#46 Honor

"Honor is the glue that holds the Army Values together." - FM 6-22

"He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable or dangerous to do so." - Walter Lippmann (A Preface to Morals - 1929)

Of all the Army Values, honor is the least discussed and arguably the most important. In the Army's Leadership manual, the word honor is never really defined, and there are only 4 short paragraphs devoted to its' discussion. And yet the manual calls it the glue that binds all the other values together.

When I was a Drill Sergeant I always enjoyed teaching the Army Values to trainees. I would volunteer to do it when others didn't want to. I believed it to be the most important class we could provide a new Soldier. I used to tell them that at the end of the day, all you really have in the world is your name. That's it. Fenlason, Smith, Jones, Johnson, whatever. The whole of your being is wrapped up in your name. What do you want the world to remember of you? What is your name worth? Your honor is the way you carry yourself in the world and how your actions and words are interpreted by others. Your name is the foundation of your character. At first it is an inheritance given by your parents. Over time, it becomes the legacy of the life you have lived.

For me, my honor more closely resembles Lippmann's quote above. My honor is an ideal of me; what I aspire to be. It is the recognition that I must always strive to be a better person tomorrow than I am today. It is an unattainable goal of the person I hope I can become. It is the embodiment of what it means to be Fenlason. And recognition that the name itself has weight and form and requirements that must adhered to.

Honor also means living up to the expectations and obligations of those around you. Your family, friends, community. It sometimes means walking alone and following your own calling.

In the context of leader development, honor means possessing a deep and abiding understanding of who you are and what you value. Of knowing when and where to draw the line in the sand that says to others, "You may come this far, but one more step and you will not be allowed to proceed any further." It is knowing how far you can bend for compromise before you must resist.

Over the last month or so, I have repeatedly come back to the idea that self-awareness and self-study are essential parts of the leader development process. We must encourage a training model where we continually place people in situations that allow for increased self-actualization and then point out to them the importance of their self-discovery. Namely, that it serves to help define their honor code. The questions we must ask are not only how or why did something succeed or fail, but what did you learn about yourself during the event? How has your self-awareness changed due to this experience? By encouraging this, we are helping leaders arrive at those 'lines in the sand' that define them for their subordinates. These definitions are critically important for the follower. They must know what their leaders value before they can decide whether or not they will follow. And they can only know this if the leader has a clear picture of what those values are and then explains and demonstrates them to their followers. A leader who cannot do this will rapidly lose the faith and trust of his/her subordinates. They must know who you are, what you value and, most importantly, why you feel that way. They must see you act consistently to adhere to them.

Both individuals and organizations work this way. As much as I must understand myself, so too does an organization have to engage in the difficult task of analyzing it's purpose and its' allowable norms of behavior. From time to time, it must examine it's honor code. For example, we live in a free market society. One of the binding beliefs of all Americans is that we each have an inherent right to make money and attain wealth. But, at what cost? Is it ok to steal the pension of a senior citizen? The answer is no. But isn't that what happens when large investment banks do not carefully and wisely invest the retirement money that we give them? Aren't they abusing the faith and trust that we place in them? In this example, the investor is the follower and the banker is the leader. By placing our faith (and our money) in a risky investment plan that could make large profits, but just as equally could cause large losses, it is the value system of the organization that is at stake. Organizations have the same obligation to define themselves for their employees and the public as Fenlason does to his Soldiers. They both must know where the leader stands and what he/she values. We need to consider this.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

#45 The Reason

Next week, on Feb 9th, a book will be published entitled, "Black Hearts, One Platoon's Descent Into Madness in Iraq's Triangle of Death." It is written by Time magazine editor Jim Frederick and is the story of 1st platoon, B Co, 1/502 Infantry, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the events and tragedies that occurred from September 2005 to September 2006. It will tell the story - hopefully accurately - of the events that began my personal odyssey and transformation.

As many of you are already aware, I was the platoon sergeant for 1st platoon from Feb 5th, 2006 - December 31st 2006. During this time the principle, although certainly not the only, significant events that became the basis for the book, took place. These are the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and the murder of she and her family by US forces, and an insurgent attack against 3 of my Soldiers which resulted in a 3 day manhunt to recover their tortured and booby-trapped bodies.

I have not read the book so I have no idea what it will say. What I do know is that short of the official investigations, this will probably be the most complete record of that period that has been conducted. Mr. Frederick interviewed hundreds of members of the battalion and the reviews that I have seen all say that it has been painstakingly researched. What conclusions he has drawn from those interviews remain to be seen.

