"Do what's right - legally and morally." FM 6-22
"No nation can safely trust its martial honor to leaders who do not maintain the universal code which distinguishes between those things that are right and those things that are wrong." - General Douglas MacArthur
Given the events of the past few weeks, this post may be one of the more difficult I have written. Since much of my recent writing is colored by the events outlined in "Black Hearts", and there has been a lot of back and forth on the BH Facebook group site regarding responsibility and accountability, it is still difficult for me to put things in a generic, or universal perspective. Forgive me if I am not completely able to maintain complete neutrality.
Values are malleable. Whether we like it or not, each of us has added or subtracted from our personal value system throughout our lives. Most personal value interpretations change over time and circumstance. Generally, this happens slowly as societal value norms shift. Those things that were 'sacred' beliefs for previous generations may not be so 'sacred' anymore. Either they have been overcome by events, or they did not stand the test of human decency in the first place. Ideas like racism and sexism come to mind. A current example may be the idea of openly allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. This is a critical recognition that I have mentioned before in the blog. There are periods when society begins to shift it's perception of the national value system. While the generation that comprises the senior leadership may find the idea of open homosexuality in the ranks difficult to understand, it may be that the younger generation of Soldiers and leaders find this to be a non-issue. The value system - not to be confused with individual moral beliefs - is constantly evolving.
FM 6-22 "Leadership" begins the section on Integrity like this:
"Leaders of integrity consistently act according to clear principle, not just what works now."
It is always easy to take the 'right now' road and make our lives easier. Having integrity requires that we consider whether or not that 'right now' road is legally or morally correct and then discarding it as an option if it is not. In light of the "Black Hearts" saga, it should be recognized that many of the other Army values can and did exist in 1st platoon. The platoon was intensely loyal to certain people. They believed that because they were in that place and that time facing those circumstances that they had an absolute right to conduct business in the manner that they saw fit. Importantly, when things went wrong or did not have the intended outcome, then reinterpretations and shadings began to take place. They created an internal value code that superseded the national and Army value system. This happened out of a misplaced sense of loyalty. It is difficult to completely blame junior soldiers for believing that their friends and platoon-mates were they only ones who they learned to trust and believe in. The same can be said for duty. They believed that killing Iraqis was the method of reducing the threat and eradicating the insurgent threat in our area of operations. Their duty was to kill or capture insurgents. That is what they had trained for and was the modus operandi for most operations. That created a behavioral dynamic that placed a premium on threat reduction and violence. Obviously, at a critical moment, the small-unit values subsumed the Army value system with catastrophic results.
The value of integrity in many ways supersedes all of the other values because it is integrity that overcomes small unit loyalty and equals the 'higher' duty to the national and Army values over a small unit's demand for loyalty. It is integrity that allows individuals to stand alone and do what is correct within the recognized American value system. This was done by many people throughout that time as well.
At the end of the day, individuals who wish to lead people, in either business or the military, need to spend time looking at their integrity. When all else fails, at the human being level, it may be all we have.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Showing posts with label The Values Series. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Values Series. Show all posts
#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.
"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.
#42 Selfless Service
"Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own." - FM 6-22
As I have made my way through the Army value system over the last few weeks, I have not always been able to form a concise thesis statement for my thoughts. Words on a page, written in a manual, that appear in form to be very black and white and clear cut, seem to run into vast grey areas as I try to think through them. I get the feeling that today will be no different.
In the Army Field Manual on Leadership, FM 6-22, the section on selfless service is a total of 5 paragraphs long. In the first of those 5 paragraphs you find the following quote:
"While the needs of the Army and the Nation should come first, it does not imply family or self-neglect. To the contrary, such neglect weakens a leader and can cause the Army more harm than good."
That sentence troubles me because it is exactly at the juxtaposition of priorities between organizational and personal requirements that we run into problems. First, while it may be a word game, the Army does not come before the Nation. The Nation is why we exist. We have an Army to serve the needs, values, and requirements of the Nation. Get the order wrong, as I think the manual does, and you set up an incorrect structure. First you selflessly serve the Army, and then we'll get to the Nation. Nope. It must always remain the other way around. First comes the Nation and then comes the Army. In fact, serving the Nation can be done in millions of ways and happens every day. Every doctor, teacher, soup kitchen worker, civil service member, civic or faith based organization member etc provides a service to our nation. The Army is only one possible way to be a selfless servant. We often forget that. Look around your community and you will find those servants everywhere. It is not the special province of those in uniform.
Second, and even more importantly, the quote does not offer any ideas on how to manage the conflict between service to the Army and the familial and personal neglect that does, and will, arise. That puts each Soldier in a constant state of struggle when their personal needs and those of their loved ones must be continually sacrificed for the organization. Especially at a time when many are questioning wether or not the organization really does care about them.
The current war has lasted 8 years. Far longer than was ever expected. Over 4000 service members have been killed. In most cases, we are no longer trying to figure out who has deployed and who hasn't, but rather how many times a service member has deployed. The military has approximately 1.5 million members. Considering the fact that at any one time about 300,000 are deployed across the world, that means that we've almost turned the entire service 3 times since the war began. Units on my post are facing their 4th or 5th year long deployment. How is it possible for me to balance my obligation to the Nation and the Army against the strain and demands that are being placed upon my family? How much service is enough? When have I done my part? When have I lived up to my obligation to the Nation and the Army?
Then we need to look at the portion concerning welfare of subordinates. A subordinate is a person. A human being. Which means that I as a leader am responsible to provide for the welfare of a human being. In an earlier post (# 28) I referenced Army Regulation 600-20 'Army Command Policy' that states that a leader has a requirement to meet the needs of a subordinate across 4 domains, physical, mental, material, and spiritual. Leaders are required to provide for the welfare of their Soldiers in those 4 manners collectively, and yet what skills or education do we provide them to accomplish this? From my experience and schooling, none. I have never been taught how to balance the competing demands of selfless service to the Nation and the Army against the human being requirements of my Soldiers. I have learned how to do it over time, experience and age. It has become what is often called wisdom.
When I was a young man service to the Army was my only imperative. The organization told me what it needed me to do and I did it. And that was ok because, although there was sacrifice involved, I really didn't have any competing demands. And the Nation was not at war. For as much as we thought we were working hard and selflessly serving, we really weren't. For every demand placed upon us we were compensated somehow down the road. Selfless service was easy.
Now I am older. I have a family and some of my priorities have changed. We are involved in a protracted war that is ill-defined and likely will persist on different fronts for decades to come. There will not be an endless series of days for me to make up time lost with my wife and daughter. I have learned that life is fleeting. I have memorialized young men who thought that they too would have an endless series of days. And I am left to wonder, how selfless can my service be? Is the possibility of creating a widow and a fatherless child in order to fulfill my obligation to the Nation worth it?
