Red Team

Red Team Plot Summary

Introduction

Organizations across all sectors face a universal challenge: they cannot effectively evaluate their own strategies, plans, and security measures. This fundamental limitation stems from cognitive biases and institutional cultures that create systematic blind spots, preventing leaders from identifying their most critical vulnerabilities. Red teaming offers a structured solution to this problem by deliberately challenging established thinking through independent analysis, simulations, and vulnerability testing. The approach enables organizations to reveal unstated assumptions, identify weaknesses, and improve performance before real adversaries can exploit them. The concept of red teaming has evolved from military origins into a sophisticated methodology applicable across domains including intelligence analysis, homeland security, and corporate strategy. By employing teams specifically tasked with thinking like adversaries or competitors, organizations gain invaluable outside perspectives that internal processes rarely generate. This adversarial thinking approach represents more than just devil's advocacy—it provides a systematic framework for identifying vulnerabilities, challenging groupthink, and improving decision-making in environments where failure can have catastrophic consequences.

Chapter 1: The Critical Need for Independent Challenge in Organizations

Institutions operate according to established strategies, plans, and procedures that enable effective functioning but simultaneously create dangerous blind spots. This fundamental dilemma forms the core rationale for red teaming: organizations simply cannot grade their own homework. When leaders become captured by institutional culture and cognitive biases, they systematically fail to identify their most glaring shortcomings, creating vulnerabilities that adversaries can readily exploit. Red teaming addresses this universal problem through a deliberate process that seeks to understand the interests, intentions, and capabilities of potential adversaries through simulations, vulnerability probes, and alternative analyses. The approach has historical precedents dating back centuries—the Vatican's Devil's Advocate challenged candidates for sainthood by actively arguing against their canonization, forcing a more rigorous examination of evidence. This institutionalized skepticism represents an early recognition that important decisions benefit from structured opposition. The need for independent challenge becomes particularly acute in high-stakes environments where failure carries significant consequences. Military operations, intelligence assessments, and security systems all require rigorous testing before deployment. Without formalized challenge, organizations tend to develop confirmation bias, seeking evidence that supports existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory information. This natural tendency creates systematic vulnerabilities that remain invisible until exploited—often with catastrophic results. The value of red teaming extends beyond identifying specific vulnerabilities to challenging the underlying assumptions that shape organizational thinking. By forcing decision-makers to confront alternative perspectives, red teams help organizations develop more robust strategies and contingency plans. This process improves adaptability by expanding the range of scenarios considered and highlighting potential failure points before they manifest in actual operations. Independent challenge also serves as a counterweight to organizational hierarchy and power dynamics that often suppress dissenting views. Junior members typically hesitate to question senior leaders' judgments, creating environments where flawed assumptions go unchallenged. Red teams provide a structured mechanism for voicing concerns that might otherwise remain unspoken, creating space for critical examination of plans and strategies regardless of their source within the organization.

Chapter 2: Military Origins: Evolution of Structured Adversarial Thinking

Modern military red teaming emerged during the Cold War, when the Pentagon first employed the term in war-gaming exercises. The "red" designation referred to Soviet forces, with American forces designated as "blue"—a color coding that persists in contemporary military planning. These early simulations evaluated potential enemy responses to US strategies and revealed critical blind spots in military thinking that might have remained hidden until actual conflict. The concept gained significant momentum following the September 11 attacks and during the Iraq War, when military leaders recognized the catastrophic consequences of failing to consider alternative perspectives. The 2004 establishment of the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS) at Fort Leavenworth—informally known as "Red Team University"—institutionalized this approach within military education. The program has trained thousands of officers in techniques focused on critical thinking, groupthink mitigation, cultural empathy, and self-awareness. Military red teaming takes various forms depending on specific objectives. Vulnerability probes test defense installations and communications networks by attempting to breach security measures using the same techniques potential adversaries might employ. Simulations like the elaborate Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise test operational concepts against adversarial forces specifically tasked with exploiting weaknesses in blue team plans. Perhaps most importantly, alternative analyses challenge the assumptions underlying operational plans and strategic decisions before they're implemented in the field. The failed 1980 Operation Eagle Claw—the attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran—demonstrates the tragic cost of neglecting independent challenge. The mission plan was never subjected to rigorous testing by independent observers; instead, planners essentially "reviewed and critiqued their own product." Eight service members died when a helicopter collided with a transport plane during the aborted mission. The subsequent review concluded that a red team could have made "a critical contribution to ultimate mission accomplishment" by identifying coordination problems and testing contingency plans. Military red teaming faces unique challenges due to hierarchical command structures that can inhibit genuine challenge. Junior officers learn to "speak truth upwards" but frequently adopt the preferences of superiors and refrain from voicing opposition. Effective military red teams must overcome this dynamic through explicit leadership support and protection for those tasked with providing alternative perspectives. When properly implemented, this structured adversarial thinking saves lives and resources by identifying problems before they manifest in actual operations.

