In his book "Americans At War", noted military historian Stephen Ambrose wrote the following when offering an historical perspective regarding the incident at My Lai during the Vietnam War:
"This is a painful task - to examine a side of war that is hard to face up to but is always there. When you put young people, eighteen, nineteen, twenty years old, in a foreign country with weapons in their hands, sometimes terrible things happen that you wish had never happened. This is a reality that stretches across time and across continents. It is a universal aspect of war, from the time of the ancient Greeks up to the present. My Lai was not an exception or an aberration. Atrocity is a part of war that needs to be recognized and discussed. It is not the job of historians to condemn or judge, but to describe, try to explain, and, even more so, attempt to understand.
In the case of My Lai, the question is who was responsible? Was it one person? Was it a bad platoon leader who was inadequately trained all his life, including by the Army and by his society? Was it that he just could not handle the responsibility, and he broke? Maybe it is as simple as that. I know a lot of Vietnam War veterans who would take very extreme action if they could get Lt. Calley in their hands. They blame him for besmirching their reputation and the reputation of the United States Army and the reputation of the American armed forces in Vietnam. Then there are others who say: "No, no, you can't blame Calley. What you need to do is look at the U.S. Army as a whole, the Army as an institution, the way the Army was fighting that war, and the things Westmoreland was demanding from his platoon leaders." The problem here is that you have the whole U.S. Army going berserk. Yet others would argue: "No, no, the Army is but a reflection of society, it was American society that made this happen. The racism that permeates all levels of American society is where you look for the cause of what happened at My Lai. It is America's sense of exceptionalism, America's self-appointed task of cleansing the world, that made My Lai happen." In this view, responsibility rests with society as a whole."
At the end of another paragraph a little further along, Ambrose finishes with the following:
"In combat, Soldiers are always afraid, always enraged, and very often seeking revenge."
In another place, he stated the following:
"A feature of the contemporary experience which seems to apply to My Lai is that men seldom see their enemy. In the nineteenth century, this was not so true."
Finally, at the very end of the chapter, Ambrose sums up his feelings in this way:
"One of the things that stands out about My Lai in my mind and makes it not only possible for me to live with it but to be once again proud of the institution that I have spent most of my life studying, the United States Army, was that the Army itself investigated the incident, made the investigation public and did it's best to punish the perpetrators of this outrage. I would defy anybody to name another army in the world that would do that."
As I read those opening paragraphs, I was overcome by a sense of, "Yes! Somebody finally gets it! This is exactly how I feel!" While My Lai has been long held as the model of unethical decision making, loss of control, and the singular importance of retaining one's core value system in the midst of combat, in reality, life on the ground is never quite so cut and dry.
As I have done before, I went back and substituted "Mahmudiyah Incident" in every place where Ambrose used My Lai, and re-read the paragraph. I have heard, and had, those very same arguments and questions over the last 4 years. Somehow it seems, 40 years later, and not a single thing has changed. My Lai and the Mahmudiyah incident both raise the same questions of responsibility, accountability, the behavior of men under extreme duress, the value system of the individual, the country, and the institution.
In the book "Black Hearts" the author very clearly chose to focus his efforts on the leadership aspect when searching for an answer to why those Soldiers committed that crime. Why did they decide to leave their post and go commit such a terrible act of violence on that family? He chose to find fault with the leadership, implying that personality struggles and conflicts throughout the battalion created conditions of extreme frustration and anger among the Soldiers and battalion leadership. By portraying the battalion commander as an extremely toxic leader, we get a ready-made villain for the remainder of the story. The truth however, is very much more complicated than that. That condition alone did not create the conditions of this tragedy.
