In a post that was never published, I wrote the following paragraphs when Steven Green was sentenced to 5 life terms in Federal prison:
"In an earlier post, I made mention that my experience in Iraq from Sep 05 - Sep 06 began the personal transformation that has resulted in a lot of the thoughts about leadership, mentorship and the importance of training people over tasks that I have been posting since starting this blog.
On Sept 4th, 2009 Steven Dale Green was sentenced to 5 consecutive life terms in prison for killing an Iraqi family and raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl in March of 2006. He was the final person in that horrific event to be brought to justice, but the episode is much more complex than just him. Green will die in jail. He will never be a free man again. Maybe that equals enlightened justice, and maybe not. I'm not sure. Although I am not an advocate of the death penalty in general, once you are faced with a situation like this, it can change how you view the application of justice. If the jury in the Green trial had given him the death penalty for his crimes, I really don't think it would have bothered me, and I think that I would have said a silent prayer of thanks. I struggle to come to peace with the idea that the Iraqi family's lives were taken in a horribly violent and obscene and undeserved manner, yet he will live (albeit in prison) until he dies of natural causes. In fact, tax payer dollars will ensure he is provided proper medical care when required to make sure he is healthy enough to die in prison. 3 other members of the platoon are serving long prison sentences at Ft. Leavenworth, KS by virtue of plea deals they cut with the government, or by virtue of the jury's decision at court martial.
I was the platoon sergeant of that platoon. I am not saddened by that statement, nor am I proud of it. It is a simple statement of fact. There are many many details that surround that statement, and I have been investigated, poked, prodded, questioned, challenged etc more than I would wish on anyone. However, the fact that this crime happened on my watch cannot be wished away. It was the card I was dealt. I am still emotionally working my way through it today, almost 3 years later.
When I took over the platoon, I was told that they needed 'discipline'. Do the basics. Nothing fancy etc. etc. Question: How do you instill discipline in a group of men who, up to this point - we would go on to lose 3 more at a later time, have had 2 of their members blown to pieces by an IED, and another 2 assassinated, and then had there 'home' destroyed by fire? How exactly do you instill discipline when they are on their 3rd platoon sergeant in 45 days? How do you do that when they stop caring about the very fabric that binds them together? When they cease to be a values-based organization and become basic animals working in a predatory manner?
The Army prides itself on Soldier discipline. Everyone dressing sharply, marching in step, following commands, accomplishing the mission. And we do all those things. We get fresh haircuts, polish our boots (well, we used to), press a uniform, render proper courtesies etc. We do that well and people say how 'disciplined' we are. All Servicemembers do these things - each in their own service-related manner. The same way that every business has it's own expected norms of dress and behavior. The problem happens when you realize that all of these things are only surface deep. That while spit-shined boots and creased uniforms and clean haircuts are important, they are not critical. When you run into a platoon like mine where those standards and traditions don't hold up really well to the harsh light of reality in a combat zone. When everyone starts to question the validity or necessity of the small standards when viewed against their personal observation of their surroundings, loss of friends and the destruction of their living quarters. The question then becomes, what is critical? What do we need to instill in Soldiers so that events like mine never happen again? And, as a second line of thought, how do you lead them?
Some folks are likely to reply that my situation is an extreme anomaly and that it is exactly those basics requirements like uniform standards and saluting that make up the root of Soldier discipline. Forcing Soldiers to adhere to small standards when life is easy will make them more receptive to adhering to larger demands when the time comes. And there is merit to that. It is true that instilling discipline in small ways, over time, can create a person who willingly binds themselves to the larger behavior systems of the organization. But that willingness cannot and must not become blind faith. Any faith in the organization and it's values system, must generate from individual acceptance of the norms of accepted behavior. The important 'glue' of the organization has to be felt at the moral core of each member. That is the only way that people can withstand the losses that my Soldiers did and still act in a manner consistent with the organization. When my Soldiers lost that they became nothing more than a gang. Just the same as any street gang except that they wore the 'colors' of the United States Army."
This has been a very tough week. As mentioned in post #45, "Black Hearts" was published last Tuesday, and I immediately bought a copy of it. I spent the next five and a half hours reading it straight through. As the book progressed, I could feel the tension level in my body rising. When I was finished, I was exhausted. Reading it brought back a lot of memories and laid bare people's various thoughts on the entire situation and the people involved.
On the whole, the book is very accurate and pretty fair. As I indicated earlier I think that for every point in the narrative where someone gets vilified for a decision or action, there is another place in the book where they get vindicated for some other decision or action. Overall, I think it is a fair treatment of the unit, the people, and the time minus the absolute annihilation of the battalion commander. I do think it wants the reader to feel a little too badly for all of B Co for the tough conditions we were in, and it doesn't ever render any other judgement besides 'poor leadership' at every level. In fact, I think it's greatest failing is that it doesn't recognize that in war, as in any other endeavor, you lead those you have, with what you have available to you, under the circumstances in front of you. People can wish and hope and pray for a perfect world, but that is not always available. You do the best you can with what you have. Iraq in 2005 wasn't a fair fight, and no matter how much people complain about it now, it wasn't going to get better until the 'Surge'. The author doesn't ever render an opinion of what he thinks could have or should have been done with 1st platoon. Just getting more bodies or more stuff - while it might have helped - would not have solved the 'moral bankruptcy' that existed in the unit at the time. The most personally saddening part for me was to read how little some folks - and mostly people I didn't know that well prior to this time - felt about me. As I have said before, they are entitled to their opinion of me, but it is still difficult to see it in print.
On Thursday, I had lunch with BS and his wife. They were in town for an event on post and it was great to get a chance to see them again. He has been a friend and mentor to me for almost 6 years now and I thank them for taking the time to visit with me. When others abandoned us, he never did. I will be forever grateful.
Yesterday morning I received an email from out of the blue from a family member of one of the perpetrators who is now in prison. This person had found the blog by accident and wanted me to know that they did not think that I should blame myself in any way for what happened, and that no amount of great or poor leadership would have stopped their relative from committing this crime. That if it hadn't been the Iraqi family someday it would have been someone else. Receiving this shocked me. I truly didn't know this person until yesterday. I must have read it 5 or 6 times. I wrote back yesterday afternoon thanking the individual for taking the time to reach out to me and to recognize the enormity of the pressures that they must have had to face over the years. I also asked if I could use portions of the email in the blog if I could find a way to protect their identity. Yesterday evening the person replied that I could use the email exchange, but that they would like to preview it before I post it. I will do that in the weeks ahead.
So, what did I learn from this? What leader lessons are there to pass along? Without nitpicking each and every part of the book, here are some general statements that I took away. First, this story underscores the absolute imperative that we must remain a values-based organization. On page 297, there is the following passage:
"...Norton had never been more relieved in his life. Walter lobbed about four or five shells on and around the spot. Lauzier wanted to follow and make sure the insurgents were dead, but he didn't have any more working weapons. He told his men to break contact, and they headed back to the house. It is something he regretted years later, that he was not able to personally finish the insurgents off."
SSG Lauzier and his Soldiers had been engaged in a firefight. They were pinned down and requested mortar fire. The mortar fire was effective. The enemy was reduced. There was no longer an immediate threat.Does this imply that SSG Lauzier, according to the book, regrets to this day that he wasn't able to go kill people who were no longer an immediate threat to him or his men? And now you know why everything we do has to start with the value system we espouse.
I also think it is important that leaders establish trust with their subordinates, and that that trust must come from the bottom up. The Soldiers trusted their original platoon sergeant, Phil Miller, even when it became evident that he was no longer effectively able to provide them the purpose, direction, and steps necessary to accomplish their mission. Soldiers did not trust Rob Gallagher or me. They did not believe that I knew what I was doing and that my reasons for doing it were sound. Second, trust must be demonstrated downward as well, but leaders should be aware that it can be abused.
If you put this into a larger perspective, I think the most critical point of these events is that Soldiers must have a clear purpose for what they are being required to do and that every level of leadership must continually ensure that every other level shares that common understanding. If there is one clear lesson that stands out to me from this, it is that every leader in the battalion believed they were doing the right thing. They believed that the decisions they were making and the actions they were taking were in the best interest of those below them. If there is one common motif throughout the story, it is that those below never believed that to be true.
