Clarity Is Not an Option

Go/No Go

When it comes to communication, it’s hard to top the clarity of “Go/No Go.” It’s binary: one or the other. There’s no way to misunderstand the decision, right?

Bill Tindall thought otherwise.

During the planning of the Apollo missions in the 1960s, NASA engineers relentlessly searched for ways things could go wrong and worked to mitigate the associated risks. When they were developing the procedures for landing on the Moon, Tindall pointed out that once the astronauts were on the lunar surface, a “Go” command could be misinterpreted as “Leave.” In that context, a single word could trigger the wrong action at the worst possible time. He suggested changing the language to “Stay/No-Stay” for that specific phase of the mission.

That’s what operational precision looks like: treating words as part of the system. But what happens when words let risk hide in plain sight?

In 1961, when the CIA was finalizing paramilitary plans to overthrow Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, they asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to weigh in. The Chiefs’ report began with a strong note of caution, but the overall tone was positive. The summary included this sentence: 

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that timely execution of this plan has a fair chance of ultimate success and, even if it does not achieve immediately the full results desired, could contribute to the eventual overthrow of the Castro regime.”

But what did they mean by “fair?” To most people, a “fair chance” implies “more likely than not.” Or at least, “not crazy.” 

Regardless, neither the President nor any of his advisors pressed for a definition.

Later, it was learned that “fair” meant the JCS assessed the plan to have a 30% chance of success–that is, a 70% chance of failure*. But that detail was not part of the final deliberations that led Kennedy to greenlight the operation. 

In this case, one adjective allowed uncertainty to masquerade as endorsement. 

______

These stories point to the same collaboration risk: we confuse exchanged words with shared meaning. Shared understanding isn’t agreement—it’s alignment on what a word means and what action it triggers. “Go” is only safe if everyone hears the same verb: proceed, not leave. “Fair” is only useful if everyone hears the same probability. In high-stakes work, language is part of the risk system: it can reduce risk by forcing clarity, or increase risk by letting people hear what they want.

*Source: Jim Rasenberger, The Brilliant Disaster: JFK, Castro, and America’s Doomed Invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs (Scribner, 2011)

Additional Reference: Gene Kranz, Failure Is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo and Beyond (Simon & Schuster, 2000)