As Ambrose succinctly pointed out, "In combat, men are always afraid, always enraged and very often seeking revenge." When you couple that with his later idea that in 21st century warfare - at least in Iraq and Afghanistan - Soldiers often do not see their enemy, a whole other line of reasoning is raised. When I am surrounded by a faceless enemy who blends in completely with the local populace and it is impossible to discern who is my friend and who isn't, the level of fear and anxiety rises exponentially. To maintain a super-human level of awareness in order to foresee every potential threat is exhausting work. You cannot sustain that indefinitely. I found that for me, I had to choose between believing everyone was friendly until proven otherwise, or the opposite, believing everyone was a threat until proven friendly. Most of my platoon chose the latter as their mode of operating and surviving their environment. By personality and inclination I chose the former. I cannot reconcile being at war and believing that everyone around me is the enemy. Certainly my Soldiers might find that naive, but in reality it is no more absurd than the opposite idea that everyone is trying to kill you. In fact, most people don't really give a damn about you and just want to get on with their lives. If you can help them with that, that's great. If not, go away and don't bother me. In any case, feeling as if you are surrounded by ghosts who wish to harm you and your friends creates a fear that is very difficult to explain. Logic and emotion crash headlong into each other day after day after day until you begin to question the very structure of your beliefs and reasoning. When I was young my father sent me a copy of a document called "The Desiderata". There is a line in it which has always stuck with me. "Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness." Can fear and loneliness create the condition for horrendous crime? Maybe, but then as Ambrose pointed out with regard to Vietnam, it would imply that crime and evil acts would be the norm rather than the exception. Every person in Iraq in 2005 - 2006 had to live under the same conditions my Soldiers did. So, why weren't crimes like these being committed every day?
And then there is the institution. The Army. Can we look to the Army to find accountability and responsibility when something happens that is so squarely outside the realm of believability? Certainly, as I have said before, nothing in my previous training had ever prepared me for the conditions I found myself in. I had never taken a class where the instructor said, "This is how you repair a platoon which has suffered the catastrophic loss of a third of it's leadership in 12 days and had it's home base burn to the ground. Step one do this. Step two do that." The idea that any institution can do 'teach' a prescribed response to every situation is ludicrous. The sheer number of potential responses is astronomical. But, did the Army fail? In a way I think it did because it taught prescribed responses instead of dynamic thought. It led me, and others, to believe that there was a 'correct' answer to every problem and clearly there is not. We have recognized that now and are taking steps in out training centers and commissioning sources to create adaptive and thinking Soldiers, but it will take time to weed out those of us who grew up in the proscribed response world in order to make room for the multi-tasker who is comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty.
Finally, much like Ambrose, I remain proud of the organization for it's actions when the Mahmudiyah incident came to light. Knowing it would be a black-eye on the entire organization and feed the emotional political drama over the course of the war, the Army did not waiver and went forward with the investigations and prosecutions. While incredibly difficult to live through personally, the fact is that the Army did the right thing. And while the cynics might say that it was only trying to cover it's ass, the truth is that no matter why the Army took responsibility for these events, it did, and in doing so reaffirmed that they are an institution worthy of the trust of the people. To live up to it's charter with America, the Army must always be willing to look very hard at itself when there are lessons to be learned.
I am realizing now that I will never have a complete understanding of that time. That it will be something that happened in my life that I will carry as part of the whole story of Fenlason. There are lessons to be learned from it, tragedies and ruined lives to feel badly about, and triumphs of principle and decency to be honored. Trying to balance all of those things is the hardest part.
#57 Mentorship
Two weeks ago over in the Army Knowledge On-line (AKO) blogosphere, a question was posted asking, "Where Have All the Mentors Gone?" I posted a response, as did a few others, but the post itself sat relatively idle for about a week.
Then suddenly, as a result of one of the AKO moderators moving the question to a larger forum, it blew up. Now there are 30 or more responses and the post has taken on a new life. I am glad to see that, since the ideas of leadership and mentorship are very closely related. They are not exactly the same, but share many similarities that should be examined in greater depth.