On a personal level, I think this story also brings home two other interconnected ideas: There is what you think people think of you and what they actually think of you, and there is what you think you are doing, and how those decisions can be interpreted by others. These are important considerations because they are what leads to the misunderstanding of purpose outlined above. I have continually driven home the point of critical self analysis throughout this blog. I do that because leaders must be absolutely sure of who they are and what they stand for before they can make decisions.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#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.
#45 The Reason
Next week, on Feb 9th, a book will be published entitled, "Black Hearts, One Platoon's Descent Into Madness in Iraq's Triangle of Death." It is written by Time magazine editor Jim Frederick and is the story of 1st platoon, B Co, 1/502 Infantry, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the events and tragedies that occurred from September 2005 to September 2006. It will tell the story - hopefully accurately - of the events that began my personal odyssey and transformation.
As many of you are already aware, I was the platoon sergeant for 1st platoon from Feb 5th, 2006 - December 31st 2006. During this time the principle, although certainly not the only, significant events that became the basis for the book, took place. These are the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and the murder of she and her family by US forces, and an insurgent attack against 3 of my Soldiers which resulted in a 3 day manhunt to recover their tortured and booby-trapped bodies.
I have not read the book so I have no idea what it will say. What I do know is that short of the official investigations, this will probably be the most complete record of that period that has been conducted. Mr. Frederick interviewed hundreds of members of the battalion and the reviews that I have seen all say that it has been painstakingly researched. What conclusions he has drawn from those interviews remain to be seen.
I think that many of us who went through that time will be looking for some sort of absolution or vindication in the pages of the story - some sense that we did all we could, or knew how to do. But I'm not sure that that sort of comfort will be provided. My guess is that for every event where it appears that someone is vindicated, there will likely be another point where he will be vilified. As Mr. Frederick told me when he interviewed me, everybody gets a little messy in the end.
Personally, I think I'll have to read it 3 times. Once, to see the parts that directly involve me, a second time to learn how others saw the events unfolding and finally to try and draw some leadership lessons from it.
That time and those events are also the beginning of my personal journey. They have become the reason behind this blog and my somewhat amateurish study of leadership. As I have told other people, when you have travelled through the looking glass as events like this force you to do, when you emerge you no longer see your world the same way again. Any personal dramatic event in a person's life will do this, death, illness, injury etc. The sheer emotional weight of the event itself has a changing effect on those who were part of it. I, like many others who were part of that unit at that time and place, have been changed.
For me, that time was a crucible. I gave all I had to rebuilding the platoon prior to July '06 and then trying to keep it together until we could get back home after everything came to light. It was emotionally exhausting and difficult. I was forced to question everything I knew about the Army and leadership. I lost friends and professional acquaintances along the way. All my Soldiers did too. I saw extreme heroism and the absolute best of the American character in a Soldier who had the courage to come forward after the deaths of our 3 Soldiers to inform me that the Iraqi family may not have been killed by insurgents but rather by Americans. Knowing that that information would make our ordeal even more difficult, he did the right thing anyway. That is the Army and American value system at it's finest. I also saw the worst in people. I saw a sergeant cover up the crime and then watched as he memorialized a friend of his who was killed as a result of him covering it up. I saw people lie and try to rewrite facts in order to explain away their partial ownership in the events that transpired. I saw and experienced the anger and resentment and hostility and denial by many people looking to make the events go away.
I write this blog to talk about leadership. Leadership is easy when there is nothing critical at stake. It's all a matter of perspective. In the civilian sector there will always be pressure to turn a profit or meet sales goals or performance expectations, and those who are in charge often have to make very difficult choices in order to meet those expectations. In the military however - and in particular during a time of war - leaders make decisions that can have permanent effects. People can live or die on the outcome of the decisions we make. I sent those 4 Soldiers to that checkpoint from which they carried out their crimes. They were sent there for just and valid reasons. Am I then somehow responsible for the death of Abeer Al Janabi and her family? That is the ultimate difference between military and civilian leadership. It is rare in the civilian world that a person pays the ultimate price for the decision a leader or supervisor makes. In an Army at war it is a much greater possibility.
In the weeks ahead as people read the book and work through it, more accusations and denials will likely arise. And most will be self-serving. As much as I would like to think that I won't participate in that, the odds are I will. Someone, either a reader or the author, will fault me for something I did or did not do and I will feel compelled to defend my actions. I wish I could say that I won't participate in another round of tit-for-tat, but I know myself too well. I cannot take an attack without responding. It's not in my nature.
Here's the interesting part though....What if all of those decisions, made at all the varying levels of command, were 'correct'? What if each of us who were making decisions at that point in time were doing everything that we believed to be correct? Then what? What if there isn't anyone to blame? Where will that leave us? What lessons will there be to be learned?
The Army pays me to make decisions. They trained me and promoted me and gave me positions of authority over the course of my career. I am expected to take my knowledge, skills and abilities and make decisions that will help achieve the unit's mission. From Feb 2006 to December 2006 that's what I did for the men of 1st platoon who were in my charge. That's what we do. But they didn't train me for something like this. And they didn't train any of the people above me for something like this either. Once the events began to unfold we no longer had a road map or leadership manual to guide us. We were in uncharted waters.
I think any study of leadership has to begin with the question, "What would I have done if I were in that position?" So, if you are inclined to read the history of that time and those events, please keep this in mind: Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the actions we took, we were the one's who were required to make them. And we did. Many with the best of intentions and bringing to bear all of the experience and knowledge we had available to us at the time.
Events like this can be very instructive however. They show the fault in the leader education system where we provide lists of memorized phrases and vignettes of former heroes and hand a person a graduation certificate and call them a leader. In 1st platoon, I had Soldiers who had great leadership qualities, and I had leaders who were morally bankrupt. We had heroes and villains.
Finally, if you read the book and have questions about what and why things happened, please ask. The only good that can come of these tragic events will be that another young leader gains an insight into the human condition and the difficulties of leading men in battle and comes away with a better understanding of both.
As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments.
As many of you are already aware, I was the platoon sergeant for 1st platoon from Feb 5th, 2006 - December 31st 2006. During this time the principle, although certainly not the only, significant events that became the basis for the book, took place. These are the rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and the murder of she and her family by US forces, and an insurgent attack against 3 of my Soldiers which resulted in a 3 day manhunt to recover their tortured and booby-trapped bodies.
I have not read the book so I have no idea what it will say. What I do know is that short of the official investigations, this will probably be the most complete record of that period that has been conducted. Mr. Frederick interviewed hundreds of members of the battalion and the reviews that I have seen all say that it has been painstakingly researched. What conclusions he has drawn from those interviews remain to be seen.
I think that many of us who went through that time will be looking for some sort of absolution or vindication in the pages of the story - some sense that we did all we could, or knew how to do. But I'm not sure that that sort of comfort will be provided. My guess is that for every event where it appears that someone is vindicated, there will likely be another point where he will be vilified. As Mr. Frederick told me when he interviewed me, everybody gets a little messy in the end.
Personally, I think I'll have to read it 3 times. Once, to see the parts that directly involve me, a second time to learn how others saw the events unfolding and finally to try and draw some leadership lessons from it.
That time and those events are also the beginning of my personal journey. They have become the reason behind this blog and my somewhat amateurish study of leadership. As I have told other people, when you have travelled through the looking glass as events like this force you to do, when you emerge you no longer see your world the same way again. Any personal dramatic event in a person's life will do this, death, illness, injury etc. The sheer emotional weight of the event itself has a changing effect on those who were part of it. I, like many others who were part of that unit at that time and place, have been changed.
For me, that time was a crucible. I gave all I had to rebuilding the platoon prior to July '06 and then trying to keep it together until we could get back home after everything came to light. It was emotionally exhausting and difficult. I was forced to question everything I knew about the Army and leadership. I lost friends and professional acquaintances along the way. All my Soldiers did too. I saw extreme heroism and the absolute best of the American character in a Soldier who had the courage to come forward after the deaths of our 3 Soldiers to inform me that the Iraqi family may not have been killed by insurgents but rather by Americans. Knowing that that information would make our ordeal even more difficult, he did the right thing anyway. That is the Army and American value system at it's finest. I also saw the worst in people. I saw a sergeant cover up the crime and then watched as he memorialized a friend of his who was killed as a result of him covering it up. I saw people lie and try to rewrite facts in order to explain away their partial ownership in the events that transpired. I saw and experienced the anger and resentment and hostility and denial by many people looking to make the events go away.
I write this blog to talk about leadership. Leadership is easy when there is nothing critical at stake. It's all a matter of perspective. In the civilian sector there will always be pressure to turn a profit or meet sales goals or performance expectations, and those who are in charge often have to make very difficult choices in order to meet those expectations. In the military however - and in particular during a time of war - leaders make decisions that can have permanent effects. People can live or die on the outcome of the decisions we make. I sent those 4 Soldiers to that checkpoint from which they carried out their crimes. They were sent there for just and valid reasons. Am I then somehow responsible for the death of Abeer Al Janabi and her family? That is the ultimate difference between military and civilian leadership. It is rare in the civilian world that a person pays the ultimate price for the decision a leader or supervisor makes. In an Army at war it is a much greater possibility.
In the weeks ahead as people read the book and work through it, more accusations and denials will likely arise. And most will be self-serving. As much as I would like to think that I won't participate in that, the odds are I will. Someone, either a reader or the author, will fault me for something I did or did not do and I will feel compelled to defend my actions. I wish I could say that I won't participate in another round of tit-for-tat, but I know myself too well. I cannot take an attack without responding. It's not in my nature.
Here's the interesting part though....What if all of those decisions, made at all the varying levels of command, were 'correct'? What if each of us who were making decisions at that point in time were doing everything that we believed to be correct? Then what? What if there isn't anyone to blame? Where will that leave us? What lessons will there be to be learned?
The Army pays me to make decisions. They trained me and promoted me and gave me positions of authority over the course of my career. I am expected to take my knowledge, skills and abilities and make decisions that will help achieve the unit's mission. From Feb 2006 to December 2006 that's what I did for the men of 1st platoon who were in my charge. That's what we do. But they didn't train me for something like this. And they didn't train any of the people above me for something like this either. Once the events began to unfold we no longer had a road map or leadership manual to guide us. We were in uncharted waters.
I think any study of leadership has to begin with the question, "What would I have done if I were in that position?" So, if you are inclined to read the history of that time and those events, please keep this in mind: Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the actions we took, we were the one's who were required to make them. And we did. Many with the best of intentions and bringing to bear all of the experience and knowledge we had available to us at the time.
Events like this can be very instructive however. They show the fault in the leader education system where we provide lists of memorized phrases and vignettes of former heroes and hand a person a graduation certificate and call them a leader. In 1st platoon, I had Soldiers who had great leadership qualities, and I had leaders who were morally bankrupt. We had heroes and villains.
Finally, if you read the book and have questions about what and why things happened, please ask. The only good that can come of these tragic events will be that another young leader gains an insight into the human condition and the difficulties of leading men in battle and comes away with a better understanding of both.
As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments.
#44 Leadership and Followership
In 1985 Gen Glenn Otis, the commander of US Army Europe contributed an introduction to section 3 of a book entitled, "Military Leadership, in Pursuit of Excellence" 2nd edition, edited by Robert Taylor and Walter Rosenbach.
"Leaders must adapt to a constantly changing world. Technological, economic, social and political environments are at a rapid pace; so are the education and experience levels of effective leaders and followers. The military too is in flux. Weapon systems have grown more technically sophisticated; organizational structures have grown leaner and flatter. Multinational armies embrace diverse cultures and values. Although military leaders were once elite in terms of economic and social background, as well as education, our society now endorses personal and professional development for everyone, regardless of economic and social background. Thus there are truly no inherent demographic differences between leaders and followers."
What struck me about that paragraph is that it was written 25 years ago, but might just as well have been written in the last week. Leaders must spend more time and energy understanding the people in their organizations rather than the equipment and stuff of their organizations. An understanding of the disparate values, norms, behaviors etc, is an important step in forming the common understanding of the task and it's purpose. And it puts the emphasis on the human factor of both the unit and the problem and recognizes that if the human beings don't have a clear sense of direction, then regardless of technology, the endeavor will probably fail.
Gen Otis goes on to say the following:
"The military's emphasis is increasingly on human skills, the strategic implication of decisions, development of a common purpose, and shared acceptance of accountability for both leaders and followers. The leader can no longer afford to be the most skilled Soldier; technical skills of followers must exceed those of the leaders if the organization is to be successful. Leaders are now evaluated in terms of having people in their units who are brighter and more capable than anyone else. "
The technology revolution has created a new paradigm for military organizations who, in the past, have been excellent generalists - it has created the specialist. The Soldier who essentially has been hired to do one thing exceptionally well rather than possessing an ability to work through a variety of challenges using broader thinking skills. We now have a group of young enlisted Soldiers, for example, who make our digital systems work. Without them we cannot communicate or send information or do any of the coordination that we need to make the Army run. We have become beholden to information and situational awareness and instant communication. As I have said before, the most important kid in the organization is the one who can keep the Internet running. I assure you, any modern day general will gladly step aside and make concessions to the young Soldier who can solve his communication problem. Why? Because the information itself has become the prize. He who has the most, wins. The goal seems to be instant situational awareness of the entire battlefield in real time.
There are however some unspoken aspects of that paragraph that should be considered. Is it the information that is key, or the ability to use it? By creating total situational awareness, are we limiting individual initiative and judgement? If so, what effect does that have on leader development? Are we losing our ability to efficiently use the advantage gained in information by trying to hold on to an outdated hierarchical personnel structure that imposes rules and gates to decision making that turns what was an advantage into a disadvantage? These questions introduce the idea of the effects of organizational structure, it's relationship toward leader development and the required mental agility that modern technology requires.
This also represents an understanding of the role of both the leader and the follower in modern organizations, both business and military. It becomes even more critical that leaders create environments where the skills and abilities of a wide range of technical experts can be brought together to serve a common purpose. The role of the leader is to create the conditions whereby the followers can excel and bring their particular talents to bear against a common problem. It inherently values the follower and their contributions to the unit.
Finally, Gen Otis outlines the things that he thinks are critical components of successful leadership:
"A leaders success depends on self-knowledge, self-confidence and a lifelong commitment to education and training. There are no surefire methods of developing leadership.....we believe that self-knowledge is the only way a person can prepare for the challenge. The discovery of one's own strengths and weaknesses enhances self-confidence. Taking risks and learning from failures are critical to leader development. The more we learn about ourselves, the more effective we can be in the roles of leader and follower."
I wish I'd found that paragraph when I started writing this, it would have saved me a bunch of time and energy! These three paragraphs taken together deserve a lot of consideration, but the final one is, to me, the most important. We must encourage, support, and insist that our young leaders have a clear understanding of who they are as individuals before we can begin to mold them into leaders. Personal study of yourself and the critical values and viewpoints you hold, as well as understanding why and how you came to hold them, is the only way to gain the self-confidence needed to lead people in any organization. This is even more critical for those charged with making decisions that may cause immense hardship and/or suffering to others. Secondly, these values and viewpoints must continually be challenged by mental exercise and ethical challenges to see if they withstand the pressure. Risking personal comfort and learning lessons from value failures is critical to the human understanding of compassion and empathy required from all leaders and followers in any organization.
Generically, I think Gen Otis's comments are pretty smart. The cultural (socio-economic and educational) divide between officers and enlisted Soldiers has changed.....The technology revolution has brought about a levelling based upon the unique specialized skills we now require.....There is no way for a modern leader to keep up with technological change, he/she will have to leave that to people more expert than they.....Successful leaders will create common pictures for follower experts to work within.....The follower's belief in the common picture will generate from their trust in the character and confidence of the leader.....The character and confidence can only be realized through self-study, risk taking, and the lessons learned from experience and sometimes failure.
As always, your thoughts, ideas and comments are welcome.
"Leaders must adapt to a constantly changing world. Technological, economic, social and political environments are at a rapid pace; so are the education and experience levels of effective leaders and followers. The military too is in flux. Weapon systems have grown more technically sophisticated; organizational structures have grown leaner and flatter. Multinational armies embrace diverse cultures and values. Although military leaders were once elite in terms of economic and social background, as well as education, our society now endorses personal and professional development for everyone, regardless of economic and social background. Thus there are truly no inherent demographic differences between leaders and followers."
What struck me about that paragraph is that it was written 25 years ago, but might just as well have been written in the last week. Leaders must spend more time and energy understanding the people in their organizations rather than the equipment and stuff of their organizations. An understanding of the disparate values, norms, behaviors etc, is an important step in forming the common understanding of the task and it's purpose. And it puts the emphasis on the human factor of both the unit and the problem and recognizes that if the human beings don't have a clear sense of direction, then regardless of technology, the endeavor will probably fail.
Gen Otis goes on to say the following:
"The military's emphasis is increasingly on human skills, the strategic implication of decisions, development of a common purpose, and shared acceptance of accountability for both leaders and followers. The leader can no longer afford to be the most skilled Soldier; technical skills of followers must exceed those of the leaders if the organization is to be successful. Leaders are now evaluated in terms of having people in their units who are brighter and more capable than anyone else. "
The technology revolution has created a new paradigm for military organizations who, in the past, have been excellent generalists - it has created the specialist. The Soldier who essentially has been hired to do one thing exceptionally well rather than possessing an ability to work through a variety of challenges using broader thinking skills. We now have a group of young enlisted Soldiers, for example, who make our digital systems work. Without them we cannot communicate or send information or do any of the coordination that we need to make the Army run. We have become beholden to information and situational awareness and instant communication. As I have said before, the most important kid in the organization is the one who can keep the Internet running. I assure you, any modern day general will gladly step aside and make concessions to the young Soldier who can solve his communication problem. Why? Because the information itself has become the prize. He who has the most, wins. The goal seems to be instant situational awareness of the entire battlefield in real time.
There are however some unspoken aspects of that paragraph that should be considered. Is it the information that is key, or the ability to use it? By creating total situational awareness, are we limiting individual initiative and judgement? If so, what effect does that have on leader development? Are we losing our ability to efficiently use the advantage gained in information by trying to hold on to an outdated hierarchical personnel structure that imposes rules and gates to decision making that turns what was an advantage into a disadvantage? These questions introduce the idea of the effects of organizational structure, it's relationship toward leader development and the required mental agility that modern technology requires.
This also represents an understanding of the role of both the leader and the follower in modern organizations, both business and military. It becomes even more critical that leaders create environments where the skills and abilities of a wide range of technical experts can be brought together to serve a common purpose. The role of the leader is to create the conditions whereby the followers can excel and bring their particular talents to bear against a common problem. It inherently values the follower and their contributions to the unit.
Finally, Gen Otis outlines the things that he thinks are critical components of successful leadership:
"A leaders success depends on self-knowledge, self-confidence and a lifelong commitment to education and training. There are no surefire methods of developing leadership.....we believe that self-knowledge is the only way a person can prepare for the challenge. The discovery of one's own strengths and weaknesses enhances self-confidence. Taking risks and learning from failures are critical to leader development. The more we learn about ourselves, the more effective we can be in the roles of leader and follower."
I wish I'd found that paragraph when I started writing this, it would have saved me a bunch of time and energy! These three paragraphs taken together deserve a lot of consideration, but the final one is, to me, the most important. We must encourage, support, and insist that our young leaders have a clear understanding of who they are as individuals before we can begin to mold them into leaders. Personal study of yourself and the critical values and viewpoints you hold, as well as understanding why and how you came to hold them, is the only way to gain the self-confidence needed to lead people in any organization. This is even more critical for those charged with making decisions that may cause immense hardship and/or suffering to others. Secondly, these values and viewpoints must continually be challenged by mental exercise and ethical challenges to see if they withstand the pressure. Risking personal comfort and learning lessons from value failures is critical to the human understanding of compassion and empathy required from all leaders and followers in any organization.
Generically, I think Gen Otis's comments are pretty smart. The cultural (socio-economic and educational) divide between officers and enlisted Soldiers has changed.....The technology revolution has brought about a levelling based upon the unique specialized skills we now require.....There is no way for a modern leader to keep up with technological change, he/she will have to leave that to people more expert than they.....Successful leaders will create common pictures for follower experts to work within.....The follower's belief in the common picture will generate from their trust in the character and confidence of the leader.....The character and confidence can only be realized through self-study, risk taking, and the lessons learned from experience and sometimes failure.
As always, your thoughts, ideas and comments are welcome.
#43 The Reasons
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. ~William Drummond, Academical Questions
Six months ago I started this blog in order to help sort out some of my personal thoughts on the Army, leadership, and my role in the organization. Over that time, I have done a lot of reflecting about who I am and the conditions that created my professional being. I have started to challenge my assumptions about who and what a leader is. I believe it is healthy and necessary to do this. I'm hoping that by sharing this experience, you might be doing the same no matter what your career field is.
Each week I set aside some time and try to cobble together thoughts and ideas on whatever has gotten my attention and try to look at a particular issue from some other point of view. I have always solicited your comments because I must be willing to challenge my thought processes and vision. It seems to me that this is the only way I will continue to grow and learn.
As this little mental journey has progressed, I must admit to being pleasantly surprised by the academic freedom that the senior leaders of the Army allow. Every week I find a new professional document where the organization is calling into question some long held belief or norm. I wish more of my peers were doing this. It would truly challenge a lot of what they consider to be doctrine.
Earlier this week, I brought the Effective Training Design brief to a company on post. Interestingly, while there will inevitably be a marksmanship portion to it, I was not hired principally for that. The unit wants (or at least says it wants) to develop it's junior leaders and challenge them to become more creative, responsive, and invested in the training of their Soldiers.
I spent the day with around 25 mostly junior (Sergeants) NCOs and we talked through OODA loops and tried to see if we could come up with a way to look at ourselves and training differently. We began with a simple event - land navigation. The issue was that the Soldiers couldn't navigate with a map and compass anymore and the 'old timers' found this ridiculous and unacceptable. As one SSG put it, "This is a baseline Soldier skill. Everyone is required to know how to do it." He was very sure of himself. He could do it, the Army said everyone needed to be able to do it, so everyone should be able to do it because he can. What he didn't see immediately was how much the proliferation of technology, both in and out of the Army, had changed the dynamic. Is traditional land navigation really something we need to invest much time on considering that every vehicle has a navigation system in it and almost every Soldier carries a personal or issued GPS system with them? That's the very question his Soldiers were asking. Does the task itself still have relevance? We spent a hour or so taking that apart and re-orienting ourselves and looking at ways we could conduct the required training in a manner that ultimately resulted in a Soldier who had acquired a skill that makes them more competent and confident on the battlefield. More importantly, that we could provide them a purpose for acquiring this skill.
The we took a break and looked at an entirely separate issue, - suicide. As I have mentioned before, my post has struggled a lot this year with Soldier's taking their own lives. We have invested a lot of time, energy and resources toward reversing this horrible trend. In this group, the idea was that we could maybe we could OODA that as well. We spent about 2 hours doing that. We took apart what we had observed and then these young leaders began to re-orient themselves as to why they thought we had a problem. The wheels for some were beginning to spin a little more freely. In others, you could still hear the gears grinding away. We didn't come up with any answers, but you could plainly see that folks were starting to think - really think - about the issue and not just throw pat answers on the table.
In the afternoon we deconstructed the parts of OODA again and focused on Orientation. These junior leaders finally began to understand that they are the true center of leadership. That the way they view themselves, their priorities, their organization, and their life forms the manner in which they lead others. Folks were starting to sit up straight and focus a little harder now. You could see that, in some cases, they were beginning to understand their responsibility as a leader starts with their responsibility to understand themselves. Even the 'old timers' were paying attention. Whether or not they would change what they had been doing wasn't the issue, that probably wouldn't happen. It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks. But, they were paying attention to the more junior NCOs who are just starting their leadership journey. They did recognize that there was a new excitement in some of them.
