#110 The Edge of an Understanding

I have no idea where this post is going to end up. Normally, I do. It will start with an idea formed by something I've seen or read, and then progress down a pretty clear path to a picture in my mind of the point I hope to make. The difficulty is only in getting the 3-D picture in my mind onto the page and trying to do justice with words that accurately describe the image. Today though, the picture itself isn't very clear, so I cannot see a way to describe it for you. I think the reasons for my confusion are actually pretty simple however. Too many fragmented inputs, too many questions, and not enough time to consider each of them in depth. I feel as if I'm on the edge of an understanding, but do not see the whole picture yet. Let's see where it ends up...

Inputs:

First, yesterday was the 5th anniversary of the crimes committed by my Soldiers. Regardless of what else happens in my life, March 12, 2006 will forever remain a definitive moment for me. In some ways, it is the defining moment. There was life - and all I understood it to be - before that day, and there is life after that day. The earth quake that hit Japan this week moved its' coastline 8 feet and changed the earth's axis. Whole systems within the universe will be changed ever so slightly because of that. March 12th did that for me. Through the looking glass we go...

Second, a former Soldier of mine died this week. She was a young woman, twenty-something years old. When I knew her she was a happy, smiling, vibrant young girl who was determined to have fun and she made your day brighter just being around her. She was also one hell of a Soldier. But she got lost somewhere along the way and ended up out of the Army and was trying so very hard to redefine and find her way in the world. She will be buried sometime next week, and the world has lost another pure soul much too soon. It just left me feeling sort of fragile. Hopefully, she is not searching anymore. The rest of us will be left asking why?

Third, a portion of an article sent to me by a friend entitled, "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education", written by Professor William Deresiwicz that speaks to recognizing how elite systems work, and how they create cultures of entitlement and conformity, rather than challenge and thoughtful consideration. How the intellectual elite end up separating themselves from the world they live in and insulate themselves from humanity.

And finally, from a mentor who sent me a very simple - yet very powerful thought. He reminded me that good leaders, "Don't personalize the profession, but rather professionalize the person".

Questions:

How do you lead other people? On slide #95 of "Patterns of Conflict", COL John Boyd made the following observation with regard to guerrilla warfare:

- "Guerrillas must develop implicit connections with the people or countryside."

- "Guerrillas must be able to blend into the emotional - cultural - intellectual environment of the people until they become one with the people."

- "The people's feelings and thoughts must become the guerrilla's feelings and thoughts and the guerrilla's feelings and thoughts must become the people's feelings and thoughts."

Result: "Guerrillas become indistinguishable from the people while government becomes isolated from the people."

Now remove the word guerrilla and replace it with the word leader. Seems awfully close to me to be the ideal of leadership. To become one with those we lead. To immerse ourselves in their experience to the point that who is in charge becomes less important than the mission we are collectively conducting. To become indistinguishable by any formal system from those we lead. The mission is the only thing. Who accomplishes it, who directs it, and who leads it become secondary concerns to getting it done.

With regard to yesterday's anniversary of the crimes committed by members of my platoon, the aftermath of that tragic event has sent me down a path that has fundamentally changed the way I view leadership both practically and theoretically. My concept of what leadership is has changed and as a result of that how I exercise leadership has changed as well. I have become less directive and less sure of the outcome. I have gained a much greater respect and awareness for unfolding circumstances that can affect the mission. I spend a lot more time painting the picture and a lot less proscribing the steps. In many ways, I feel as if I have become much more adaptable and much more attuned - especially to those non-quantifiable things like perspective, and emotion. I no longer ascribe to the notion that everyone can be treated the same. Each individual must be treated as a unique set of understandings and interpretations. The key to successful leadership is find out how and why others view their world the way they do and then working with that understanding to accomplish a common mission.

Which leads me to the second input - the loss of Crystal Thompson. While I do not understand why she has passed, the fact that she has means that we will never understand completely who she was, or who she had the potential to become. Because she was no longer in the Army, her loss will not be viewed by many as combat related, or as a result of the war, but in the back of my mind I cannot escape the idea that had she had senior leaders around her who accepted her, who saw her as more than an interchangeable widget, who had helped her to see herself more clearly, she might not have gotten quite so far off track. She, at one time, was a Soldier - and a damn good one. I just feel like we owed her more than that. We owed her leadership in the sense that we viewed her as one of our children. We owed her the respect of her humanity. Throughout the week many of her former Soldiers and friends have expressed their grief and their love for her on her Facebook page. Maybe had she known that earlier, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

In Professor D's paper, I came across the following paragraph that reminded me of so many Army leaders I know:

"Because students from elite schools expect success, and expect it now. They have, by definition, never experienced anything else, and their sense of self has been built around their ability to succeed. The idea of not being successful terrifies them, disorients them, defeats them. They’ve been driven their whole lives by a fear of failure—often, in the first instance, by their parents’ fear of failure. The first time I blew a test, I walked out of the room feeling like I no longer knew who I was. The second time, it was easier; I had started to learn that failure isn’t the end of the world."