For me, the writing I do here and on AKO, and my approach to leading my small organization is probably much more mentor oriented than it is leader oriented. I see much of my role in the unit to be the passing along of my experiential knowledge to those who will lead the Army long after I choose to retire. (My Orientation). I'm not quite sure how they perceive this relationship though, because it cannot be denied that by positional authority and rank, they sort of don't have a choice as to whether or not they follow my suggestions. They might very well just see my long-winded homily's as nothing more than a boss who likes to hear himself talk. (Their Orientation). And for the sake of literary honesty, they wouldn't be the only ones. Just ask my family!
Since I was the first person to respond on the AKO site, my thoughts and ideas naturally framed some of the replies that followed. Here is what I originally posted:
"Sir -
In my opinion there are a couple of issues with the mentoring 'program' today.
First, successful mentoring happens in an environment where the mentee accepts and finds something in the mentor that they wish to emulate. It really is a bottom up process. If we try to do it from the top down, we will inevitably end up with a young NCO or officer who can't find any similarities between the mentoring they are requesting, and the mentoring they are receiving.
Second, I think that the amount of change that has taken place throughout the Army over the past 8 years has made mentoring difficult. Instead of a senior person knowing - and therefore passing along - what doctrine etc are all about, both groups are doing a significant amount of experiential learning on the fly. That makes knowledge sharing difficult because it's hard to say whether or not that knowledge has permanence, or is situationally and time dependant.
Third, we spend very little time mentoring people instead of positions. Someone who commanded a company or battalion 10 years ago is attempting to mentor someone who commands a company or battalion today. The emphasis is on the position, not the person. Interestingly, if you read most 'leadership' books by retired military however, they spend most of their time dealing with the people side of leadership. I do not mentor a Squad Leader or Platoon Leader, I actually mentor the person who fills that role. We have lost the ability to see each person as a unique individual who requires individual approaches to their leader development.
Fourth, the current generation of young leaders is significantly different from the last few due to the proliferation of technology. As the older generations are trying to catch up with the digital age, the younger generation has already passed them by. They think, act, communicate, process, and interact differently than their predecessors did. A lot of valuable information gets lost in translation.
Finally, I had a boss once who said to me, "The Army never taught me how to mentor someone." While that struck me as an absurd statement at the time, it does show that there is a generational gap between those whose Army experience has been to follow the directives of those above them and let the system tell them how to do things, and the generation of Soldiers who have come of age during a period of rapid change and advancement.
I have found that taking a very personalized approach and actively looking for the differences in interpretation has assisted me in becoming a mentor for others. By reaching out to them, hearing what they are saying, and validating their Army experience, I can then begin to discuss the human being who is trying to come of age in a rapidly changing Army. That is where mentoring can begin."
In response to that, I want to share some of the other thoughts that were posted along the way. They are important and point to some larger issues facing the organization:
Ron wrote:
"My philosophy is that partly because we are at war, partly because our military is becoming more and more "corporate" that we have become less about the traditions, customs and courtesies that make us unique as a profession. Most importantly, the changes are generational. As a Lieutenant in Germany in the mid-90's I and my fellow officers had to go to our BN CDR's house and present our personal cards, we had right-army nights, officer calls, dining in and dining out. My company commander in Bosnia took us out on the berm of the basecamp at night after patrols and smoked cigars with us and metered out his leadership philosophy. Incidentally, he was also the first - and sadly, last - to counsel me in writing on a quarterly basis for another ten years. I did not forget his efforts - which, incidentally - made me a better officer and leader."
Robert wrote:
"Concerning a commitment to mentoring. I would challenge that mentoring is occurring. It's happening every day on the streets of Baghdad and the mountains of Afghanistan. However, I think we should all carefully consider the warning that Jeff provides concerning mentoring people serving in positions and not people as professionals. Of course there is varying types of mentorship based on the need of the mentee. I assume the thread we are running is tied to job selection, promotion potential and leadership development. This should consume a majority of the mentors time...assisting mentees in enhancing self awareness and identifying where they can best contribute. I think most senior folks spend a good deal of time engaged in this on an informal level and most commonly when the mentee reaches out. I'm a believer that it works and should be fostered, not formalized, across the force."