Chapter 3: Intelligence Applications: Overcoming Analytical Blind Spots

Intelligence analysts face unique challenges that make red teaming particularly valuable. They must evaluate vast amounts of information—often incomplete or contradictory—to reach conclusions about complex global events. This process is vulnerable to cognitive biases like mirror imaging (assuming adversaries think like we do), anchoring (relying too heavily on initial information), and confirmation bias (favoring evidence that supports existing beliefs). These natural tendencies can lead to catastrophic intelligence failures when left unchecked. Organizational biases further complicate intelligence work. Analysts become captured by institutional culture and the preferences of superiors. The "tyranny of expertise" leads longtime specialists to become anchored in established knowledge frameworks, making them less likely to recognize discontinuities or consider alternative explanations. Coordination processes between agencies often produce watered-down conclusions that everyone can agree to but that lack analytical edge or highlight critical uncertainties. The intelligence community has employed various red teaming approaches to counter these tendencies. The controversial "Team B" exercise in 1976 assembled outside experts to challenge CIA assessments of Soviet strategic capabilities. Though flawed in execution, it highlighted the need for competitive analysis. The CIA's Red Cell, established immediately after 9/11, produces alternative analyses specifically designed to challenge conventional thinking and "make seniors feel uncomfortable" by presenting perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked. Red teaming proved crucial during the hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2011. Three separate red teams reviewed intelligence suggesting bin Laden was hiding in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Their probability estimates—ranging from 40 to 80 percent—helped decision-makers understand the uncertainties involved. President Obama ultimately characterized the operation as "a flip of the coin," but proceeded because even a 50 percent chance represented significant progress after a decade-long search. The absence of red teaming can lead to disastrous consequences, as demonstrated by the 1998 bombing of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Based on a single soil sample and circumstantial evidence, the Clinton administration concluded the facility was connected to chemical weapons production and Osama bin Laden. Had dissenting voices from the CIA's Nonproliferation Center been heard through a formal red team process, decision-makers might have avoided what proved to be a significant intelligence failure with lasting diplomatic consequences.

Chapter 4: Security Testing: Identifying Vulnerabilities Before Adversaries Do

Homeland security presents unique challenges that make red teaming essential. Defensive systems must work perfectly every time, while attackers need succeed only once. Red teams help identify and address vulnerabilities before adversaries can exploit them through realistic simulations and penetration tests of security systems. This approach recognizes that theoretical security models often fail to account for the creativity and determination of actual adversaries. The tragic story of the pre-9/11 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) red team illustrates both the value of such testing and the dangers of ignoring findings. Established after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the FAA red team conducted vulnerability probes of airport security systems. Their tests consistently revealed alarming weaknesses: screeners failed to detect weapons, access controls were easily circumvented, and checked baggage went unscreened. Despite documenting these findings in detailed reports, FAA officials and airline industry representatives resisted implementing meaningful improvements, citing cost concerns and the absence of domestic hijackings. After 9/11, homeland security red teaming expanded dramatically. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts vulnerability probes of federal facilities and border security. Using only publicly available information, GAO investigators have successfully smuggled radioactive materials across borders and simulated explosives into airports and federal buildings. These tests reveal critical security gaps and prompt improvements in screening procedures and personnel training. The New York Police Department (NYPD) conducts regular tabletop exercises in which senior commanders respond to simulated terrorist attacks without prior knowledge of the scenario. These exercises test decision-making under pressure and coordination between different agencies. Former Commissioner Ray Kelly made attendance mandatory for senior commanders, demonstrating the crucial "boss buy-in" that makes red teaming effective. By forcing participants to confront unexpected scenarios, these exercises improve preparedness for actual emergencies. Physical penetration testing reveals vulnerabilities in facility security by attempting to gain unauthorized access to buildings and secure areas. Professional penetration testers employ social engineering techniques—impersonating maintenance workers, delivery personnel, or job candidates—to bypass security measures. These tests consistently demonstrate that impressive-looking security systems can be circumvented through exploitation of human trust and procedural inconsistencies. By identifying these vulnerabilities before malicious actors can exploit them, organizations can implement targeted improvements to physical security.