At the end of the day, I asked each one of them what they had taken away from the days discussion. In mostly quiet voices they all replied. We wrote the responses down. Maybe the best comment was from a Sergeant who said, "Maybe I need to re-look how I treat one of my Soldiers. What I'm doing now isn't working very well. Maybe there's a better way." Another said, "I need to figure out what's important to me, before I can help them figure out what's important to them."
My job requires me to meet my audience where they are on the leadership spectrum and then move them to a different - and hopefully better - place. My hope is that they willingly choose to do so. I cannot tell them where their individual journey will lead. I cannot tell them what to think. What I can do is show them a method of thinking about themselves, their Soldiers, and their world.
And that is the reason I write this. My leadership journey is no more or less complete than theirs. As I offered them a new viewpoint the other day, so to do I get offered new ideas and ways to look at myself with each experience.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Six months ago I started this blog in order to help sort out some of my personal thoughts on the Army, leadership, and my role in the organization. Over that time, I have done a lot of reflecting about who I am and the conditions that created my professional being. I have started to challenge my assumptions about who and what a leader is. I believe it is healthy and necessary to do this. I'm hoping that by sharing this experience, you might be doing the same no matter what your career field is.
Each week I set aside some time and try to cobble together thoughts and ideas on whatever has gotten my attention and try to look at a particular issue from some other point of view. I have always solicited your comments because I must be willing to challenge my thought processes and vision. It seems to me that this is the only way I will continue to grow and learn.
As this little mental journey has progressed, I must admit to being pleasantly surprised by the academic freedom that the senior leaders of the Army allow. Every week I find a new professional document where the organization is calling into question some long held belief or norm. I wish more of my peers were doing this. It would truly challenge a lot of what they consider to be doctrine.
Earlier this week, I brought the Effective Training Design brief to a company on post. Interestingly, while there will inevitably be a marksmanship portion to it, I was not hired principally for that. The unit wants (or at least says it wants) to develop it's junior leaders and challenge them to become more creative, responsive, and invested in the training of their Soldiers.
I spent the day with around 25 mostly junior (Sergeants) NCOs and we talked through OODA loops and tried to see if we could come up with a way to look at ourselves and training differently. We began with a simple event - land navigation. The issue was that the Soldiers couldn't navigate with a map and compass anymore and the 'old timers' found this ridiculous and unacceptable. As one SSG put it, "This is a baseline Soldier skill. Everyone is required to know how to do it." He was very sure of himself. He could do it, the Army said everyone needed to be able to do it, so everyone should be able to do it because he can. What he didn't see immediately was how much the proliferation of technology, both in and out of the Army, had changed the dynamic. Is traditional land navigation really something we need to invest much time on considering that every vehicle has a navigation system in it and almost every Soldier carries a personal or issued GPS system with them? That's the very question his Soldiers were asking. Does the task itself still have relevance? We spent a hour or so taking that apart and re-orienting ourselves and looking at ways we could conduct the required training in a manner that ultimately resulted in a Soldier who had acquired a skill that makes them more competent and confident on the battlefield. More importantly, that we could provide them a purpose for acquiring this skill.
The we took a break and looked at an entirely separate issue, - suicide. As I have mentioned before, my post has struggled a lot this year with Soldier's taking their own lives. We have invested a lot of time, energy and resources toward reversing this horrible trend. In this group, the idea was that we could maybe we could OODA that as well. We spent about 2 hours doing that. We took apart what we had observed and then these young leaders began to re-orient themselves as to why they thought we had a problem. The wheels for some were beginning to spin a little more freely. In others, you could still hear the gears grinding away. We didn't come up with any answers, but you could plainly see that folks were starting to think - really think - about the issue and not just throw pat answers on the table.
In the afternoon we deconstructed the parts of OODA again and focused on Orientation. These junior leaders finally began to understand that they are the true center of leadership. That the way they view themselves, their priorities, their organization, and their life forms the manner in which they lead others. Folks were starting to sit up straight and focus a little harder now. You could see that, in some cases, they were beginning to understand their responsibility as a leader starts with their responsibility to understand themselves. Even the 'old timers' were paying attention. Whether or not they would change what they had been doing wasn't the issue, that probably wouldn't happen. It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks. But, they were paying attention to the more junior NCOs who are just starting their leadership journey. They did recognize that there was a new excitement in some of them.
At the end of the day, I asked each one of them what they had taken away from the days discussion. In mostly quiet voices they all replied. We wrote the responses down. Maybe the best comment was from a Sergeant who said, "Maybe I need to re-look how I treat one of my Soldiers. What I'm doing now isn't working very well. Maybe there's a better way." Another said, "I need to figure out what's important to me, before I can help them figure out what's important to them."
My job requires me to meet my audience where they are on the leadership spectrum and then move them to a different - and hopefully better - place. My hope is that they willingly choose to do so. I cannot tell them where their individual journey will lead. I cannot tell them what to think. What I can do is show them a method of thinking about themselves, their Soldiers, and their world.
And that is the reason I write this. My leadership journey is no more or less complete than theirs. As I offered them a new viewpoint the other day, so to do I get offered new ideas and ways to look at myself with each experience.
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.
#41 The Army as a Learning Organization
I was mistakenly sent this article earlier this week by a command sergeant major who has become a mentor to me and one of the readers of the blog. He wanted me to comment on something he had written, but sent this one by mistake. It is an article in Joint Forces Quarterly entitled "Can the Army Become a Learning Organization?" You can find it at:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i56/19.pdf
Before he knew that he had sent me the incorrect document, I had already written my reply. Because I think the issue is very important and one we should be looking at, I am going to include my response to the original document here:
CSM -
Here are my thoughts on the article you sent me. The critical part of my response will be my 'orientation' toward the organization at the lowest level - the squad, section, platoon and company. I have taken quotations from the article and used them to form my thoughts. Obviously, the author's approach is much larger, i.e the institution itself. The problem here is that the bottom and the top can be - and many times are - very far apart due to different 'orientations'. Using OODA, those Orientations form the basis for most of the deficiencies we face.
"The US Army is an institution whose competence centers around the learning of its officers from their enrollment in its War Colleges to participation in After Action Reviews."
While this statement is very true, it implies that true learning in the Army doesn't begin until an officer reaches the rank of Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel. Basically, until they have reached the 17-22 year mark in their careers. Even if one accepts that learning is happening at the 2nd Lieutenant to Major level, it is mostly directed from the 'Orientation' of that person's supervisor. For example, if I have a boss who only recognizes kinetic (direct firefight) action as a viable answer to an enemy situation, then trying to learn about COIN (counterinsurgency) will probably not be accepted very well. Secondly, there is no reference at all to how learning happens in the enlisted corps. One of the overlooked portions of any article I've ever read regarding how 'smart' the Army is is that there are distinctly different learning priorities between the officer and enlisted corps. This may seem obvious, but it is fair to say that for any officer, formal classroom education is a priority. After all, the degree is the way they became an officer in the first place. For many in the enlisted corps that is not the case. This means that while my Lieutenant is a kid with an engineering degree from West Point, the Soldiers he leads will likely have anything from a High School equivalency to an Associates degree. And since we have linked promotion points to college credits, there is a strong likelihood that he took those classes not to learn, but to get promoted.
The 'education priority' gap is critical to recognize. Starting with the top (Senior officers) and looking down won't work. If we want to become a learning organization, we need to look at who needs to learn and how they are best suited to learning. This would reinforce to the entire service the value of formal education, allow for conceptual learning to happen (which improves responses to unforeseen situations) and, over time, assimilate improved critical thinking skills into the force.
"Both the normative and developmental perspectives focus on the problems and difficulties in promoting learning in organizations. When organizations fail to establish the necessary conditions, they suffer from learning disabilities due to the fundamental ways in which individuals have been trained to act and from barriers to discovering and utilizing solutions to organizational problems."
"Learning is avoided when leaders attribute failure not to internal causes but to conditions in the external environment or to factors that cannot be controlled."
This is a huge paragraph for me. If you start with a unit comprised mostly of people who do not value cognitive learning (the enlisted corps), create a culture where those who are considered 'educated' are not validated (the junior officer corps), and then back up that culture with a structure (Task/Condition/Standard based training) that creates barriers to mission accomplishment and the introduction of critical thinking skills, you will inevitably end up with an ever-increasing 'deep thought' gap between the officer and enlisted corps.