I think that many of us who went through that time will be looking for some sort of absolution or vindication in the pages of the story - some sense that we did all we could, or knew how to do. But I'm not sure that that sort of comfort will be provided. My guess is that for every event where it appears that someone is vindicated, there will likely be another point where he will be vilified. As Mr. Frederick told me when he interviewed me, everybody gets a little messy in the end.

Personally, I think I'll have to read it 3 times. Once, to see the parts that directly involve me, a second time to learn how others saw the events unfolding and finally to try and draw some leadership lessons from it.

That time and those events are also the beginning of my personal journey. They have become the reason behind this blog and my somewhat amateurish study of leadership. As I have told other people, when you have travelled through the looking glass as events like this force you to do, when you emerge you no longer see your world the same way again. Any personal dramatic event in a person's life will do this, death, illness, injury etc. The sheer emotional weight of the event itself has a changing effect on those who were part of it. I, like many others who were part of that unit at that time and place, have been changed.

For me, that time was a crucible. I gave all I had to rebuilding the platoon prior to July '06 and then trying to keep it together until we could get back home after everything came to light. It was emotionally exhausting and difficult. I was forced to question everything I knew about the Army and leadership. I lost friends and professional acquaintances along the way. All my Soldiers did too. I saw extreme heroism and the absolute best of the American character in a Soldier who had the courage to come forward after the deaths of our 3 Soldiers to inform me that the Iraqi family may not have been killed by insurgents but rather by Americans. Knowing that that information would make our ordeal even more difficult, he did the right thing anyway. That is the Army and American value system at it's finest. I also saw the worst in people. I saw a sergeant cover up the crime and then watched as he memorialized a friend of his who was killed as a result of him covering it up. I saw people lie and try to rewrite facts in order to explain away their partial ownership in the events that transpired. I saw and experienced the anger and resentment and hostility and denial by many people looking to make the events go away.

I write this blog to talk about leadership. Leadership is easy when there is nothing critical at stake. It's all a matter of perspective. In the civilian sector there will always be pressure to turn a profit or meet sales goals or performance expectations, and those who are in charge often have to make very difficult choices in order to meet those expectations. In the military however - and in particular during a time of war - leaders make decisions that can have permanent effects. People can live or die on the outcome of the decisions we make. I sent those 4 Soldiers to that checkpoint from which they carried out their crimes. They were sent there for just and valid reasons. Am I then somehow responsible for the death of Abeer Al Janabi and her family? That is the ultimate difference between military and civilian leadership. It is rare in the civilian world that a person pays the ultimate price for the decision a leader or supervisor makes. In an Army at war it is a much greater possibility.

In the weeks ahead as people read the book and work through it, more accusations and denials will likely arise. And most will be self-serving. As much as I would like to think that I won't participate in that, the odds are I will. Someone, either a reader or the author, will fault me for something I did or did not do and I will feel compelled to defend my actions. I wish I could say that I won't participate in another round of tit-for-tat, but I know myself too well. I cannot take an attack without responding. It's not in my nature.

Here's the interesting part though....What if all of those decisions, made at all the varying levels of command, were 'correct'? What if each of us who were making decisions at that point in time were doing everything that we believed to be correct? Then what? What if there isn't anyone to blame? Where will that leave us? What lessons will there be to be learned?

The Army pays me to make decisions. They trained me and promoted me and gave me positions of authority over the course of my career. I am expected to take my knowledge, skills and abilities and make decisions that will help achieve the unit's mission. From Feb 2006 to December 2006 that's what I did for the men of 1st platoon who were in my charge. That's what we do. But they didn't train me for something like this. And they didn't train any of the people above me for something like this either. Once the events began to unfold we no longer had a road map or leadership manual to guide us. We were in uncharted waters.

I think any study of leadership has to begin with the question, "What would I have done if I were in that position?" So, if you are inclined to read the history of that time and those events, please keep this in mind: Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the actions we took, we were the one's who were required to make them. And we did. Many with the best of intentions and bringing to bear all of the experience and knowledge we had available to us at the time.

Events like this can be very instructive however. They show the fault in the leader education system where we provide lists of memorized phrases and vignettes of former heroes and hand a person a graduation certificate and call them a leader. In 1st platoon, I had Soldiers who had great leadership qualities, and I had leaders who were morally bankrupt. We had heroes and villains.

Finally, if you read the book and have questions about what and why things happened, please ask. The only good that can come of these tragic events will be that another young leader gains an insight into the human condition and the difficulties of leading men in battle and comes away with a better understanding of both.

As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments.