Page 108 - RAPTC Number 102 2018/19

106
www.raptcassociation.org.uk
informed and intelligent decisions in an often-stressful environment while under the supervision of safe and supportive Instructors. When then placed back in operational roles, the participants have already developed a variety of coping strategies and leadership skills to aid them in situations where consequences can also be life threatening.
Aside from action-consequence, AT allows participants a space to ‘fail safely’. Failure is not something that sits comfortably with most people, particularly in a military context. There is often no room for failure in operational situations. Failure, however, is a part of life and should we wish our staff to be confident to take measured risks and be more ambitious, then experiencing failure in a safe environment first is surely a good way to develop this capacity.
For example, speaking with an AT instructor who jumps out of planes for a living, it was surprising to learn that he found himself up against a complete psychological block when trying to abseil down a rock face. After much support and guided coaching from the Instructor, he eventually completed the abseil. His view of fear, failure and emotional dissonance had been completely altered by attempting a new task in a new environment. He said that he had been forced to rethink his normal coping strategies for something that had become routine in his work life; he had let fear of failing at the task overcome him. ‘’Aside from action-consequence, AT allows participants a space to ‘fail safely’.’’
This concept might alter our perception of the traditional Comfort, Stretch, Panic Model in that we seldom experience real panic, but are more often faced with a fear of failure or looking foolish, which may sometimes lead to panic. Perhaps our model now includes a fourth layer between stretch and panic, called the ‘fear of failure zone’. If we are aware of this, we can begin to find strategies to overcome the obstacles. AT does not set its students up to fail but places a need for an intelligent expectation that failure might be an outcome, not just of AT, but of experiences in general. As with the rest of the Comfort, Stretch, Panic Model, if we repeatedly experience failure and learn to overcome it, we can shrink the fear of failure zone, encompassing it into our learning zone.
As with our parachutist-turned-abseiler, the military needs its personnel to develop resilience and not simply be capable in their roles. This is essential for the realities of the environments that military personnel operate in. Being able to develop new ways
of thinking, of coping with failure, and not succumbing to it leads to a more aware, more flexible and more resilient workforce. If we never encounter failure, how can we
learn to do better? How can we develop a new coping strategy when we have little experience of having done so before? Getting things right first time is not guaranteed, so how do we cope if we don’t succeed at the first attempt?
If our personnel have gained experience through AT of trying, failing and learning, whether or not ultimately successful, then this allows for increased opportunity to learn and develop ways of actually succeeding. Self-efficacy (how much we believe we can succeed at a particular task) is directly linked to previous mastery of experiences. Those with higher self-efficacy (albeit not over-confidence) have a growth mindset, and approach tasks with a solution-focused attitude – they can recover more quickly after failure, and they have a lower risk of stress and depression
associated with task failure. Further, self-efficacy and in turn self-esteem (how much we value ourselves) are directly and positively impacted by outdoor experiences such as those found in AT. “If we never encounter failure, how can we learn to do better?’’