Joyce wrote:
"I enjoyed reading all the comments and agree with the views presented. Why? Because we are probably all from the same generation - Baby boomers! The two to three generations that followed us have different values and concerns. No matter what, leadership responsibilities do include coaching and guiding the younger members of their team or unit. Why aren't leaders doing their job? (PS: I am a civilian and do not have military experience. I always thought the military leaders were the ones who set the example for us civilians.)"
Richard wrote:
"I think that all leaders are mentors whether they realize it or not, our actions or lack thereof set examples for others to follow. I believe I am mentoring my peers, superiors and subordinates every day I am very approachable and willing to assist in any way I can. I am approaching my 19th year of service, during these 19 years I have been privileged to work with/for good and bad leaders alike, their actions/words have been something I have carried along the way during my career."
Richard wrote:
"I'm wondering if perhaps part of the problem is a difference of perspective between mentor and mentee. For example, is the mentee consciously aware that he or she is being mentored? Do they have a different vision of what mentorship is? Likewise, could some mentors have a different definition of mentorship? One might consider technical development to be mentorship while another focuses on personal development."
Tamara wrote:
"First that there is no longer a clear definition of what mentorship is. The responsibilities and expectations for both mentor and mentee are fuzzy at best. As someone else said earlier, it's lost in translation between generations.
Second that the younger generation is so in tuned with email, texting, Facebook, Twitter, the list goes on...that they don't know how to interact with the real people standing right next to them. I see this with my own kids. They've got their buddy sitting right next to them and rather than just talking to one another, they're sending text messages back and forth on their cell phones. (OOO they get mad when I confiscate the cell phones for using them that way. I've stolen their "coolness factor".) I think that this is also part of the problem with our suicide rates as well. The younger leaders don't know how to properly read body language, so they can't spot issues that need to be addressed quickly."
Eric wrote:
"The first thing we all need to do is define mentorship. I think a lot of people mix mentorship with leadership."
Jessica wrote:
"Mentoring is a special bond between a mentor and their mentee. This is a unique and special relationship because in order to become a mentor, you have to be chosen. I believe a person can only realistically mentor three people at any one time – anymore than that and you detract from the value of the mentor/mentee relationship. A mentor does not have to be from your same branch or organization (it’s often helpful if they are not a part of your organization so they can give fresh insight). To be an accomplished mentor, it takes time, effort, and commitment.
If you ask many of our junior NCOs and officers, they will tell you they’ve never been mentored. It seems to be a common theme. However, when you ask for more details, you discover, they haven’t initiated a mentor/mentee relationship. It is a bottom up driven function. Again, you must be chosen."
Here then are some of my follow-up thoughts. The Mentor/Mentee relationship is first and foremost, a bottom-up process. The subordinate seeks out a senior whom they believe possesses qualities, traits and abilities that they would like to emulate. Importantly, however, it must be the senior who creates the opportunity for that to happen. I have to open - and leave open - my door for a subordinate to knock on when they are ready. My responsibility is to create the opportunity, theirs is to seize it. I would also contend that in many cases the subordinates willingness to seize that opportunity will be mostly based upon their interpretation of me as a person, not because of position. This again, seems to highlight the absolutely critical aspect of 'whole person' development. They see me as more than a position, they are seeing me a man, a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a leader, a follower etc.
Second, I believe that accessability and day-to-day interaction within the organization are critical. As Richard asked in a quote above, "Is the mentee consciously aware that they are being mentored? Do they have a different vision of what mentorship is?" This is an extremely important point, because I might believe that I am mentoring all the time, and if they have no awareness of it, then it might have significantly less value than I think it does. The same is true if they have a different expectation of what mentorship looks like. Again we go back to the idea of the human factors of OODA. My Orientation, and theirs must be at least similar with regard to the developmental environment. I must be aware that I might be perceived as a mentor - and then accept responsibility for protecting the relationship, and they must also be aware that mentoring is taking place and help me create the environment that best suits their ability to receive it.