Chapter 5: Private Sector Applications: From Competitive Analysis to Cybersecurity

The private sector has increasingly adopted red teaming to gain competitive advantages and protect assets. Businesses face threats ranging from market disruption to cyber attacks, and red teaming offers structured approaches to anticipate and counter these challenges. The methodology has proven valuable across industries from finance to healthcare, helping organizations identify blind spots in strategic planning and security measures. Business war gaming represents one prominent application. Companies simulate how competitors might respond to new products, pricing strategies, or market entries. These exercises bring together cross-functional teams to role-play as competitors, customers, regulators, and other stakeholders. By forcing participants to step outside their normal perspectives, business war games reveal blind spots in strategic thinking and generate innovative responses to competitive threats. Unlike traditional strategic planning, which often focuses on internal capabilities and market trends, war gaming explicitly models how competitors might react to a company's moves. Cyber penetration testing has become perhaps the most widespread form of private sector red teaming. "White-hat" hackers attempt to breach company networks using the same techniques employed by malicious actors. These tests reveal vulnerabilities in technical systems and human processes alike. Social engineering tests demonstrate how easily employees can be manipulated into revealing passwords or granting unauthorized access. The findings from these engagements help organizations prioritize security investments and develop more effective defenses against actual attacks. Financial institutions conduct red team exercises to test resilience against cyber attacks that could disrupt markets or compromise customer data. Healthcare organizations simulate scenarios ranging from data breaches to physical security incidents that could endanger patients. Energy companies test their ability to maintain operations during attacks on critical infrastructure. These exercises help organizations develop and validate incident response plans before facing actual crises. The most effective private sector red teams maintain independence while understanding business realities. They must identify vulnerabilities without creating undue disruption to operations. As one practitioner explained, "Our job isn't to break into a computer network or building, it's to improve the security of the client. If we haven't done that, then we have failed." This perspective highlights that red teaming serves not merely to identify problems but to improve organizational performance through structured challenge.

Chapter 6: Six Principles for Effective Red Teaming Implementation

Effective red teaming requires adherence to six fundamental principles that mitigate the cognitive and organizational biases hampering institutional performance. First and foremost, the boss must buy in. Without explicit support from leadership, red teams will be under-resourced, marginalized, or ignored. This "top cover" must be signaled throughout the organization to ensure the red team's findings receive proper consideration and drive meaningful improvements rather than becoming shelf documents. Second, red teams must maintain the delicate balance of being outside and objective while remaining inside and aware. They need sufficient independence to challenge conventional thinking, yet enough institutional knowledge to understand the organization's culture, constraints, and capabilities. This requires careful positioning within the organizational structure and proper scoping of activities. The red team must avoid becoming a "seagull that flies in, craps on the plan, and flies away" while maintaining enough distance to provide genuine challenge. Third, effective red teams require fearless skeptics with finesse. The best red teamers tend to be self-described "oddballs" with critical, divergent thinking styles who remain inherently skeptical of authority and conventional wisdom. Yet they must also possess the interpersonal skills to communicate findings in ways that will be heard rather than dismissed. As one practitioner noted, "There is a difference between being crotchety versus being an open thinker." This combination of skepticism and communication skill is rare but essential for red team effectiveness. Fourth, red teams must have a big bag of tricks. Their approaches and techniques cannot become routine or predictable, or they risk being easily dismissed. Good red teamers never reveal all their tactics during initial engagements and maintain flexibility to adapt when initial approaches fail to gain traction. This principle recognizes that organizations develop resistance to challenge over time, requiring red teams to continuously evolve their methods to maintain effectiveness. Fifth, organizations must be willing to hear bad news and act on it. If institutions refuse to learn from red team findings, the entire exercise becomes pointless or even counterproductive. This requires creating a culture that values constructive criticism and learning. Leaders must demonstrate genuine openness to uncomfortable truths and willingness to implement changes based on red team recommendations, even when doing so requires admitting previous errors or changing course. Finally, organizations should red team just enough, but no more. Too frequent red teaming can demoralize staff and prevent implementation of previous recommendations. Too infrequent red teaming allows complacency to set in. The appropriate frequency depends on how dynamic the operating environment is and the potential consequences of failure. Organizations must find the right balance that maintains vigilance without creating challenge fatigue.