And while we're at it, Selfless Service implies sacrifice for the individual Soldier. That's a given. But what about the families and children and others who, by extension, are also selflessly serving their country and the Army? Make no mistake, the demands that the Army makes on me are easily exceeded by the demands it places upon my wife. And because she is not under some form of contract to the Army, she truly is serving as a volunteer. No compensation, no promotion, no obligation. Only because she is willing to put the Nation, the Army and me above her dreams and aspirations is she willing to accept this sacrifice for our family. Funny, but the manual doesn't address her at all. The Command Policy regulation does, but the leadership manual does not. I wonder why that is? Shouldn't leadership education include an understanding of those regulations that the Army calls it's bedrock imperatives? As a husband and father I know that I cannot equally meet my obligations to both the Army and my family. The difficulty is finding the balance. Maybe we ought to start looking at issues like that in our leadership schools....
And that is the part of Selfless Service that the 5 paragraphs don't address. That each of us will have to reach these decisions and conclusions for ourselves. As I work my way through the Army Values they should serve to drive me back into my own heart and mind to resolve the conflict that each of them raises. They should serve to remind me to reevaluate every now again what my priorities are and how near or far they are from the institution's stated norms.
I often use quotations to help me crystallize my thoughts. In light of this post, here are some I found today that strike a chord with me:
"You can only govern by serving them. The rule is without exception." - Victor Cousin
"Men grow only in proportion to the service they render to their fellow men and women" - Captain Edward V. Rickenbacher
"If in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion, or discovered a new one, check your pulse. You may be dead." - Gelett Burgess
The first quote follows my line of thought regarding servant leadership. We serve down. Those we lead do not exist for us to practice leadership. They exist for us to provide selfless service. The second quote recognizes the individual sense of well being that comes from possessing a servant oriented soul. The last is included because it is the reason for the blog.
To figure out who you are and what you value is the very first - and most important - responsibility of leadership.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
As I have made my way through the Army value system over the last few weeks, I have not always been able to form a concise thesis statement for my thoughts. Words on a page, written in a manual, that appear in form to be very black and white and clear cut, seem to run into vast grey areas as I try to think through them. I get the feeling that today will be no different.
In the Army Field Manual on Leadership, FM 6-22, the section on selfless service is a total of 5 paragraphs long. In the first of those 5 paragraphs you find the following quote:
"While the needs of the Army and the Nation should come first, it does not imply family or self-neglect. To the contrary, such neglect weakens a leader and can cause the Army more harm than good."
That sentence troubles me because it is exactly at the juxtaposition of priorities between organizational and personal requirements that we run into problems. First, while it may be a word game, the Army does not come before the Nation. The Nation is why we exist. We have an Army to serve the needs, values, and requirements of the Nation. Get the order wrong, as I think the manual does, and you set up an incorrect structure. First you selflessly serve the Army, and then we'll get to the Nation. Nope. It must always remain the other way around. First comes the Nation and then comes the Army. In fact, serving the Nation can be done in millions of ways and happens every day. Every doctor, teacher, soup kitchen worker, civil service member, civic or faith based organization member etc provides a service to our nation. The Army is only one possible way to be a selfless servant. We often forget that. Look around your community and you will find those servants everywhere. It is not the special province of those in uniform.
Second, and even more importantly, the quote does not offer any ideas on how to manage the conflict between service to the Army and the familial and personal neglect that does, and will, arise. That puts each Soldier in a constant state of struggle when their personal needs and those of their loved ones must be continually sacrificed for the organization. Especially at a time when many are questioning wether or not the organization really does care about them.
The current war has lasted 8 years. Far longer than was ever expected. Over 4000 service members have been killed. In most cases, we are no longer trying to figure out who has deployed and who hasn't, but rather how many times a service member has deployed. The military has approximately 1.5 million members. Considering the fact that at any one time about 300,000 are deployed across the world, that means that we've almost turned the entire service 3 times since the war began. Units on my post are facing their 4th or 5th year long deployment. How is it possible for me to balance my obligation to the Nation and the Army against the strain and demands that are being placed upon my family? How much service is enough? When have I done my part? When have I lived up to my obligation to the Nation and the Army?
Then we need to look at the portion concerning welfare of subordinates. A subordinate is a person. A human being. Which means that I as a leader am responsible to provide for the welfare of a human being. In an earlier post (# 28) I referenced Army Regulation 600-20 'Army Command Policy' that states that a leader has a requirement to meet the needs of a subordinate across 4 domains, physical, mental, material, and spiritual. Leaders are required to provide for the welfare of their Soldiers in those 4 manners collectively, and yet what skills or education do we provide them to accomplish this? From my experience and schooling, none. I have never been taught how to balance the competing demands of selfless service to the Nation and the Army against the human being requirements of my Soldiers. I have learned how to do it over time, experience and age. It has become what is often called wisdom.
When I was a young man service to the Army was my only imperative. The organization told me what it needed me to do and I did it. And that was ok because, although there was sacrifice involved, I really didn't have any competing demands. And the Nation was not at war. For as much as we thought we were working hard and selflessly serving, we really weren't. For every demand placed upon us we were compensated somehow down the road. Selfless service was easy.
Now I am older. I have a family and some of my priorities have changed. We are involved in a protracted war that is ill-defined and likely will persist on different fronts for decades to come. There will not be an endless series of days for me to make up time lost with my wife and daughter. I have learned that life is fleeting. I have memorialized young men who thought that they too would have an endless series of days. And I am left to wonder, how selfless can my service be? Is the possibility of creating a widow and a fatherless child in order to fulfill my obligation to the Nation worth it?
And while we're at it, Selfless Service implies sacrifice for the individual Soldier. That's a given. But what about the families and children and others who, by extension, are also selflessly serving their country and the Army? Make no mistake, the demands that the Army makes on me are easily exceeded by the demands it places upon my wife. And because she is not under some form of contract to the Army, she truly is serving as a volunteer. No compensation, no promotion, no obligation. Only because she is willing to put the Nation, the Army and me above her dreams and aspirations is she willing to accept this sacrifice for our family. Funny, but the manual doesn't address her at all. The Command Policy regulation does, but the leadership manual does not. I wonder why that is? Shouldn't leadership education include an understanding of those regulations that the Army calls it's bedrock imperatives? As a husband and father I know that I cannot equally meet my obligations to both the Army and my family. The difficulty is finding the balance. Maybe we ought to start looking at issues like that in our leadership schools....
And that is the part of Selfless Service that the 5 paragraphs don't address. That each of us will have to reach these decisions and conclusions for ourselves. As I work my way through the Army Values they should serve to drive me back into my own heart and mind to resolve the conflict that each of them raises. They should serve to remind me to reevaluate every now again what my priorities are and how near or far they are from the institution's stated norms.
I often use quotations to help me crystallize my thoughts. In light of this post, here are some I found today that strike a chord with me:
"You can only govern by serving them. The rule is without exception." - Victor Cousin
"Men grow only in proportion to the service they render to their fellow men and women" - Captain Edward V. Rickenbacher
"If in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion, or discovered a new one, check your pulse. You may be dead." - Gelett Burgess
The first quote follows my line of thought regarding servant leadership. We serve down. Those we lead do not exist for us to practice leadership. They exist for us to provide selfless service. The second quote recognizes the individual sense of well being that comes from possessing a servant oriented soul. The last is included because it is the reason for the blog.