Finally, it appears that I'm not the only one recognizing that generational differences have a lot to do with successful mentoring processes. I happen to think that this particular generation is significantly different from the preceding 2, but also believe that the large gap that exists right now will slowly close until the next hugely impactful sociological or technological advancement. Historical events such as the Industrial Revolution and the movement away from agrarian society, electricity, women's suffrage, the automobile, mass media etc all create generational bubbles that impact one generation significantly. Over the next 2 or 3 however that change becomes muted as those changes move from novelty to routine. I think it will be interesting to see how leadership and mentorship are affected when all 3 generations who serve in the Army grew up in some form of the digital age. Although I will certainly be too old to be aware of it then, I have a sneaky suspicion that when they are all technologically equal, they will still be looking to be mentored by those who share a common value system. At the end of the day, it will still be our need as human beings for personal growth and affirmation that will drive the Mentor/Mentee realtionship.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Then suddenly, as a result of one of the AKO moderators moving the question to a larger forum, it blew up. Now there are 30 or more responses and the post has taken on a new life. I am glad to see that, since the ideas of leadership and mentorship are very closely related. They are not exactly the same, but share many similarities that should be examined in greater depth.
For me, the writing I do here and on AKO, and my approach to leading my small organization is probably much more mentor oriented than it is leader oriented. I see much of my role in the unit to be the passing along of my experiential knowledge to those who will lead the Army long after I choose to retire. (My Orientation). I'm not quite sure how they perceive this relationship though, because it cannot be denied that by positional authority and rank, they sort of don't have a choice as to whether or not they follow my suggestions. They might very well just see my long-winded homily's as nothing more than a boss who likes to hear himself talk. (Their Orientation). And for the sake of literary honesty, they wouldn't be the only ones. Just ask my family!
Since I was the first person to respond on the AKO site, my thoughts and ideas naturally framed some of the replies that followed. Here is what I originally posted:
"Sir -
In my opinion there are a couple of issues with the mentoring 'program' today.
First, successful mentoring happens in an environment where the mentee accepts and finds something in the mentor that they wish to emulate. It really is a bottom up process. If we try to do it from the top down, we will inevitably end up with a young NCO or officer who can't find any similarities between the mentoring they are requesting, and the mentoring they are receiving.
Second, I think that the amount of change that has taken place throughout the Army over the past 8 years has made mentoring difficult. Instead of a senior person knowing - and therefore passing along - what doctrine etc are all about, both groups are doing a significant amount of experiential learning on the fly. That makes knowledge sharing difficult because it's hard to say whether or not that knowledge has permanence, or is situationally and time dependant.
Third, we spend very little time mentoring people instead of positions. Someone who commanded a company or battalion 10 years ago is attempting to mentor someone who commands a company or battalion today. The emphasis is on the position, not the person. Interestingly, if you read most 'leadership' books by retired military however, they spend most of their time dealing with the people side of leadership. I do not mentor a Squad Leader or Platoon Leader, I actually mentor the person who fills that role. We have lost the ability to see each person as a unique individual who requires individual approaches to their leader development.
Fourth, the current generation of young leaders is significantly different from the last few due to the proliferation of technology. As the older generations are trying to catch up with the digital age, the younger generation has already passed them by. They think, act, communicate, process, and interact differently than their predecessors did. A lot of valuable information gets lost in translation.
Finally, I had a boss once who said to me, "The Army never taught me how to mentor someone." While that struck me as an absurd statement at the time, it does show that there is a generational gap between those whose Army experience has been to follow the directives of those above them and let the system tell them how to do things, and the generation of Soldiers who have come of age during a period of rapid change and advancement.