Chapter 7: Common Pitfalls: Why Red Teams Fail or Get Ignored

Despite its potential value, red teaming frequently fails to achieve its objectives due to several common pitfalls. Understanding these challenges is essential for organizations seeking to implement effective red team programs and avoid wasting resources on exercises that produce little improvement in performance or security. The most fundamental pitfall occurs when red teams lack genuine independence. When red teamers report to the same leaders responsible for the strategies or systems being evaluated, they face intense pressure to soften criticisms or focus only on minor issues. This problem manifested during the 2002 Millennium Challenge military exercise, when red team leader Paul Van Riper resigned in protest after exercise controllers imposed artificial constraints that guaranteed a blue team victory. Without sufficient independence, red teams become mere validation mechanisms for existing plans rather than sources of genuine challenge. Another common failure occurs when organizations conduct red teaming as a compliance exercise rather than a genuine learning opportunity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been criticized for conducting "security theater" by giving nuclear plants advance notice of supposedly surprise inspections. Similarly, corporations sometimes hire penetration testers with narrow scopes that exclude critical systems, allowing them to claim they've been tested without addressing real vulnerabilities. This approach provides false assurance while leaving significant risks unaddressed. Red teams also fail when their composition lacks diversity of thought and experience. Teams comprised of individuals with similar backgrounds tend to identify the same types of problems while missing others entirely. The controversial Team B intelligence exercise of 1976 demonstrated this pitfall when a group of hardline anti-Soviet analysts predictably concluded that the CIA had underestimated Soviet capabilities and intentions. Effective red teams require cognitive diversity to generate truly alternative perspectives. Perhaps most damaging is when red team findings are simply ignored. The pre-9/11 FAA red team repeatedly documented serious aviation security vulnerabilities, yet their findings were dismissed or downplayed by senior officials. Similarly, the McKinsey & Company red team that evaluated the Healthcare.gov website before its troubled launch identified many of the problems that would later emerge, but their warnings went unheeded. This pattern demonstrates that red teaming without organizational commitment to learning and improvement becomes a wasteful exercise. Communication failures represent another common pitfall. Even the most insightful analysis proves worthless if presented in ways that alienate decision-makers or provide no clear path to action. Red teams that approach their role as "gotcha" exercises focused on embarrassing the organization typically generate defensive reactions rather than constructive change. Effective red teams develop communication strategies that acknowledge organizational realities while clearly conveying critical findings in actionable terms.

Summary

Red teaming offers a structured approach to challenging assumptions and identifying vulnerabilities across diverse organizational contexts. At its core, this methodology addresses a universal problem: institutions cannot effectively evaluate their own strategies, plans, and security measures due to cognitive biases and organizational cultures that create systematic blind spots. By employing independent teams to think like adversaries or competitors, organizations gain invaluable outside perspectives that reveal unstated assumptions, identify weaknesses, and improve performance before real adversaries can exploit them. The most successful red teams balance independence with relevance, maintaining sufficient distance to challenge prevailing wisdom while understanding organizational context enough to provide actionable recommendations. They require explicit leadership support, appropriate composition, clear scope, and effective communication strategies. When properly implemented, red teaming serves not as a one-time exercise but as an ongoing process of rigorous challenge that improves organizational resilience and decision-making. The ultimate value lies not in confirming what organizations already believe, but in revealing what they do not know they do not know—the unknown unknowns that often prove most dangerous in complex, high-stakes environments.

About Author

Loading...

Micah Zenko

Read more