To figure out who you are and what you value is the very first - and most important - responsibility of leadership.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
# 40 Respect
" World War II taught me one important lesson in leadership: the most valuable Soldier was the one who was well informed, encouraged to use his head and treated with respect."
General Omar N. Bradley 'A General's Life', 1983
"Respect for the individual is the basis for the rule of law - the very essence of what the nation stands for. In the Army, respect means treating others as they should be treated. This value reiterates that people are the most precious resource and that one is bound to treat others with dignity and respect."
FM 6-22 Leadership
"The fundamental cause of any breakdown of morale and discipline within the Armed Forces usually comes of this - that a commander or his subordinates transgress by treating men as if they were children or serfs instead of showing respect for their adulthood."
Brigadier General S.L.A Marshall ' The Armed Forces Officer', 1950
I wasn't sure where this post was going this morning until I read the quotations above. As I think about it, individual respect may be the most important value of all, for without it you cannot espouse nor understand any of the others. Respect for the individual, respect for the organization, respect for authority, heritage and tradition, and most importantly, respect for yourself.
This was a busy week for me. I spent 2 bitterly cold days on the range with a unit who has come a long way toward developing a viable marksmanship program and has been asked to share their methods and procedures with their entire brigade as part of their preparation for deployment. I had a luncheon with a battalion commander and his company commanders to discuss my ideas and thoughts regarding training design, and then presented those yesterday to all of that unit's leadership from Sergeant thru Lieutenant Colonel. This last event represents a turning point (hopefully) for me, that will allow more units to look at what they are doing, why they are doing it that way, and how they can accomplish that training in the best manner possible for those we serve - both above and below us.
At one point in the discussion, the battalion commander interjected and spoke of 'ownership'. He was giving ownership of the training responsibilities to the company level officers and NCO's. He would provide his intent and the left and right boundaries, and paint a picture of an endstate, but the units were free to develop the manner in which they achieved it. It should be said here that some of you will say, "Well that's the way it is. Or that's the way it should be." You're correct. That is the way we say we do business, but the truth is that that's often not what's happening. Company level leaders are not only being told what to do by their bosses, but they're being told exactly how to do it as well. And it has been that way for well over a decade, so there is a whole generation of officers and NCOs who don't know that it hasn't always been this way. So, a battalion commander who is willing to give the design of training back to his subordinates does equal something of a revolutionary thought process if you haven't been in the Army for more than twelve or fifteen years.
But it occurred to me that what he was really doing for his subordinates was offering the handshake of respect. He is demonstrating the value of respect. He is reaching out his hand and in effect saying, "I respect you. I respect your talents, your ideas, and your position. I will continue to respect you until you know longer demonstrate the you are worthy of it. I know you will not let me down."
Acceptance of this by his subordinates will begin with their sense of self-respect. Who am I? What do I value? What will I surrender? What will I not? As leaders we must spend more time with ourselves and try to answer those questions. Those answers form the backbone of who we are, what we stand for, and how we view ourselves. But those answers have nothing to do with our positions as a leader. The answers are for the person with or without the position. I think that most folks blithely adopt grandiose words like duty, loyalty, honor, respect etc, without ever really understanding the depths those words possess. The power and shape of them. The way they provide warmth and shelter when circumstances drive that person to ugly places where hard choices and decisions have to be made. Soldiers will fight and die for a person they respect. His or her position is inconsequential. Conversely, they will resist the positional leader who they do not respect as a person.
Respecting yourself does not absolve you of responsibility for recognizing your weaknesses and working towards correcting them. In fact, self respect demands constant self evaluation in order to ensure that you remain true to those answers as life and circumstance move forward. I care enough about myself to look me clearly in the eye and see if I really measure up to those things that I say I do. One cannot respect oneself if one will not look unflinchingly in the mirror and constantly evaluate whether or not the answers remain true.
Once I determine my level of self respect, I can now respect other people. All of the definitions above have one theme that is unstated. The individual. A unique being unlike anyone else on the planet. Respect means accepting that, and more importantly, valuing it. A leaders job is not to create people in his or her own likeness, but rather to find, develop, and nurture their own sense of self respect. Acceptance of others as singular, unique, people will drive a leader outside of themselves and teach them to see others as they truly are, not how the leader wishes them to be. We don't do this very well in the Army. The system we work in has a tendency to push 'leaders' toward making clones of themselves instead of valuing the diversity that the individual brings to the organization. In my opinion, this is what has created some of the high level of disaffection in the junior officer corps and certainly in the junior enlisted corps. We have a generation of Soldiers who see themselves as unique individuals and they resent the hypocrisy of senior leaders who seem intent on creating little clones. Cloning implies a fundamental disrespect of the individual.
When I have come to understand and gain a measure of self respect and then have learned to respect the uniqueness of others, then we together can come to respect the authority, heritage and tradition of the organization. But, you cannot force this without the first 2. Every regulation, standard, policy, courtesy etc, makes up the culture of a place, be it the Army or IBM. Individual acceptance of these norms of behavior demonstrate a respect for them. In essence, the group norms fit into the individual sense of things that he/she respects in themselves. However, if you force the institutional respect over self respect, and those of other individuals, they rapidly become hollow words which will not stand the test of time. Only after I have a solid sense of myself, and value the individuality of others can the group absorb, accept and respect the values of the organization.
In a broader sense, the ability to develop self respect, value the uniqueness of individuals and willful acceptance of the norms of the organization has an effect on how we view our environment. We gain the ability to see others individually and without self or organizationally applied labels. Consider the Afghan man who is trying to live and provide for his family in the difficult grey area between the Taliban, a corrupt Afghan government, and the US promise of a better future. If we respect him and the difficulty of his circumstance and that he is doing what he must to provide for those in his charge, then we are looking at one individual. He may be our enemy, but it is equally possible that he is not. That also, is a measure of respect. I respect him enough to understand that his choices will not be simple or easy. I understand why he joins with the Taliban. I understand why he does not trust his government or mine. The choices he makes will determine my actions, but I do respect and understand his position.
At the local level, the battalion commander has offered his hand in respect to his subordinates. The big question is will they take it? Right now, I'm not sure. It will be uncertain ground for many of them because they do not have - and cannot see - the outcome. They have not ever been offered this kind of freedom before and they are somewhat frightened to move away from what they are familiar with. To walk down the road of freedom will mean questioning many of the very values and norms that raised them. It will turn leaders into followers and followers into leaders. It upsets the hierarchical order of structure. It will lead to disagreement and friction. It will require thought and consideration. Most importantly, it will require trust, and the bedrock foundation of trust is respect.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
General Omar N. Bradley 'A General's Life', 1983
"Respect for the individual is the basis for the rule of law - the very essence of what the nation stands for. In the Army, respect means treating others as they should be treated. This value reiterates that people are the most precious resource and that one is bound to treat others with dignity and respect."