Leading people inherently means valuing them. Not simply as a means to an end, or from one limited understanding, but from a totality of their existence. Who they really are. The various roles they play. Why they think and act and color their world the way they do. You cannot lead others without this understanding. And yet, the Army creates many leaders who are colored a lot like Professor D's elite students above. They possess an absolute sense of their own surety and greatness. That they are the chosen few. That they are entitled to their world, their way. They cannot conceptualize or comprehend failure. A lot of last week's post outlined behaviors that fit this mold. Are we really raising our young officer corp to understand at the behavioral level those they lead, or are we continually perpetuating a class system of elites who see their subordinates as their minions? And to be completely fair, the idea of elitism is by no means limited to the officer corps alone. The NCO corps has become loaded with 'special' people who wrap themselves in titles and carry the accoutrements of position like a badge of honor. When we become disconnected like that, and begin to think we are entitled to something more, than we have already begun to fail. There is no entitlement in leadership. In its' perfect sense it happens regardless of rank, station, position, or education. And the only way to get to that place is through respect.

Finally, the quote from a friend and mentor. "Don't personalize the profession. Professionalize the person." Awesome, powerful statement because it requires the respect of the person first and the molding of them into the profession second. I have to value them individually first, recognizing their particular strengths, weaknesses, viewpoints, and filters, and then bring those attributes together inside of the profession that we share. There cannot be any nameless widgets in that phrase. It's not about the leader, it's truly about the led. As my friend does for me, the role of the leader is to help the subordinate see their environment more clearly, and to set the conditions for the subordinate to succeed in the professional arena.

March 12th will always remind me of how far I have come on my journey of understanding, and humble me when I realize how far I have to go. Crystal Thompson is a person who will remind me how quickly and permanently things can change. We must remain ever vigilant to guard against elitism in an Army system where the top could certainly be termed an 'educational elite', but the bottom can be very under-educated. We must guard against that gap becoming too large. John Boyd reminds me that to value them we must remain in tune with them. There can be no other way.

And we must ultimately respect those we work for. Not above us on the ladder, but those below us. They are the ones who matter. They are the ones who accomplish our missions, and they are the ones who look to us to provide them the opportunity to one day serve others. In order to do that, we may have to steal a page from COL Boyd and become a guerrilla....

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.



11 comments:

  1. Hi-
    Though I read your blog with interest, and share your commitment to the study of leadership, my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. I possess neither a moment of military experience, nor any knowledge of you beyond what can be gleaned from your blog posts.
    I decided to comment this time because I am struck by your last post- both in title and in content.
    There is marked discord between your description of what you believe military leaders 'owed' to Chrystal Thompson (and I am very sorry that this sad anniversary now marks another loss for you) and the thoughts that you have expressed about the soldiers involved in the Black Hearts incident. This discord leads me several different ways in thought.
    The first is the gender difference. In this and previous posts, you tend to describe women soldiers with what seems to be a well-meaning but unconscious paternalization, and I notice that here again in these words: "We owed her leadership in the sense that we viewed her as one of our children". This seems oddly out of place with the respectful and collegial way that you normally discuss the leader/soldier interaction. What role does gender play in how you see 'lost' soldiers?
    The second thought is that the discord allows you to place the Black Hearts soldiers in some different category than Chrystal Thompson and others like her- a category that absolves leadership of the responsibility of keeping them from 'getting so far off track'
    I wonder if this discord isn't what keeps you on the edge of understanding?
    I offer these comments with respect, as food for thought, and in the hope that they may be in some way helpful to you on your journey.

    Kristin Morton

    And in defense of those with elite educations: Alumni of our country's elite universities are rivaled only by the military in being the staunchest and most successful defenders and protectors of the vulnerable in this country :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kristin - First, thank you very much for taking the time to check out the blog and my thoughts. I appreciate it.

    As for your thoughts....

    I am a huge advocate for women in the military. I make no excuses for that and feel quite strongly that we are better off as an Army for their contributions. I firmly support any efforts to rescind the combat exclusionary laws because they only serve to perpetuate the notion than somehow women are not 'true' combatants, a notion that this war - more than any other - has proven untrue.