"Learning is apt to challenge established ways of doing things."
"However, what one finds in ant hierarchical organization is a conscious or subconscious tendency to defer to those in authority or positions of command. Beyond avoiding conflict, the pointing out of some mistake or error can also be embarrassing and thus socially unacceptable."
We spend a lot of time these days having SME's (Subject Matter Experts) on every little thing, but the truth is that in most cases, if the boss doesn't like what he/she is hearing, then the information itself becomes devalued - not just the method of delivery. This creates an environment where the information provider finds him/herself playing to the crowd. The information itself, however, will still be of neutral value; that is that it will be valid or invalid regardless of the manner it is presented. To challenge the status quo is to invite career suicide unless the organization holds as a pre-existing condition that careerism will not be valued over critical disagreement and thought. In another article I quoted in my blog, this was recognized as the difference between discussing and issue - widely seen as receiving guidance from the boss, and having a dialogue - which implies exploring an issue and it's closely related satellites in order to gain insight an understanding.
This idea is contrasted in the article by the following quote:
"If there is one trait of learning organizations, it is that information and knowledge flows freely up, down, and across the organization."
How many Army organizations do you know who work this way? Very few. Since we are an undereducated enlisted force who institutionally does not respect 'critical thought' and has a structure designed to work on experience over knowledge it becomes apparent that the entire rank structure becomes an impediment to learning. Educated Soldiers become a threat to their immediate superiors and create power and authority issues inside the organization.
In light of the Outcome Based thinking process, the article states :
"What should be of interest is not learning per se, but the impact of that learning relative to strategic directions."
This sounds a lot like OBT&E to me. Focus on what impacts and attributes we want to develop in Soldiers and then work the process backwards until we recognize all the things that personally and structurally act as impediments to achieving them. And the violently remove them.
I think what we need to do is (1) prioritize enlisted education. By prioritize, I mean we must value learning over rote memorization and put a priority on the ability to think deeply and creatively to support commander's intent and strategic policies. (2) Create command cultures tied to inclusion and dialogue rather than rank based exclusion and discussion. (3) Close as quickly as possible the education gap. This could be done easily by removing most of the existing programs of instruction at noncomissioned officer education schools and replacing them with history based and ethically challenging tactical decision games. (4) Reduce/remove the idea that rank equals knowledge. Ranks equals authority and responsibility, not necessarily knowledge. My job as a leader is to take the information the SME presents me, look at it critically using 'orientation' and fit it into the intent and strategic purpose of the organization.
If we could do these things, I think we would be teaching critical thinking, developing the ability to rapidly manage variable inputs in dynamic situations and introducing 'higher' education concepts that support Soldier and character development.
As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i56/19.pdf
Before he knew that he had sent me the incorrect document, I had already written my reply. Because I think the issue is very important and one we should be looking at, I am going to include my response to the original document here:
CSM -
Here are my thoughts on the article you sent me. The critical part of my response will be my 'orientation' toward the organization at the lowest level - the squad, section, platoon and company. I have taken quotations from the article and used them to form my thoughts. Obviously, the author's approach is much larger, i.e the institution itself. The problem here is that the bottom and the top can be - and many times are - very far apart due to different 'orientations'. Using OODA, those Orientations form the basis for most of the deficiencies we face.
"The US Army is an institution whose competence centers around the learning of its officers from their enrollment in its War Colleges to participation in After Action Reviews."
While this statement is very true, it implies that true learning in the Army doesn't begin until an officer reaches the rank of Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel. Basically, until they have reached the 17-22 year mark in their careers. Even if one accepts that learning is happening at the 2nd Lieutenant to Major level, it is mostly directed from the 'Orientation' of that person's supervisor. For example, if I have a boss who only recognizes kinetic (direct firefight) action as a viable answer to an enemy situation, then trying to learn about COIN (counterinsurgency) will probably not be accepted very well. Secondly, there is no reference at all to how learning happens in the enlisted corps. One of the overlooked portions of any article I've ever read regarding how 'smart' the Army is is that there are distinctly different learning priorities between the officer and enlisted corps. This may seem obvious, but it is fair to say that for any officer, formal classroom education is a priority. After all, the degree is the way they became an officer in the first place. For many in the enlisted corps that is not the case. This means that while my Lieutenant is a kid with an engineering degree from West Point, the Soldiers he leads will likely have anything from a High School equivalency to an Associates degree. And since we have linked promotion points to college credits, there is a strong likelihood that he took those classes not to learn, but to get promoted.
The 'education priority' gap is critical to recognize. Starting with the top (Senior officers) and looking down won't work. If we want to become a learning organization, we need to look at who needs to learn and how they are best suited to learning. This would reinforce to the entire service the value of formal education, allow for conceptual learning to happen (which improves responses to unforeseen situations) and, over time, assimilate improved critical thinking skills into the force.
"Both the normative and developmental perspectives focus on the problems and difficulties in promoting learning in organizations. When organizations fail to establish the necessary conditions, they suffer from learning disabilities due to the fundamental ways in which individuals have been trained to act and from barriers to discovering and utilizing solutions to organizational problems."
"Learning is avoided when leaders attribute failure not to internal causes but to conditions in the external environment or to factors that cannot be controlled."
This is a huge paragraph for me. If you start with a unit comprised mostly of people who do not value cognitive learning (the enlisted corps), create a culture where those who are considered 'educated' are not validated (the junior officer corps), and then back up that culture with a structure (Task/Condition/Standard based training) that creates barriers to mission accomplishment and the introduction of critical thinking skills, you will inevitably end up with an ever-increasing 'deep thought' gap between the officer and enlisted corps.
"Learning is apt to challenge established ways of doing things."
"However, what one finds in ant hierarchical organization is a conscious or subconscious tendency to defer to those in authority or positions of command. Beyond avoiding conflict, the pointing out of some mistake or error can also be embarrassing and thus socially unacceptable."
We spend a lot of time these days having SME's (Subject Matter Experts) on every little thing, but the truth is that in most cases, if the boss doesn't like what he/she is hearing, then the information itself becomes devalued - not just the method of delivery. This creates an environment where the information provider finds him/herself playing to the crowd. The information itself, however, will still be of neutral value; that is that it will be valid or invalid regardless of the manner it is presented. To challenge the status quo is to invite career suicide unless the organization holds as a pre-existing condition that careerism will not be valued over critical disagreement and thought. In another article I quoted in my blog, this was recognized as the difference between discussing and issue - widely seen as receiving guidance from the boss, and having a dialogue - which implies exploring an issue and it's closely related satellites in order to gain insight an understanding.
This idea is contrasted in the article by the following quote:
"If there is one trait of learning organizations, it is that information and knowledge flows freely up, down, and across the organization."
How many Army organizations do you know who work this way? Very few. Since we are an undereducated enlisted force who institutionally does not respect 'critical thought' and has a structure designed to work on experience over knowledge it becomes apparent that the entire rank structure becomes an impediment to learning. Educated Soldiers become a threat to their immediate superiors and create power and authority issues inside the organization.
In light of the Outcome Based thinking process, the article states :
"What should be of interest is not learning per se, but the impact of that learning relative to strategic directions."
This sounds a lot like OBT&E to me. Focus on what impacts and attributes we want to develop in Soldiers and then work the process backwards until we recognize all the things that personally and structurally act as impediments to achieving them. And the violently remove them.
I think what we need to do is (1) prioritize enlisted education. By prioritize, I mean we must value learning over rote memorization and put a priority on the ability to think deeply and creatively to support commander's intent and strategic policies. (2) Create command cultures tied to inclusion and dialogue rather than rank based exclusion and discussion. (3) Close as quickly as possible the education gap. This could be done easily by removing most of the existing programs of instruction at noncomissioned officer education schools and replacing them with history based and ethically challenging tactical decision games. (4) Reduce/remove the idea that rank equals knowledge. Ranks equals authority and responsibility, not necessarily knowledge. My job as a leader is to take the information the SME presents me, look at it critically using 'orientation' and fit it into the intent and strategic purpose of the organization.