FM 6-22 Leadership
"The fundamental cause of any breakdown of morale and discipline within the Armed Forces usually comes of this - that a commander or his subordinates transgress by treating men as if they were children or serfs instead of showing respect for their adulthood."
Brigadier General S.L.A Marshall ' The Armed Forces Officer', 1950
I wasn't sure where this post was going this morning until I read the quotations above. As I think about it, individual respect may be the most important value of all, for without it you cannot espouse nor understand any of the others. Respect for the individual, respect for the organization, respect for authority, heritage and tradition, and most importantly, respect for yourself.
This was a busy week for me. I spent 2 bitterly cold days on the range with a unit who has come a long way toward developing a viable marksmanship program and has been asked to share their methods and procedures with their entire brigade as part of their preparation for deployment. I had a luncheon with a battalion commander and his company commanders to discuss my ideas and thoughts regarding training design, and then presented those yesterday to all of that unit's leadership from Sergeant thru Lieutenant Colonel. This last event represents a turning point (hopefully) for me, that will allow more units to look at what they are doing, why they are doing it that way, and how they can accomplish that training in the best manner possible for those we serve - both above and below us.
At one point in the discussion, the battalion commander interjected and spoke of 'ownership'. He was giving ownership of the training responsibilities to the company level officers and NCO's. He would provide his intent and the left and right boundaries, and paint a picture of an endstate, but the units were free to develop the manner in which they achieved it. It should be said here that some of you will say, "Well that's the way it is. Or that's the way it should be." You're correct. That is the way we say we do business, but the truth is that that's often not what's happening. Company level leaders are not only being told what to do by their bosses, but they're being told exactly how to do it as well. And it has been that way for well over a decade, so there is a whole generation of officers and NCOs who don't know that it hasn't always been this way. So, a battalion commander who is willing to give the design of training back to his subordinates does equal something of a revolutionary thought process if you haven't been in the Army for more than twelve or fifteen years.
But it occurred to me that what he was really doing for his subordinates was offering the handshake of respect. He is demonstrating the value of respect. He is reaching out his hand and in effect saying, "I respect you. I respect your talents, your ideas, and your position. I will continue to respect you until you know longer demonstrate the you are worthy of it. I know you will not let me down."
Acceptance of this by his subordinates will begin with their sense of self-respect. Who am I? What do I value? What will I surrender? What will I not? As leaders we must spend more time with ourselves and try to answer those questions. Those answers form the backbone of who we are, what we stand for, and how we view ourselves. But those answers have nothing to do with our positions as a leader. The answers are for the person with or without the position. I think that most folks blithely adopt grandiose words like duty, loyalty, honor, respect etc, without ever really understanding the depths those words possess. The power and shape of them. The way they provide warmth and shelter when circumstances drive that person to ugly places where hard choices and decisions have to be made. Soldiers will fight and die for a person they respect. His or her position is inconsequential. Conversely, they will resist the positional leader who they do not respect as a person.
Respecting yourself does not absolve you of responsibility for recognizing your weaknesses and working towards correcting them. In fact, self respect demands constant self evaluation in order to ensure that you remain true to those answers as life and circumstance move forward. I care enough about myself to look me clearly in the eye and see if I really measure up to those things that I say I do. One cannot respect oneself if one will not look unflinchingly in the mirror and constantly evaluate whether or not the answers remain true.
Once I determine my level of self respect, I can now respect other people. All of the definitions above have one theme that is unstated. The individual. A unique being unlike anyone else on the planet. Respect means accepting that, and more importantly, valuing it. A leaders job is not to create people in his or her own likeness, but rather to find, develop, and nurture their own sense of self respect. Acceptance of others as singular, unique, people will drive a leader outside of themselves and teach them to see others as they truly are, not how the leader wishes them to be. We don't do this very well in the Army. The system we work in has a tendency to push 'leaders' toward making clones of themselves instead of valuing the diversity that the individual brings to the organization. In my opinion, this is what has created some of the high level of disaffection in the junior officer corps and certainly in the junior enlisted corps. We have a generation of Soldiers who see themselves as unique individuals and they resent the hypocrisy of senior leaders who seem intent on creating little clones. Cloning implies a fundamental disrespect of the individual.
When I have come to understand and gain a measure of self respect and then have learned to respect the uniqueness of others, then we together can come to respect the authority, heritage and tradition of the organization. But, you cannot force this without the first 2. Every regulation, standard, policy, courtesy etc, makes up the culture of a place, be it the Army or IBM. Individual acceptance of these norms of behavior demonstrate a respect for them. In essence, the group norms fit into the individual sense of things that he/she respects in themselves. However, if you force the institutional respect over self respect, and those of other individuals, they rapidly become hollow words which will not stand the test of time. Only after I have a solid sense of myself, and value the individuality of others can the group absorb, accept and respect the values of the organization.
In a broader sense, the ability to develop self respect, value the uniqueness of individuals and willful acceptance of the norms of the organization has an effect on how we view our environment. We gain the ability to see others individually and without self or organizationally applied labels. Consider the Afghan man who is trying to live and provide for his family in the difficult grey area between the Taliban, a corrupt Afghan government, and the US promise of a better future. If we respect him and the difficulty of his circumstance and that he is doing what he must to provide for those in his charge, then we are looking at one individual. He may be our enemy, but it is equally possible that he is not. That also, is a measure of respect. I respect him enough to understand that his choices will not be simple or easy. I understand why he joins with the Taliban. I understand why he does not trust his government or mine. The choices he makes will determine my actions, but I do respect and understand his position.
At the local level, the battalion commander has offered his hand in respect to his subordinates. The big question is will they take it? Right now, I'm not sure. It will be uncertain ground for many of them because they do not have - and cannot see - the outcome. They have not ever been offered this kind of freedom before and they are somewhat frightened to move away from what they are familiar with. To walk down the road of freedom will mean questioning many of the very values and norms that raised them. It will turn leaders into followers and followers into leaders. It upsets the hierarchical order of structure. It will lead to disagreement and friction. It will require thought and consideration. Most importantly, it will require trust, and the bedrock foundation of trust is respect.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
# 37 Duty
Duty:
"Something that one is required to do by either moral or legal obligation." - Dictionary.com
"An action or a task required by a person's position or occupation" - Dictionary.com
"Duty is never simple, never easy and rarely obvious" - Jean Dutourd
"The first duty of a Soldier or good citizen is to attend to the safety and interest of his country." - Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson
The Army speaks of duty in almost hallowed terms. There is a reverential sense that 'doing your duty' brings with it a comforting warmth knowing that one has performed their required tasks and done so in support of a larger cause.
However, Duty happens in both large and small ways. And, most certainly, is not the sole purview of those of us in the military. In all walks of life, from the single parent who continuously strives to provide a better life for their children, to the hospice worker who eases the suffering of the aged, ill or infirmed, to the teachers who dedicate themselves to educating future generations, everyday people fulfill their duty. We all do. We are spouses, children, parents, community members. We have obligations to fulfill in those various roles. Most are not really contractual either. Most stem from the personal associations we have and our expectations of ourselves and others.