    As for my paternalism, perhaps you are correct. I think that any group of people who comprise 12-15% of the total force has to be given every ounce of support, and many of the inherent challenges they face are only exacerbated by such a male dominated environment. From policies, to promotions, to equipment, they are often at a disadvantage and for the time being require advocates for an equal opportunity to serve their country in the manner they best see fit. For the record, I feel the same about open homosexual service as well.
    Having said that, Crystal Thompson was in no way comparable to the Soldiers in my platoon. I do not speak of them as 'lost' in the same manner that I described her because the heinousness of their atrocities was such that there is no possible way that they could have not understood that what they were intending to do was beyond the scope of acceptable behavior. They executed with intent. She simply became overwhelmed with her world. They are perpetrators and she a victim. Had one of them died without having committed a crime like that, I suppose that I would feel much the same way as I do for her. A tragic loss of a young person who couldn't find a way to reconcile her place in the world.

    When I spoke of her leadership 'failing' her, it stems from an understanding that the Army has a reflex reaction that we will apply all rules, regulations, and policies equally regardless of rank, station, or position. Not surprisingly however, this is often not the case. My guess is that Crystal left the Army because she got tired of the bullshit that goes along with any large institution and possibly didn't have anyone who inspired her or saw that she had potential. That is the sadness in this. When I knew her she was one of the best and brightest young people I knew. She only needed someone to understand that she was young, prone to making the dumb choices that young people often make, who could recognize that with guidance and maturity she could have become an extremely good leader and mentor for other Soldiers.

    As for elite educations, there is no doubt that our finest institutions have often been the staunchest defenders and supporters for the disenfranchised and less fortunate in our country. I am not railing against elite educations, however, a by-product of that system is that he elite often lose sight of the people they are defending. While they theoretically wish to save the world, they do not want to mix in with those who they do not consider their peers. West Point "Ring Knockers" didn't get that label for nothing. They went to West Point, you did not. Therefor, while you might be a fine officer, you cannot be one of them. That sense of elitism and entitlement is extremely far removed from the experience of most young Soldiers I know. I am not denigrating the education they have received, only cautioning the elites not to lose sight of the humanity shared by the under-educated as well. And for our youngest leaders to take the time to learn from those less educated - it will make them better leaders in the long run.

    Again, let me thank you for taking the time to reply. I sincerely appreciate it. Take care,

    Fen

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’m sure that you serve as a powerful advocate for the women soldiers with which you serve. They are undoubtedly lucky in many ways to have you in their corner. There is no more powerful ally for someone in a group that experiences discrimination than to have a member of the majority group confront and refuse to comply with the mistreatment.
    I think your paternal reaction can be an instinctual one, and, while really quite a good thing in some situations, it is important to note that it is probably the male-female interaction style that is least likely to compel a woman’s strength.
    I mention this because of the support that you expressed for women in combat. Your natural protectiveness of women in an unsupportive environment is key to an honest discussion about this issue. While I don’t endorse limitations for women in any way, I think this issue is often reduced to a discussion about capability when, in fact, it is much messier. Undoubtedly, there are women who are capable and who would excel in a combat unit. The deeper issue is the far-reaching cost of what is required to enable that to occur. What price do we pay when men are forced to quash their instinctual drive to protect women? What are the long term consequences? How high do we let the sexual and domestic violence numbers rise?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kristin -

    You are undoubtedly correct that there are social and cultural considerations that must be taken into account if we actually remove the remaining exclusionary laws forbidding women in combat. The problem with that is that we have no definitive model to use to predict the outcome. The Israelis' tried it an abandoned it for many of the reasons you put forth. If I am not mistaken, the Canadian's are now fully integrated. Another problem is that they ARE ALREADY THERE. The point is somewhat moot except that our political policies by not truly accepting that create problems that directly impact readiness and safety. Femal specific body armor is an example. It has taken 10 years of combat to truly recognize that we have a need to design, build, and field body armor that offers the same levels of protection while conforming more accurately to a female physiological form. If women were allowed in combat formations, I do not believe it would have taken this long. My personal experience is that when female combatants can/do measure up in combat, their male peers ascribe a measure of respect to them that is almost beyond reproach. Once she has proven her mettle, they no longer see her as a only a woman, but also as a sister-in-arms who they are proud to serve with and trust implicitly. The same way they trust other men. The only comparable model to describe this feeling would be the Tuskegee Airmen who at first folks thought were not capable of the requirements of flying, but whose abilities resulted in units refusing to be escorted by any other unit except them.