I have found that taking a very personalized approach and actively looking for the differences in interpretation has assisted me in becoming a mentor for others. By reaching out to them, hearing what they are saying, and validating their Army experience, I can then begin to discuss the human being who is trying to come of age in a rapidly changing Army. That is where mentoring can begin."
In response to that, I want to share some of the other thoughts that were posted along the way. They are important and point to some larger issues facing the organization:
Ron wrote:
"My philosophy is that partly because we are at war, partly because our military is becoming more and more "corporate" that we have become less about the traditions, customs and courtesies that make us unique as a profession. Most importantly, the changes are generational. As a Lieutenant in Germany in the mid-90's I and my fellow officers had to go to our BN CDR's house and present our personal cards, we had right-army nights, officer calls, dining in and dining out. My company commander in Bosnia took us out on the berm of the basecamp at night after patrols and smoked cigars with us and metered out his leadership philosophy. Incidentally, he was also the first - and sadly, last - to counsel me in writing on a quarterly basis for another ten years. I did not forget his efforts - which, incidentally - made me a better officer and leader."
Robert wrote:
"Concerning a commitment to mentoring. I would challenge that mentoring is occurring. It's happening every day on the streets of Baghdad and the mountains of Afghanistan. However, I think we should all carefully consider the warning that Jeff provides concerning mentoring people serving in positions and not people as professionals. Of course there is varying types of mentorship based on the need of the mentee. I assume the thread we are running is tied to job selection, promotion potential and leadership development. This should consume a majority of the mentors time...assisting mentees in enhancing self awareness and identifying where they can best contribute. I think most senior folks spend a good deal of time engaged in this on an informal level and most commonly when the mentee reaches out. I'm a believer that it works and should be fostered, not formalized, across the force."
Joyce wrote:
"I enjoyed reading all the comments and agree with the views presented. Why? Because we are probably all from the same generation - Baby boomers! The two to three generations that followed us have different values and concerns. No matter what, leadership responsibilities do include coaching and guiding the younger members of their team or unit. Why aren't leaders doing their job? (PS: I am a civilian and do not have military experience. I always thought the military leaders were the ones who set the example for us civilians.)"
Richard wrote:
"I think that all leaders are mentors whether they realize it or not, our actions or lack thereof set examples for others to follow. I believe I am mentoring my peers, superiors and subordinates every day I am very approachable and willing to assist in any way I can. I am approaching my 19th year of service, during these 19 years I have been privileged to work with/for good and bad leaders alike, their actions/words have been something I have carried along the way during my career."
Richard wrote:
"I'm wondering if perhaps part of the problem is a difference of perspective between mentor and mentee. For example, is the mentee consciously aware that he or she is being mentored? Do they have a different vision of what mentorship is? Likewise, could some mentors have a different definition of mentorship? One might consider technical development to be mentorship while another focuses on personal development."
Tamara wrote:
"First that there is no longer a clear definition of what mentorship is. The responsibilities and expectations for both mentor and mentee are fuzzy at best. As someone else said earlier, it's lost in translation between generations.
Second that the younger generation is so in tuned with email, texting, Facebook, Twitter, the list goes on...that they don't know how to interact with the real people standing right next to them. I see this with my own kids. They've got their buddy sitting right next to them and rather than just talking to one another, they're sending text messages back and forth on their cell phones. (OOO they get mad when I confiscate the cell phones for using them that way. I've stolen their "coolness factor".) I think that this is also part of the problem with our suicide rates as well. The younger leaders don't know how to properly read body language, so they can't spot issues that need to be addressed quickly."
Eric wrote:
"The first thing we all need to do is define mentorship. I think a lot of people mix mentorship with leadership."
Jessica wrote:
"Mentoring is a special bond between a mentor and their mentee. This is a unique and special relationship because in order to become a mentor, you have to be chosen. I believe a person can only realistically mentor three people at any one time – anymore than that and you detract from the value of the mentor/mentee relationship. A mentor does not have to be from your same branch or organization (it’s often helpful if they are not a part of your organization so they can give fresh insight). To be an accomplished mentor, it takes time, effort, and commitment.