In many ways though the military has co-opted the word and made it their own. When people speak of servicemembers you often here how "So and so always did his/her duty." We seem to have given it a new depth of meaning that applies only to a profession where someone is, or could be, placed in mortal danger on a routine basis. You hear it applied to policemen and firefighters this way as well.
My point is that Duty happens everywhere, everyday and in every manner. It's the little things that matter. It's what happens when someone moves beyond their legal contractual binds and does something 'because it is right'.
I found Dutourd's quote above to be very interesting. "Duty is never simple, never easy, and rarely obvious." Doing your duty is never simple. It requires the constant balancing of priorities, people, and roles. I am a husband and a father. There are times when I have failed in my duties as both of those in order to attend to the requirements of my profession. Times I have failed my profession in order to attend to my duties as a member of a family. And now we find ourselves in a place where many leaders seem unable to balance these various requirements and are struggling to find a middle ground. The 'duty' to prepare for the next deployment vs the 'duty' to dedicate as much time as possible to my family. Both require 100% of my energy, my devotion, and my abilities. But, I am always forced to choose. One more hour spent in training may be the difference in whether one of my Soldiers lives or dies. One more hour checking and rechecking a unit's preparedness may have a great impact on the outcome of my little portion of the war. But, at what cost? Am I expected to sacrifice my family? To lose those thing that ultimately provide me my greatest joy and comfort? How can I balance both? How can I do my duty?
I remember a time about 3 years or so after I was married when I was coming into my reenlistment window. My wife said she 'hated the Army' and that she wanted me to get out. I remember telling her that she would go before the Army. That the Army was my home and that I was good at it and that I enjoyed it and that it provided me those things that I needed to have a sense of purpose and belonging. Now, 12 years later I see that argument as wholly unfair. I have duties and obligations to my family as well as the Army. And each must constantly be balanced out. Thankfully, she is still with me, still loves me, and still 'hates the Army.' It's one of the things that keeps the balance. It's what makes fulfilling your duty "never easy."
Duty has another component to it that is what I think sets it apart from other virtuous behavior. Morality. The moral obligation to do what must be done, to correct universal wrongs, to espouse the 'better angels of our nature.' When required behavior moves beyond mere legal requirements.
This is the one that gets hard. The moral courage of a student standing in front of a tank in Tiennenman Square, the reporting of the crimes committed by my Soldiers by another member of their platoon. The requirement to question the purpose of an order that makes no sense. These are the harder parts of doing one's duty. These are the incidents and experiences that we need to look at and study.
I have mentioned in the past the 'loyal opposition'. It is probably in thinking about the word duty that the idea of the loyal opposition becomes most clear to me. I love the Army. It is no longer my simple duty to go to work and perform a task working for the Army. The Army, and all that it requires have become a part of the marrow of my being. However, I count myself among that group called the 'loyal opposition'. Due to experience, observation, and thought, I can no longer blindly follow anyone. I have a duty to pass along my views and interpretations of issues, concerns, needs etc to my subordinates, peers, and superiors. None of them may agree with me, and ultimately they may choose not to accept my viewpoint, but that does not mean that I do not have an obligation to stand up and express myself. In fact, my love for the institution is such that it demands that I do. I view it as my duty to the organization.
FM 7-22.7, "The Non-Commissioned Officers Guide" says the following about Duty:
"Take responsibility and do what's right, no matter how tough it is, even when no one is watching. "
We are in a period of change in the Army and with many confusing and differing viewpoints as to the correct balance and direction we need to move, it may be more critical now than ever in our recent history that we support the idea of the loyal opposition and foster the ideas of both personal responsibility and the toughness required to live up to it. In my opinion that is something we do not do very well, and probably haven't for the last 30 years or so. This has created the blind obedience view of duty. As General Patton once said, "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking."
Duty requires thought, contemplation, and dedication. Regardless of profession, taking a hard critical look at yourself, your organization, and it's purpose - and being able to take the hard steps required to admit when you've gotten it wrong and then take corrective action, may be the absolute achievement of the highest sense of both the legal and moral requirements of doing your duty.
In light of this, consider the following. The Army has recently finished the first part of a critical review of our actions in Afghanistan. You can find a draft of it here :
http://documents.nytimes.com/a-different-kind-of-war#p=1
It is 412 pages long and was commissioned by the Army itself. The understanding that taking a hard look at what you have done, why it was done and the results those actions generated is absolutely critical to the health of the organization. Although many will disagree with parts of the findings, the Army leaders who commissioned it must be given credit for fulfilling their duty to the Army and the nation.
"Something that one is required to do by either moral or legal obligation." - Dictionary.com
"An action or a task required by a person's position or occupation" - Dictionary.com
"Duty is never simple, never easy and rarely obvious" - Jean Dutourd
"The first duty of a Soldier or good citizen is to attend to the safety and interest of his country." - Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson
The Army speaks of duty in almost hallowed terms. There is a reverential sense that 'doing your duty' brings with it a comforting warmth knowing that one has performed their required tasks and done so in support of a larger cause.
However, Duty happens in both large and small ways. And, most certainly, is not the sole purview of those of us in the military. In all walks of life, from the single parent who continuously strives to provide a better life for their children, to the hospice worker who eases the suffering of the aged, ill or infirmed, to the teachers who dedicate themselves to educating future generations, everyday people fulfill their duty. We all do. We are spouses, children, parents, community members. We have obligations to fulfill in those various roles. Most are not really contractual either. Most stem from the personal associations we have and our expectations of ourselves and others.
In many ways though the military has co-opted the word and made it their own. When people speak of servicemembers you often here how "So and so always did his/her duty." We seem to have given it a new depth of meaning that applies only to a profession where someone is, or could be, placed in mortal danger on a routine basis. You hear it applied to policemen and firefighters this way as well.
My point is that Duty happens everywhere, everyday and in every manner. It's the little things that matter. It's what happens when someone moves beyond their legal contractual binds and does something 'because it is right'.
I found Dutourd's quote above to be very interesting. "Duty is never simple, never easy, and rarely obvious." Doing your duty is never simple. It requires the constant balancing of priorities, people, and roles. I am a husband and a father. There are times when I have failed in my duties as both of those in order to attend to the requirements of my profession. Times I have failed my profession in order to attend to my duties as a member of a family. And now we find ourselves in a place where many leaders seem unable to balance these various requirements and are struggling to find a middle ground. The 'duty' to prepare for the next deployment vs the 'duty' to dedicate as much time as possible to my family. Both require 100% of my energy, my devotion, and my abilities. But, I am always forced to choose. One more hour spent in training may be the difference in whether one of my Soldiers lives or dies. One more hour checking and rechecking a unit's preparedness may have a great impact on the outcome of my little portion of the war. But, at what cost? Am I expected to sacrifice my family? To lose those thing that ultimately provide me my greatest joy and comfort? How can I balance both? How can I do my duty?