    My only concern with your response was at the very end. While sexual assault in the Army is most definitely a problem, I'm not sure that there is a lot of evidence that it is happening in units where our females are mission-focused and respected as warriors. I can't prove that, only that it has not been my experience. The myth that combat is only a "man's job" has created part of this problem and no doubt instances of assault will continue to happen - as they do throughout all aspects of society. I do believe however that if we were to allow women to fully serve in every role in the Army, over time there would come to be a respect for those who have the capability to perform under pressure. It would become less about gender and more about her ability to handle herself and those in her charge in combat.

    Thanks again for replying and furthering the conversation. I appreciate your thoughts and comments very much.

    Fen

    ReplyDelete
  5. this whole gender topic is messy, political, cultural, stereotyped, social,etc .....all which means it is a "human"....it is one of those topics where the start point must be both parties getting a shared mental model and shared understanding of where both parties are (in terms of political,cultural, social, etc)

    classic example of "perspective taking"....

    JD

    ReplyDelete
  6. The gender topic is 'messy', but violence against women is a fairly upfront statistical reality. In the military, the reporting rate is increasing. Data suggest that rates are proportionally higher in the infantry, higher again in deployed units, higher still in units that see combat and the Pentagon says "that the strains between men and women in close quarters in war zones have exacerbated the problem."

    ReplyDelete
  7. While I in no way want to inhibit this conversation, I can't help but feel it is in slightly the wrong place as part of this post. Crystal Thompson was a Soldier. A good Soldier. Her gender had nothing to do with her ability or desire to complete her missions. Her death - under whatever circumstance it happened - was saddening to me and formed part of this particular blog post. She was a young woman with lots of potential and the loss of what "could have been" bothers me. If leadership is partially about being able to bring out those traits in others that allow them to succeed beyond their comprehension, then she was failed. Maybe by the Army, maybe by others outside of the military. I don't know. I will engage the topic of women in combat again, I'm sure, but for the time being, this wasn't about politics, or violence against women, or personal perspective, or culture etc. It was about the loss of a young person who was a good kid, who happened - at one time in her life - to be a Soldier.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’ve been reading your blog for a few months now and appreciate your perspective and courage - thank you. I just finished reading post #110. Now, this is my ‘artistic interpretation’ of what you’ve written, so if I’m off the mark, please accept my apology. In my opinion, I believe the theme can be summarized by the following quote from the text: “Leading people inherently means valuing them. Not simply as a means to an end, or from one limited understanding, but from a totality of their existence.” Leading by individual valuation versus viewing people as a means to mission accomplishment seems pretty basic, but the bureaucratic nature of the modern organization makes this counterintuitive to the organizational leader. The organizational development philosophy of most contemporary American organizations, especially highly bureaucratic and rigidly hierarchical organizations such as the Army, is to use rules and incentives as a pragmatic means to motivate development. This individualistic focus of measurement and evaluation reflects the organizational culture and shapes behavior. This, by design, allows the organizational leadership to evaluate each individual and separate those who should move up from those who should move out. Now, although this is systematically efficient, it doesn’t optimize the leader’s ability to value, understand, and develop the individual as a member of the team. To overcome this, a leader must become just as comfortable operating within the emotional, sub-conscious sector of human behavior as they are in the rational, conscious level. I’m guessing that this is, at best, for most leaders nebulous and perplexing, and at worst, impossible…the edge of an understanding.
    Good leadership requires functioning throughout the psycho-social spectrum. The leader must be just as competent in operating in the rational as he / she is with the emotional and able to see the individual as an independent entity as well as interdependent part of the group. In fact, it is more important for the leader to concentrate on the social relationships within the team and less on the individual. Leadership is a social structure. It is systematic and contextual. Because of this, it can be argued that emotion is more important than reason. And although the rational conscious side of our thinking is relevant and appropriate for certain situations that require thinking and decision making, our moral intuitions are not based on reason they are driven by subconscious thought – feelings and emotions. Moral thought encompass those thinking processes that govern social emotions such as loyalty, empathy, courage, fairness, gentleness, truthfulness, perseverance, integrity, open-mindedness, and kindness. ‘Meaning making’ is an essential task of the leader. It is much more challenging to make meaning of the sub-conscious emotional side of thought versus the conscious rational. The leader should focus on the emotional and social aspects within their organization to have a better chance of fostering a functional team that consists of balanced, well-adjusted individuals. This will allow them to lead their organization in a more connected and fulfilling way. All leaders need to benefit from the lesson that is embodied in another quote from your passage- “I have become much more adaptable and much more attuned – especially to those non-quantifiable things like perspective and emotion.” Again, thank you. - Walter