If we could do these things, I think we would be teaching critical thinking, developing the ability to rapidly manage variable inputs in dynamic situations and introducing 'higher' education concepts that support Soldier and character development.
As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments.
# 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.
# 39 The Discussions We Need To Have
Over the past 6 months, I have intentionally avoided political discussions because I generally cannot find anything worth discussing. We currently live in such a divided political society, that the worst tragedy imaginable would likely be turned into political theater within hours. With everybody pointing the finger at the 'other' side, and hoping to score political points with their constituencies, the real issues we need to face are mostly left behind.
The attached article, however, did catch my eye. Not for it's source (Newsweek), but rather for it's rather pragmatic acceptance that we are living in a new era where the interposition of technology, radicalism, and political maneuvering have come to a crossroads. The way ahead cannot be the way of the past.
If you consider the events of the last 8 years, you begin to see that most US actions are actually reactions. And being reactionary, is somewhat in our collective nature. Acceptance of that and being able to see both it's positive and negative effects equally would go a long way in changing the national discourse.
Check out the article here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229046/page/1
I'd be interested in your thoughts. As we struggle to protect against attack and protect against an invasive government, the true discussion we should be engaging in is, is there a middle ground?
The attached article, however, did catch my eye. Not for it's source (Newsweek), but rather for it's rather pragmatic acceptance that we are living in a new era where the interposition of technology, radicalism, and political maneuvering have come to a crossroads. The way ahead cannot be the way of the past.
If you consider the events of the last 8 years, you begin to see that most US actions are actually reactions. And being reactionary, is somewhat in our collective nature. Acceptance of that and being able to see both it's positive and negative effects equally would go a long way in changing the national discourse.
Check out the article here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229046/page/1
I'd be interested in your thoughts. As we struggle to protect against attack and protect against an invasive government, the true discussion we should be engaging in is, is there a middle ground?
# 38 Leadership and Vision
I was going through my collection of source material books yesterday and came across a small volume entitled "Military Leadership...In Pursuit of Excellence" 2nd edition, edited by Robert Taylor and William Rosenbach. Since we had an hour long trip to visit some relatives last evening, I brought it with me and started to read it on the way. I didn't get very far along before some passages started to jump out at me. Since my daughter is at her grandparents today and the house is quiet again, I thought I'd explore some of the ideas brought up in the book.
"Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it." - General Omar Bradley
The book starts out with the following paragraph:
"Leadership starts with a vision for the future. What sets leaders part from others is an ability to "see" and put into perspective what others cannot. The vision is not a daydream; rather it is a goal for the future state of affairs for an organization and it's people. This vision becomes a commitment, a drive and a focus of energy."
That paragraph seems to almost directly contradict the Army model for leader development. "A vision for the future..." Because we label every NCO and officer a leader, the definition implies that each of us has some form of 'vision' for the future of our organization regardless of it's size. The question then becomes, how does one develop that 'vision'? A young man or woman fresh out of college, with relatively little practical life experience, who is still forming their individual sense of self might have difficulty defining a vision for their organization. Especially when taken out of the college or family environment they are familiar with and placed into the Army culture. It also presupposes that what you didn't have on Friday when you were a Specialist, you will suddenly have on Monday when you are a Sergeant. The same can be said for the officer who gets handed a guidon at a change of command ceremony. The staff officer who was executing someone else's vision, is suddenly expected to have one of their own when they assume command. But who helps them develop that? Who provides the sounding board for those young leaders to bounce thoughts, ideas and dreams off of? Who helps them differentiate between the daydream and the achievable goal? Because so little effective personal mentoring actually happens these days, it would be easy to believe that this isn't something that we need to spend anytime looking at. We end up playing follow the leader and imitating the boss...
That is not to say that it isn't important. I believe it is critically so. One of the purposes for this blog is to prompt myself and the reader to think hard about who they are, the roles they play and the world they interact in. And then using those thoughts to focus on developing their 'vision' of themselves and how they will lead. To discover their priorities, their reasoning process, their likes and dislikes, their style etc. That is why I started writing this. I believe that we all must be pushed by outside circumstance, evolving interactions with people and our unfolding worlds to constantly question our methods and ideas. If we do not, we rapidly become dogmatic, disconnected, and caricatures of our true selves. A leader in title only who cannot provide a vision for those he leads.
My self-concept prior to the events of the last 3 years, was largely formed by outside circumstance. Being successful in the Army is generally not all that difficult. As I often say, "It ain't rocket science. We're not flying the space shuttle today." What I didn't have the vision to see then was that my self-concept was formed by simple things. Professional success, accolades, ribbons, badges and tabs. I was continually seeking affirmation and the next "Attaboy" from my superiors. And truthfully, they were not hard to attain. I had no real understanding of who or what I was separate from those other things. I had no vision.
The events of my life in the last 3 years have changed that. When the "attaboys" and ribbons and accolades went away and the harsh light of the events in Iraq and their effects came home, I went missing for awhile and had to redefine myself, my purpose, my relationships and my priorities. I had to question the baseline assumptions of who I was and my place in the Army. To see myself more clearly and to find a way to regain my passion for leading human beings. I had to discover a new 'vision'.
This blog is part of that discovery. I write in order to formulate my thoughts and gather yours for consideration. If I do have a vision now, it is to help in my own way to get people to think actively, view their world critically and question preconceptions loyally. For me, that is the most important thing I have left to offer . To encourage growth through mutual respect, constructive dialogue and the interchange of ideas. And to do that with the 'vision' of improving other young leaders ability to lead their Soldiers.
The book goes on to say:
"Motivating people to work together to fulfill the vision is an exciting challenge. However, leaders do not motivate others; they create an environment in which people motivate themselves."
I hadn't thought of that before. Because the Army's definition of leadership begins with the phrase "Influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation....." it has always seemed clear to me that one of the first responsibilities of a leader is to motivate. But the quotation raises an interesting point. What if the purpose of being a leader isn't to motivate other people, but rather to create an environment where they motivate themselves? Seen this way, my leader responsibility would be to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of my subordinates and find and create opportunities for them to motivate themselves. Not necessarily in the ways that I get motivated, but in the manner and method that best suits them. What would this accomplish? First, it allows a young leader to worry less about whether he/she is doing something 'right' or 'wrong' (in terms of leadership method) and focus solely on the impact that those methods are having on the subordinate. Is the subordinate demonstrating increased or decreased self-motivation in achieving the organizations 'vision'? Is he/she creatively and actively involved in achieving success? Are they taking ownership for the outcomes the unit is producing? If the answer is yes, then the leader has likely created an environment where the subordinate is valued, content, and developing. I do this as a leader by creating a place for self-motivation to occur. I cannot guarantee it will occur, but knowing that if it does then the unit 'vision' will be much more rapidly advanced due to collective rather than singular ownership.
In another section written by General S.L.A Marshall I found this paragraph which had fallen under my highlighter a long time ago when I read the book for the first time:
"Coupled with self control, consideration and thoughtfulness will carry a man far. Men will warm to a leader when they come to believe that all the energy he stores up by living somewhat within himself is at their service. But when they feel that this is not the case, and that his reserve is simply the outward sign of a spiritual miserliness and concentrating on purely personal goals, no amount of restraint will ever win their favor. This is as true of him who commands a whole Service as of the leader of a squad."
I think this paragraph to be especially important at this time in our Army. There is a real sense of disconnectedness between many leaders and those they lead. And I think it comes from many of the led not believing that their leaders are exercising consideration and thoughtfulness on their behalf. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but the perception is real and it is having devastating effects. This paragraph also highlights one of the critical components of successful leadership which is communication. A leader may have his subordinates best interests in mind at all times, but if they do not feel that that is the case, then he may have nothing. He must communicate to them why he is doing the things he is doing in order to increase their trust in his methods and reasoning. These communications take his 'vision' and begin the process of sharing it with the entire organization.