If you ask many of our junior NCOs and officers, they will tell you they’ve never been mentored. It seems to be a common theme. However, when you ask for more details, you discover, they haven’t initiated a mentor/mentee relationship. It is a bottom up driven function. Again, you must be chosen."
Here then are some of my follow-up thoughts. The Mentor/Mentee relationship is first and foremost, a bottom-up process. The subordinate seeks out a senior whom they believe possesses qualities, traits and abilities that they would like to emulate. Importantly, however, it must be the senior who creates the opportunity for that to happen. I have to open - and leave open - my door for a subordinate to knock on when they are ready. My responsibility is to create the opportunity, theirs is to seize it. I would also contend that in many cases the subordinates willingness to seize that opportunity will be mostly based upon their interpretation of me as a person, not because of position. This again, seems to highlight the absolutely critical aspect of 'whole person' development. They see me as more than a position, they are seeing me a man, a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a leader, a follower etc.
Second, I believe that accessability and day-to-day interaction within the organization are critical. As Richard asked in a quote above, "Is the mentee consciously aware that they are being mentored? Do they have a different vision of what mentorship is?" This is an extremely important point, because I might believe that I am mentoring all the time, and if they have no awareness of it, then it might have significantly less value than I think it does. The same is true if they have a different expectation of what mentorship looks like. Again we go back to the idea of the human factors of OODA. My Orientation, and theirs must be at least similar with regard to the developmental environment. I must be aware that I might be perceived as a mentor - and then accept responsibility for protecting the relationship, and they must also be aware that mentoring is taking place and help me create the environment that best suits their ability to receive it.
Finally, it appears that I'm not the only one recognizing that generational differences have a lot to do with successful mentoring processes. I happen to think that this particular generation is significantly different from the preceding 2, but also believe that the large gap that exists right now will slowly close until the next hugely impactful sociological or technological advancement. Historical events such as the Industrial Revolution and the movement away from agrarian society, electricity, women's suffrage, the automobile, mass media etc all create generational bubbles that impact one generation significantly. Over the next 2 or 3 however that change becomes muted as those changes move from novelty to routine. I think it will be interesting to see how leadership and mentorship are affected when all 3 generations who serve in the Army grew up in some form of the digital age. Although I will certainly be too old to be aware of it then, I have a sneaky suspicion that when they are all technologically equal, they will still be looking to be mentored by those who share a common value system. At the end of the day, it will still be our need as human beings for personal growth and affirmation that will drive the Mentor/Mentee realtionship.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#56 OODA, COIN and Leadership
Since the 'Surge' in Iraq beginning in 2007, the Army has been involved in a counterinsurgency (COIN) in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Insurgent and counter insurgent warfare is an ages old type of war that is much more holistic than the traditional force-on-force warfare of WW II, or the expected large scale war that characterized the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Insurgent warfare does not follow the same 'playbook' that conventional war does and it very clearly demonstrated a vulnerability in the vaunted American military equipping and training paradigm. This vulnerability led to huge doctrinal shifts and prioritization of assets throughout the force. As such, and in trying to quickly figure out how to best prosecute this type of conflict, there has been a proliferation of written material throughout the force on successful methods and strategies etc for achieving success in a counterinsurgency.
I found one of those articles in the August - December issue of Infantry Magazine, It was entitled, "COIN Operations in Afghanistan" written by Captain Brad Israel. As I started to read it, I came across the following paragraph which immediately caught me eye:
"A unit’s leaders build relationships through constant interaction with the local populace and Afghan Forces. The establishment of a strong relationship requires more than just an occasional village visit; it requires that leaders get to know the people as individuals. The unit leadership should know the village elders’ names, their tribe, and their unique tribal history. I would also encourage leaders to learn the names of some of the children, local shop-keepers and farmers; they will provide useful information from time to time. The more locals recognize the leader as a familiar friend – one that is committed to them and not someone they or their children should fear – then the better the chance the leader has to build a bridge between the host nation government and its people. By genuinely listening to the people and addressing their concerns, leaders can actively facilitate relationship building. It is important that the unit, not just the leadership, act in kind.”
