, when used too often, can make a report sound like a collection of vague rumours, even if the information is good. I find it more useful, if someone is going to include reports they have received, to know where these are coming from. Is the ‘reportedly’ from BBC news, or is it from a human contact of yours?

Compare:

“Reportedly troops are moving into position along the border ahead of a potential reported offensive early next week.”

vs

“According to trusted military sources, troops are moving into position along the border ahead of a planned offensive early next week”

Call out intelligence gaps

Highlighting what you don’t know is not just good practise, it’s an essential part of the intelligence cycle and it provides you with a framework for future requirements. Not having all the answers is expected, and it’d be more alarming to your colleagues if you claim to have no gaps. Intelligence is an interactive process, and not knowing everything is part of this.

Of course, part of the skill in being a great intelligence analyst is knowing when you have done enough to be confident in sharing your assessment, and when more is needed.

Differentiating between facts and assessment

Getting this right and laid out clearly will help your reader understand what parts of an intelligence product are known to be true, and what parts are your inferences or assessments. And it can give you confidence that you have been clear in what information you were drawing on to make your assessment, and where the facts stop and your assessment begins.

Conclusion

Getting comfortable with ambiguity and not having all the answers definitely gets easier with time, but hopefully these tips can help get you to that place of comfort a little quicker.