I remember a time about 3 years or so after I was married when I was coming into my reenlistment window. My wife said she 'hated the Army' and that she wanted me to get out. I remember telling her that she would go before the Army. That the Army was my home and that I was good at it and that I enjoyed it and that it provided me those things that I needed to have a sense of purpose and belonging. Now, 12 years later I see that argument as wholly unfair. I have duties and obligations to my family as well as the Army. And each must constantly be balanced out. Thankfully, she is still with me, still loves me, and still 'hates the Army.' It's one of the things that keeps the balance. It's what makes fulfilling your duty "never easy."
Duty has another component to it that is what I think sets it apart from other virtuous behavior. Morality. The moral obligation to do what must be done, to correct universal wrongs, to espouse the 'better angels of our nature.' When required behavior moves beyond mere legal requirements.
This is the one that gets hard. The moral courage of a student standing in front of a tank in Tiennenman Square, the reporting of the crimes committed by my Soldiers by another member of their platoon. The requirement to question the purpose of an order that makes no sense. These are the harder parts of doing one's duty. These are the incidents and experiences that we need to look at and study.
I have mentioned in the past the 'loyal opposition'. It is probably in thinking about the word duty that the idea of the loyal opposition becomes most clear to me. I love the Army. It is no longer my simple duty to go to work and perform a task working for the Army. The Army, and all that it requires have become a part of the marrow of my being. However, I count myself among that group called the 'loyal opposition'. Due to experience, observation, and thought, I can no longer blindly follow anyone. I have a duty to pass along my views and interpretations of issues, concerns, needs etc to my subordinates, peers, and superiors. None of them may agree with me, and ultimately they may choose not to accept my viewpoint, but that does not mean that I do not have an obligation to stand up and express myself. In fact, my love for the institution is such that it demands that I do. I view it as my duty to the organization.
FM 7-22.7, "The Non-Commissioned Officers Guide" says the following about Duty:
"Take responsibility and do what's right, no matter how tough it is, even when no one is watching. "
We are in a period of change in the Army and with many confusing and differing viewpoints as to the correct balance and direction we need to move, it may be more critical now than ever in our recent history that we support the idea of the loyal opposition and foster the ideas of both personal responsibility and the toughness required to live up to it. In my opinion that is something we do not do very well, and probably haven't for the last 30 years or so. This has created the blind obedience view of duty. As General Patton once said, "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking."
Duty requires thought, contemplation, and dedication. Regardless of profession, taking a hard critical look at yourself, your organization, and it's purpose - and being able to take the hard steps required to admit when you've gotten it wrong and then take corrective action, may be the absolute achievement of the highest sense of both the legal and moral requirements of doing your duty.
In light of this, consider the following. The Army has recently finished the first part of a critical review of our actions in Afghanistan. You can find a draft of it here :
http://documents.nytimes.com/a-different-kind-of-war#p=1
It is 412 pages long and was commissioned by the Army itself. The understanding that taking a hard look at what you have done, why it was done and the results those actions generated is absolutely critical to the health of the organization. Although many will disagree with parts of the findings, the Army leaders who commissioned it must be given credit for fulfilling their duty to the Army and the nation.
#36 The Values Series: Loyalty
Note: This post was started before I found the article highlighted by the link below. I am not implying that it represents all of the facts of the situation, nor that the actions taken by the Soldiers or their leadership represent the 'right' answer. My purpose for including it here is to stimulate thought and comment regarding the values we espouse, their meaning, and the various interpretations they can have. I also find it interesting that the quotations below come from the Army's Leadership manual because they imply that blind faith and allegience to the system is not what the Army intends for those who wish to understand or become successful leaders.
Throughout my postings you find many references to the second O in the OODA cycle, Orientation. Orientation is the most complex and multilayered portion of OODA because it requires simultaneous understanding of yourself, your opposition and the environment.
Leadership is defined by the Army as "The process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization."
So, a leader has to (1) Influence people, (2) Provide purpose, (3) Direct, (4) Motivate, (5) Accomplish the mission, and (6) Improve the organization. That's a lot of things to do all at the same time and we don't often pull them apart and look at the individual pieces. We promote a Soldier to sergeant or lieutenant, call them a leader and send them on their way. Most professional schooling we go through during our careers is directed toward mission accomplishment and the various ways that can be achieved. We rarely look at the people who have to accomplish the missions we assign them.
In light of this, over the weeks ahead, I'm going to take each of the stated Army Values - Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage and look at them individually. The idea is to try to discover how the professional Soldier and leader is formed in our current operating environment. In effect, I want to turn the Orientation arrow back on us.
"Loyalty - (1) Faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause etc. (2) faithfulness to commitments or obligations." Dictionary.com
"Loyalty is the big thing, the greatest battle asset of all. But, no man ever wins the loyalty of troops by preaching loyalty. It is given by them as he proves his possesion of the other virtues. The doctrine of a blind loyalty to leadership is selfish and futile military dogma, except in so far as it is ennobled by a higher loyalty in all ranks to truth and decency." - BG S.L.A. Marchall, "Men Against Fire" 1947 (Taken from Quotations from the Military Tradition)
"There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and much less prevalent." - Gen George S. Patton, Jr, "War As I Knew It" 1947 (As quoted in FM 6-22)
"Loyalty - Bear truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your Unit and other Soldiers." - FM 6-22 "Army Leadership"
When a citizen becomes a Soldier, they bring with them the formative experiences and history of their families and environments. Those important lessons that were passed to them by those who - for better or for worse - raised them. That is who the Army receives on day 1. We then have a responsibility to take those already formed values and meld them into the Army's value system. Take what the citizen already has, add to, subtract from, and mix together with the Army's values until we produce an individual who displays the professional behavior of a Soldier. Over time, this adding, subtracting and mixing will become such a part of the individual, that it will be difficult to see where the citizen stops and the Soldier begins. While some people think this is forces the Soldier to let go of his/her formative value code and adopt a new one, that's not really the case. What leaders are really challenged to do is expand the value system the individual already has and adapt it so that over time the individual gains an understanding and appreciation for the Army's values - and the role they place in the Soldier's individual life.
So, where does loyalty fit into the definition of leadership? For me, I would order it in the following manner:
1. Influence people
2. Improve the organization
3. Motivate
4. Purpose
5. Accomplish the mission
6. Direct
I think the first purpose of loyalty must be to influence people. By demonstrating to subordinates that I am loyal to them and their families, I, in turn, receive their trust and that trust - when lived up to over numerous trials and hardships, becomes the loyalty they return to me. I am also absolutely convinced that loyalty starts from the top down, not the bottom up. A leader cannot demand loyalty from a subordinate. It is earned and then reflected back to the leader. Loyalty also begins to influence behavior. A leader is a role model for a subordinate whether they know it or are aware of it or not. Therefore, my demonstrating my loyalty to the Soldier, his/her family, and the organization acts as a roadmap for that Soldier to see a way for them to act. That is why I placed influence first in my prioritization. While the Army's definition includes faithfulness to the Constitution etc, the fact is that loyalty is first demonstrated on the person-to-person level. The manner in which I deal with my immediate subordinates and superiors. As a role model, my behaviors and dealings reveal my feelings about the people and organization that I am part of.