    ReplyDelete
  9. I’ve been reading your blog for a few months now and appreciate your perspective and courage - thank you. I just finished reading post #110. Now, this is my ‘artistic interpretation’ of what you’ve written, so if I’m off the mark, please accept my apology. In my opinion, I believe the theme can be summarized by the following quote from the text: “Leading people inherently means valuing them. Not simply as a means to an end, or from one limited understanding, but from a totality of their existence.” Leading by individual valuation versus viewing people as a means to mission accomplishment seems pretty basic, but the bureaucratic nature of the modern organization makes this counterintuitive to the organizational leader. The organizational development philosophy of most contemporary American organizations, especially highly bureaucratic and rigidly hierarchical organizations such as the Army, is to use rules and incentives as a pragmatic means to motivate development. This individualistic focus of measurement and evaluation reflects the organizational culture and shapes behavior. This, by design, allows the organizational leadership to evaluate each individual and separate those who should move up from those who should move out. Now, although this is systematically efficient, it doesn’t optimize the leader’s ability to value, understand, and develop the individual as a member of the team. To overcome this, a leader must become just as comfortable operating within the emotional, sub-conscious sector of human behavior as they are in the rational, conscious level. I’m guessing that this is, at best, for most leaders nebulous and perplexing, and at worst, impossible…the edge of an understanding.

    Good leadership requires functioning throughout the psycho-social spectrum. The leader must be just as competent in operating in the rational as he / she is with the emotional and able to see the individual as an independent entity as well as interdependent part of the group. In fact, it is more important for the leader to concentrate on the social relationships within the team and less on the individual. Leadership is a social structure. It is systematic and contextual. Because of this, it can be argued that emotion is more important than reason. And although the rational conscious side of our thinking is relevant and appropriate for certain situations that require thinking and decision making, our moral intuitions are not based on reason they are driven by subconscious thought – feelings and emotions. Moral thought encompass those thinking processes that govern social emotions such as loyalty, empathy, courage, fairness, gentleness, truthfulness, perseverance, integrity, open-mindedness, and kindness. ‘Meaning making’ is an essential task of the leader. It is much more challenging to make meaning of the sub-conscious emotional side of thought versus the conscious rational. The leader should focus on the emotional and social aspects within their organization to have a better chance of fostering a functional team that consists of balanced, well-adjusted individuals. This will allow them to lead their organization in a more connected and fulfilling way. All leaders need to benefit from the lesson that is embodied in another quote from your passage- “I have become much more adaptable and much more attuned – especially to those non-quantifiable things like perspective and emotion.” Again, thank you. - Walter

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nicely said Walter!....treating people like human beings (which they happen to be) rather than machines (which they don't happen to be)....empathy....emotional intelligence....simply words but with lots of depth....both can be taught and learned....

    Fen, you have written about this before....getting to "know" your Soldiers....

    Great stuff!

    JD

    ReplyDelete
  11. TO the readers of this post.. I will tell you this only because I know from experiance. Noone knows how the women in combat arms situation will result. It could end the same as mine did or it might not.... I got moved into an infantry platoon. I was the only female. I was an NCO and I told a Soldier he was embarrassing the Army. Shortly after this I was jumped by three men in the middle of the night on our FOB. I got the crap beat out of me. I didn't report it for fear I would be removed from my new platoon. If i were to be removed it would be like taking ten years of womens progress away. I picked up my weapon and "moved out". Shortly after my platoon got pinned down under a bridge on a patrol and we were receiveing RPGs and small arms fire. When I got out of my truck and took up post in front of my guys I was reacting to what my leadership taught me requardless of gender. When I looked back and saw the shock in my Soldiers eyes that I would really go the distance with them.. it only took me saying "what the hell are you doing, Fxxking return fire!" once. No matter how bad things got we were equal (gender wise). I took pride in the fact that my actions could turn a Soldier's trusted beliefs in male /female combat interaction. There will always be doubts in capabilities of females in combat. My military record will never say that I was an acting member with the infantry and im ok with that. Im ok with that because my actions changed at least the minds of the Soldiers of my platoon. They will pass their new beliefs on to their Soldiers and so forth. I have more pride in that than anything. I know that if I were to get hurt my NCO would die trying to save me because I am 'his' guy, just like I would die saving my Soldier because he is 'My' guy. Reguardless of gender. You love your fellow men with every ounce of blood you have because you have to. You have to love each other with everything you have, so that love will give you the strength to run through bullets for them as they would you. So you would risk never seeing your family again so they can see thiers. Your battle buddies life is always worth more than your own. Always. Reguardless of any report or survey no one knows how men and women will fight together and respond to eachothers duty and service until they are there, personally. The new guy on the block always has to prove himself. Always.
    -SGT C.

    ReplyDelete