Last month, I introduced the concept of the observe-orient-decide-act loop, or OODA loop, developed by military strategist John Boyd. It is a concise model of conflict that has guided war planners and fighters of this country since his 1986 presentation.

Boyd's feeling was that the orientation phase was the most crucial to the outcome of any conflict, as it determines the posture one takes to the conflict before any action begins. My simplified model from last month shows a cycle with four equal steps. In Boyd's more complex model , orientation is exploded out to show the various facets that affect how we orient ourselves.

You can see that genetic heritage, cultural traditions, previous experience, new information, and then how we analyze and synthesize new information all combine to decide how we orient ourselves to a particular conflict. The first two we have no control over, but we can become aware of how our heritage and cultural traditions might predispose us to act in one way or another. It also a good idea to become aware of how other people's heritage and cultural traditions might come into play in conflict. Sometimes a difference in communication style that started out relatively benign can escalate into conflict simply because one side feels unnecessarily threatened by another's normal (to them) mode of communicating.

It could also be said we don't have any control over our previous experience in the moment. However, the sooner we begin to reinforce positive or successful means of dealing with conflict, the sooner that becomes our previous experience as opposed to default behaviors that may have been unsuccessful. Previous experience that we bring to a conflict can also be simply, "What was just happening to us prior to entering into a conflict? Are we stressed, angry, depressed, or otherwise mentally pre-occupied?" These states of mind can obscure our ability to accurately perceive the nature of the threats as well as possible solutions to the conflict. They may have even led us into conflict in the first place. We have all probably heard the term "seeing red." In an angry and adrenalized state, our vision literally narrows down and we are unable to properly perceive our adversary's actions or the environment.

This plays directly into the rest of the orientation phase. We simply won't receive all the new information we need to properly analyze the situation and quickly come up with a plan for constructive action. Staying aware and as relaxed as possible, while putting ourselves in the best position to counter threats as well as avoid or escape threats will give us the best options for action.

Training in a reality-based self-defense system such as Krav Maga addresses several of the components of orientation. We can add to or change our previous experience in dealing with conflicts as they are presented to us in class scenarios. Confidence alone is a factor that predisposes us to addressing conflict without projecting as much fear. Training in a variety of scenarios helps us understand that we have more choices when we come from a position of strength and initiative than from fear and passivity. The subtle effects of confidence on our posture and bearing can cause a potential adversary to melt away and decide to look elsewhere for victims before the conflict ever begins. In various stages of conflict, maintaining a constructive orientation gives us the means to choose actions that lead us towards a successful resolution rather than letting situations escalate out of our control.

Next month, in the final installment of this discussion I will do some redesign to Boyd's more complex model. He has the idea of "implicit guidance and control" that grows out of orientation. This is the means by which facets of the orientation phase can affect all aspects of conflict. There is a direct relationship between this implicit guidance and control and the feedback we receive from a changing situation.