The second most important function of loyalty is to improve the organization. Those groups who are successful - be it in business, sports, or the military - all have certain characteristics and one of them is espirit de corps. Loyalty breeds espirit because the individuals feel valued and wanted and are willing to put aside some individual wants and needs for the betterment of the whole. Once the individual willfully chooses to set aside their personal betterment or comfort for the collective needs of the organization, the true tide of personal 'value acceptance' has begun to turn.
Loyalty is also a great motivator. As a form of 'peer pressure', when used correctly, it can help an individual overcome fear and deprivation and accomplish tasks that they might otherwise have found too terrifying to do. For example, nobody willfully assaults a fortified defensive position unless they believe (1) that they are expected to do their part as part of the overall mission - that their buddies and the unit are counting on them, and (2) that the assault is an important part of the overall 'grand scheme' of the battle. Now, the opposite of that can also be true. People can feel pressured by their loyalties to do things which they know they should not do. This is the kind of misguided loyalty that delayed the reporting of the atrocities committed by my Soldiers in Iraq in 2006. Their personal loyalty to their peers valued over those of morality, the unit, the Army and the American society created a much worse situation in the long run than might have been the case if just one of them had felt a higher sense of loyalty to the moral behavior code expected of all Soldiers.
Loyalty also provides a larger thematic purpose for pursuing something. Great leaders, regardless of their career field are able to provide the sense of importance - both individually and collectively - that drives any organization. In earlier posts, I have mentioned the CEO of General Motors, Ed Whitacre and the changes he is instilling there to overcome the corporate mentality and help the organization recover again from bankruptcy. I think the same can be said for many other successful leaders. By painting a picture of where the organization needs to go, why they need to go there and a generalized picture of how they will get there, the successful leader is giving meaning to the collective effort of their subordinates. I'm not sure it matters whether or not it is industry, science, a non-profit, or the military, without a purpose for an action, the action itself is open to too much individual interpretation.
Obviously, the outcome of having a loyalty based system that functions well and engenders the will and spirit of the workforce is mission accomplishment. That is the reason that an army or any other organization exists. To accomplish it's stated aim: Win a war, make a product, cure a disease, help a community etc. If the entire organization feels connected and motivated to work toward the common purpose, then sooner or later the mission will be accomplished. From a military perspective, that is why we exist. To accomplish the missions assigned to us by our civilian leadership to meet the nation's goals and objectives.
Finally, I think that once leaders have created the 'common cause' mindset outlined above, providing continual reflection and direction to the organization is the final piece of the puzzle. To be able to reflect on where the organization was, where it is, and where it stands in relation to accomplishing it's mission is important, because it provides the necessary course corrections that keep the loyalty of the subordinates focused when circumstances change. This ability for reorientation cannot be overstated. The leader must always be able to adjust and adapt to changing circumstances. And to then explain those adjustments and adaptations to their subordinates in a manner that the subordinate can understand and apply.
In light of these thoughts, please check out the following article in "Army Times". http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_afghanistan_mixed_signals_122109w/
I found it the other night and thought that it was an interesting read. Depending on your orientation this can be seen from multiple viewpoints. Are these Soldiers being insubordinate? Are they being loyal to their peers and comrades? Does this behavior border on being mutinous? Are they actually trying to follow Gen McChrystal's guidance? Was their Company commander railroaded for not toeing the party line? Are they using a 21st century method of the 'open door' policy to make their concerns known to the higher chain of command?
Articles such as this one bring up the rather sticky points that happen in the grey area between the lofty ambition of the Army Value System, and the reality of combat. This is exactly why Boyd taught that the orientation portion of the OODA cycle is so very critically important. With the proliferation of information technology, the bottom can read -without reinterpretation by the middle - what direction the top wants to go in. In this case, a move by General McChrystal away from kinetic ' kill or capture' operations against the Taliban, and toward a population focused counterinsurgency plan aimed at securing the people and providing the opportunity for prosperity to change/adapt the allegiance of the populace.
But, what happens when the different parts (bottom, middle, top) disagree on how to accomplish the mission? Are the Soldiers being disloyal? Or, are they demonstrating 'loyal opposition'? Are they feeling beaten down by sustained combat and high losses, or are they highlighting a much larger issue concerning the training methods and requirements for different theaters? Are they expressing their loyalty to their company commander, or are they actually expressing their disloyalty to their battalion and brigade commander? Could they be doing all of the above at the same time?
One thing is for certain: By participating in this article, they are certainly flattening the organization. The hierarchical structure of the chain of command has been leveled considerably, when young officers and NCOs are openly being quoted expressing their displeasure with their higher level commanders. Is this an example of the structure falling apart, or is it a more correct orientation that reflects battlefield reality and a need to relook words like loyalty in light of the Soldiers and leaders who comprise our Army today? If you go back and look at the quote by BG S.L.A Marshall at the beginning of this, maybe these Soldiers are holding on to the higher ideals of "truth and decency"? Or maybe they are simply trying to find an explanation for the losses they have suffered.
Throughout my postings you find many references to the second O in the OODA cycle, Orientation. Orientation is the most complex and multilayered portion of OODA because it requires simultaneous understanding of yourself, your opposition and the environment.
Leadership is defined by the Army as "The process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization."
So, a leader has to (1) Influence people, (2) Provide purpose, (3) Direct, (4) Motivate, (5) Accomplish the mission, and (6) Improve the organization. That's a lot of things to do all at the same time and we don't often pull them apart and look at the individual pieces. We promote a Soldier to sergeant or lieutenant, call them a leader and send them on their way. Most professional schooling we go through during our careers is directed toward mission accomplishment and the various ways that can be achieved. We rarely look at the people who have to accomplish the missions we assign them.
In light of this, over the weeks ahead, I'm going to take each of the stated Army Values - Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage and look at them individually. The idea is to try to discover how the professional Soldier and leader is formed in our current operating environment. In effect, I want to turn the Orientation arrow back on us.