This maybe one of the greatest lessons I learned in Iraq. I felt I had a very clear understanding of my platoon, what had happened before my arrival and why things needed to be done in a particular way. I never ever had anything but the platoon's best interest at heart. I have always understood that whatever successes have been attributed to me ultimately came from the successes of my Soldiers. People who know me personally probably count that as one of the reasons they like and respect me. It truly isn't about me, it's about doing the right thing for the people I serve. What I may not have done very well is demonstrate/communicate to them my view, my perception and my vision. And in failing that, I may have left them to think that my interests lay purely with me. I do believe that as time progressed and especially after the catastrophic events in June 2006 changed our circumstances in such a way that everyone was walking blind, that the Soldiers came to see that I never had anything but our platoons best interests at heart. But, I will never know that for sure. And the lesson I learned is to always communicate the 'purpose' of the endeavor. To not do so can lead to misperception, miscommunication, and mistrust. To do so, however, gains the willing obedience of subordinates even at times when they do not see the larger vision.
And so, as we all enter the second decade of the 21st century, with 8 and 1/2 years of war behind us and the prospect for continued conflict in front of us, there has never been a more important time for each one of us to think about, develop and cultivate our 'vision'. We need people in every walk of life, civilian and military - teachers, activists, cops and volunteers....Generals and Servants alike - who know where they are going, why we need to go there, and who can create environments where those who follow them can participate in, and be part of achieving that vision. We need leaders.
"Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it." - General Omar Bradley
The book starts out with the following paragraph:
"Leadership starts with a vision for the future. What sets leaders part from others is an ability to "see" and put into perspective what others cannot. The vision is not a daydream; rather it is a goal for the future state of affairs for an organization and it's people. This vision becomes a commitment, a drive and a focus of energy."
That paragraph seems to almost directly contradict the Army model for leader development. "A vision for the future..." Because we label every NCO and officer a leader, the definition implies that each of us has some form of 'vision' for the future of our organization regardless of it's size. The question then becomes, how does one develop that 'vision'? A young man or woman fresh out of college, with relatively little practical life experience, who is still forming their individual sense of self might have difficulty defining a vision for their organization. Especially when taken out of the college or family environment they are familiar with and placed into the Army culture. It also presupposes that what you didn't have on Friday when you were a Specialist, you will suddenly have on Monday when you are a Sergeant. The same can be said for the officer who gets handed a guidon at a change of command ceremony. The staff officer who was executing someone else's vision, is suddenly expected to have one of their own when they assume command. But who helps them develop that? Who provides the sounding board for those young leaders to bounce thoughts, ideas and dreams off of? Who helps them differentiate between the daydream and the achievable goal? Because so little effective personal mentoring actually happens these days, it would be easy to believe that this isn't something that we need to spend anytime looking at. We end up playing follow the leader and imitating the boss...
That is not to say that it isn't important. I believe it is critically so. One of the purposes for this blog is to prompt myself and the reader to think hard about who they are, the roles they play and the world they interact in. And then using those thoughts to focus on developing their 'vision' of themselves and how they will lead. To discover their priorities, their reasoning process, their likes and dislikes, their style etc. That is why I started writing this. I believe that we all must be pushed by outside circumstance, evolving interactions with people and our unfolding worlds to constantly question our methods and ideas. If we do not, we rapidly become dogmatic, disconnected, and caricatures of our true selves. A leader in title only who cannot provide a vision for those he leads.
My self-concept prior to the events of the last 3 years, was largely formed by outside circumstance. Being successful in the Army is generally not all that difficult. As I often say, "It ain't rocket science. We're not flying the space shuttle today." What I didn't have the vision to see then was that my self-concept was formed by simple things. Professional success, accolades, ribbons, badges and tabs. I was continually seeking affirmation and the next "Attaboy" from my superiors. And truthfully, they were not hard to attain. I had no real understanding of who or what I was separate from those other things. I had no vision.
The events of my life in the last 3 years have changed that. When the "attaboys" and ribbons and accolades went away and the harsh light of the events in Iraq and their effects came home, I went missing for awhile and had to redefine myself, my purpose, my relationships and my priorities. I had to question the baseline assumptions of who I was and my place in the Army. To see myself more clearly and to find a way to regain my passion for leading human beings. I had to discover a new 'vision'.
This blog is part of that discovery. I write in order to formulate my thoughts and gather yours for consideration. If I do have a vision now, it is to help in my own way to get people to think actively, view their world critically and question preconceptions loyally. For me, that is the most important thing I have left to offer . To encourage growth through mutual respect, constructive dialogue and the interchange of ideas. And to do that with the 'vision' of improving other young leaders ability to lead their Soldiers.
The book goes on to say:
"Motivating people to work together to fulfill the vision is an exciting challenge. However, leaders do not motivate others; they create an environment in which people motivate themselves."
I hadn't thought of that before. Because the Army's definition of leadership begins with the phrase "Influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation....." it has always seemed clear to me that one of the first responsibilities of a leader is to motivate. But the quotation raises an interesting point. What if the purpose of being a leader isn't to motivate other people, but rather to create an environment where they motivate themselves? Seen this way, my leader responsibility would be to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of my subordinates and find and create opportunities for them to motivate themselves. Not necessarily in the ways that I get motivated, but in the manner and method that best suits them. What would this accomplish? First, it allows a young leader to worry less about whether he/she is doing something 'right' or 'wrong' (in terms of leadership method) and focus solely on the impact that those methods are having on the subordinate. Is the subordinate demonstrating increased or decreased self-motivation in achieving the organizations 'vision'? Is he/she creatively and actively involved in achieving success? Are they taking ownership for the outcomes the unit is producing? If the answer is yes, then the leader has likely created an environment where the subordinate is valued, content, and developing. I do this as a leader by creating a place for self-motivation to occur. I cannot guarantee it will occur, but knowing that if it does then the unit 'vision' will be much more rapidly advanced due to collective rather than singular ownership.
In another section written by General S.L.A Marshall I found this paragraph which had fallen under my highlighter a long time ago when I read the book for the first time:
"Coupled with self control, consideration and thoughtfulness will carry a man far. Men will warm to a leader when they come to believe that all the energy he stores up by living somewhat within himself is at their service. But when they feel that this is not the case, and that his reserve is simply the outward sign of a spiritual miserliness and concentrating on purely personal goals, no amount of restraint will ever win their favor. This is as true of him who commands a whole Service as of the leader of a squad."
I think this paragraph to be especially important at this time in our Army. There is a real sense of disconnectedness between many leaders and those they lead. And I think it comes from many of the led not believing that their leaders are exercising consideration and thoughtfulness on their behalf. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but the perception is real and it is having devastating effects. This paragraph also highlights one of the critical components of successful leadership which is communication. A leader may have his subordinates best interests in mind at all times, but if they do not feel that that is the case, then he may have nothing. He must communicate to them why he is doing the things he is doing in order to increase their trust in his methods and reasoning. These communications take his 'vision' and begin the process of sharing it with the entire organization.
This maybe one of the greatest lessons I learned in Iraq. I felt I had a very clear understanding of my platoon, what had happened before my arrival and why things needed to be done in a particular way. I never ever had anything but the platoon's best interest at heart. I have always understood that whatever successes have been attributed to me ultimately came from the successes of my Soldiers. People who know me personally probably count that as one of the reasons they like and respect me. It truly isn't about me, it's about doing the right thing for the people I serve. What I may not have done very well is demonstrate/communicate to them my view, my perception and my vision. And in failing that, I may have left them to think that my interests lay purely with me. I do believe that as time progressed and especially after the catastrophic events in June 2006 changed our circumstances in such a way that everyone was walking blind, that the Soldiers came to see that I never had anything but our platoons best interests at heart. But, I will never know that for sure. And the lesson I learned is to always communicate the 'purpose' of the endeavor. To not do so can lead to misperception, miscommunication, and mistrust. To do so, however, gains the willing obedience of subordinates even at times when they do not see the larger vision.
And so, as we all enter the second decade of the 21st century, with 8 and 1/2 years of war behind us and the prospect for continued conflict in front of us, there has never been a more important time for each one of us to think about, develop and cultivate our 'vision'. We need people in every walk of life, civilian and military - teachers, activists, cops and volunteers....Generals and Servants alike - who know where they are going, why we need to go there, and who can create environments where those who follow them can participate in, and be part of achieving that vision. We need leaders.
# 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)