"Loyalty - (1) Faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause etc. (2) faithfulness to commitments or obligations." Dictionary.com
"Loyalty is the big thing, the greatest battle asset of all. But, no man ever wins the loyalty of troops by preaching loyalty. It is given by them as he proves his possesion of the other virtues. The doctrine of a blind loyalty to leadership is selfish and futile military dogma, except in so far as it is ennobled by a higher loyalty in all ranks to truth and decency." - BG S.L.A. Marchall, "Men Against Fire" 1947 (Taken from Quotations from the Military Tradition)
"There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and much less prevalent." - Gen George S. Patton, Jr, "War As I Knew It" 1947 (As quoted in FM 6-22)
"Loyalty - Bear truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your Unit and other Soldiers." - FM 6-22 "Army Leadership"
When a citizen becomes a Soldier, they bring with them the formative experiences and history of their families and environments. Those important lessons that were passed to them by those who - for better or for worse - raised them. That is who the Army receives on day 1. We then have a responsibility to take those already formed values and meld them into the Army's value system. Take what the citizen already has, add to, subtract from, and mix together with the Army's values until we produce an individual who displays the professional behavior of a Soldier. Over time, this adding, subtracting and mixing will become such a part of the individual, that it will be difficult to see where the citizen stops and the Soldier begins. While some people think this is forces the Soldier to let go of his/her formative value code and adopt a new one, that's not really the case. What leaders are really challenged to do is expand the value system the individual already has and adapt it so that over time the individual gains an understanding and appreciation for the Army's values - and the role they place in the Soldier's individual life.
So, where does loyalty fit into the definition of leadership? For me, I would order it in the following manner:
1. Influence people
2. Improve the organization
3. Motivate
4. Purpose
5. Accomplish the mission
6. Direct
I think the first purpose of loyalty must be to influence people. By demonstrating to subordinates that I am loyal to them and their families, I, in turn, receive their trust and that trust - when lived up to over numerous trials and hardships, becomes the loyalty they return to me. I am also absolutely convinced that loyalty starts from the top down, not the bottom up. A leader cannot demand loyalty from a subordinate. It is earned and then reflected back to the leader. Loyalty also begins to influence behavior. A leader is a role model for a subordinate whether they know it or are aware of it or not. Therefore, my demonstrating my loyalty to the Soldier, his/her family, and the organization acts as a roadmap for that Soldier to see a way for them to act. That is why I placed influence first in my prioritization. While the Army's definition includes faithfulness to the Constitution etc, the fact is that loyalty is first demonstrated on the person-to-person level. The manner in which I deal with my immediate subordinates and superiors. As a role model, my behaviors and dealings reveal my feelings about the people and organization that I am part of.
The second most important function of loyalty is to improve the organization. Those groups who are successful - be it in business, sports, or the military - all have certain characteristics and one of them is espirit de corps. Loyalty breeds espirit because the individuals feel valued and wanted and are willing to put aside some individual wants and needs for the betterment of the whole. Once the individual willfully chooses to set aside their personal betterment or comfort for the collective needs of the organization, the true tide of personal 'value acceptance' has begun to turn.
Loyalty is also a great motivator. As a form of 'peer pressure', when used correctly, it can help an individual overcome fear and deprivation and accomplish tasks that they might otherwise have found too terrifying to do. For example, nobody willfully assaults a fortified defensive position unless they believe (1) that they are expected to do their part as part of the overall mission - that their buddies and the unit are counting on them, and (2) that the assault is an important part of the overall 'grand scheme' of the battle. Now, the opposite of that can also be true. People can feel pressured by their loyalties to do things which they know they should not do. This is the kind of misguided loyalty that delayed the reporting of the atrocities committed by my Soldiers in Iraq in 2006. Their personal loyalty to their peers valued over those of morality, the unit, the Army and the American society created a much worse situation in the long run than might have been the case if just one of them had felt a higher sense of loyalty to the moral behavior code expected of all Soldiers.
Loyalty also provides a larger thematic purpose for pursuing something. Great leaders, regardless of their career field are able to provide the sense of importance - both individually and collectively - that drives any organization. In earlier posts, I have mentioned the CEO of General Motors, Ed Whitacre and the changes he is instilling there to overcome the corporate mentality and help the organization recover again from bankruptcy. I think the same can be said for many other successful leaders. By painting a picture of where the organization needs to go, why they need to go there and a generalized picture of how they will get there, the successful leader is giving meaning to the collective effort of their subordinates. I'm not sure it matters whether or not it is industry, science, a non-profit, or the military, without a purpose for an action, the action itself is open to too much individual interpretation.
Obviously, the outcome of having a loyalty based system that functions well and engenders the will and spirit of the workforce is mission accomplishment. That is the reason that an army or any other organization exists. To accomplish it's stated aim: Win a war, make a product, cure a disease, help a community etc. If the entire organization feels connected and motivated to work toward the common purpose, then sooner or later the mission will be accomplished. From a military perspective, that is why we exist. To accomplish the missions assigned to us by our civilian leadership to meet the nation's goals and objectives.
Finally, I think that once leaders have created the 'common cause' mindset outlined above, providing continual reflection and direction to the organization is the final piece of the puzzle. To be able to reflect on where the organization was, where it is, and where it stands in relation to accomplishing it's mission is important, because it provides the necessary course corrections that keep the loyalty of the subordinates focused when circumstances change. This ability for reorientation cannot be overstated. The leader must always be able to adjust and adapt to changing circumstances. And to then explain those adjustments and adaptations to their subordinates in a manner that the subordinate can understand and apply.
In light of these thoughts, please check out the following article in "Army Times". http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_afghanistan_mixed_signals_122109w/
I found it the other night and thought that it was an interesting read. Depending on your orientation this can be seen from multiple viewpoints. Are these Soldiers being insubordinate? Are they being loyal to their peers and comrades? Does this behavior border on being mutinous? Are they actually trying to follow Gen McChrystal's guidance? Was their Company commander railroaded for not toeing the party line? Are they using a 21st century method of the 'open door' policy to make their concerns known to the higher chain of command?
Articles such as this one bring up the rather sticky points that happen in the grey area between the lofty ambition of the Army Value System, and the reality of combat. This is exactly why Boyd taught that the orientation portion of the OODA cycle is so very critically important. With the proliferation of information technology, the bottom can read -without reinterpretation by the middle - what direction the top wants to go in. In this case, a move by General McChrystal away from kinetic ' kill or capture' operations against the Taliban, and toward a population focused counterinsurgency plan aimed at securing the people and providing the opportunity for prosperity to change/adapt the allegiance of the populace.
But, what happens when the different parts (bottom, middle, top) disagree on how to accomplish the mission? Are the Soldiers being disloyal? Or, are they demonstrating 'loyal opposition'? Are they feeling beaten down by sustained combat and high losses, or are they highlighting a much larger issue concerning the training methods and requirements for different theaters? Are they expressing their loyalty to their company commander, or are they actually expressing their disloyalty to their battalion and brigade commander? Could they be doing all of the above at the same time?
One thing is for certain: By participating in this article, they are certainly flattening the organization. The hierarchical structure of the chain of command has been leveled considerably, when young officers and NCOs are openly being quoted expressing their displeasure with their higher level commanders. Is this an example of the structure falling apart, or is it a more correct orientation that reflects battlefield reality and a need to relook words like loyalty in light of the Soldiers and leaders who comprise our Army today? If you go back and look at the quote by BG S.L.A Marshall at the beginning of this, maybe these Soldiers are holding on to the higher ideals of "truth and decency"? Or maybe they are simply trying to find an explanation for the losses they have suffered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)