What leaped out at me as I read that was the idea that the requirements for successful interaction on the COIN battlefield are precisely the same types of requirements we have to address with regard to leadership and Soldier welfare.
Watch what happens when you change a few simple words throughout the paragraph.
“A unit’s leaders build relationships through constant interaction with the Soldiers. The establishment of a strong relationship requires more than just an occasional barracks visit; it requires that leaders get to know the people as individuals. The unit leadership should know the Soldier’s names, their background, and their unique personal history. I would also encourage leaders to learn the names of some of their children, their local environment; both will provide useful information from time to time. The more Soldiers recognize the leader as a familiar friend – one that is committed to them and not someone they or their families should fear – then the better the chance the leader has to build a bridge between the Army organization and its people. By genuinely listening to the Soldiers and addressing their concerns, leaders can actively facilitate relationship building. It is important that the whole unit, not just the leadership, act in kind.”
Same sentiment, same concept, same successful outcome. CPT Israel's article provides other units some very solid ideas on how to successfully interact with the local population in Afghanistan. Build relationships, establish trust, demonstrate commitment etc. There is an entire field manual dedicated to that and people are reading, digesting, arguing, and tearing it apart trying to figure out exactly the right way to operate in a counterinsurgency environment. The Army is literally spending millions of dollars a year to hire very knowledgeable people to come in and teach the 'How to do COIN' classes at every level of the organization from Private to General. In essence, we are acting as if COIN is something new and unknown to the organization. Something that we must learn how to do in order to win the war.
My contention is that we already have that manual and in many ways, we already know how to do this, it just requires a different Orientation. Consider this short paragraph from FM 6-22, Army Leadership:
"Many leaders connect at a personal level with their followers so they will be able to understand the individual's circumstances and needs. As discussed previously in the chapter, building relationships is one way to gain influence and commitment from followers. Knowing others is the basis that many successful leaders use to treat people well. It includes everything from making sure a Soldier has time for an annual dental exam, to finding out about a person's preferred hobbies and pastimes."
What these 3 paragraphs demonstrate is a perfect example of how OODA works and clearly outline why the ability to quickly adjust your Orientation to your environment is an absolutely critical leader tool. By adjusting leader Orientation what becomes obvious is that the COIN concepts that we are spending huge dollar amounts and massive amounts of time on, show up again in the 2nd paragraph where I substituted the word Soldiers in place of Afghans, and again in the Army leadership manual. In fact, all three paragraphs are exactly the same except for the ethnicity and the locale of the principle people involved. If Army leaders would follow CPT Israel's COIN advice when dealing with their own subordinates, I contend that we could very quickly begin to deal with some of the social and behavioral issues that are plaguing the Army today.
I then realized that both paragraphs also demonstrate the concept of 'winning hearts and minds' just with a different audience to be influenced. 'Hearts and minds' gained a rather negative connotation after the failure of US counterinsurgent operations during the Vietnam War, but in truth it is the only way to win against an insurgent. This type of warfare requires a short list of things that must be done in order to prevail. First, you must separate the enemy from the populace. Second, you must provide provide the populace the basic necessities of life. Third, you must create a governmental system capable of providing for and protecting the population. And finally, you must demonstrate to the population that their lives will be better without the insurgent than they are with. These things are not done quickly and require equal amounts of violence, compassion, iron-handedness, patience, understanding and care. It will often require that all of these actions be demonstrated at the same time.
Funny, but that sounds an awful lot like leadership to me....
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
I found one of those articles in the August - December issue of Infantry Magazine, It was entitled, "COIN Operations in Afghanistan" written by Captain Brad Israel. As I started to read it, I came across the following paragraph which immediately caught me eye:
"A unit’s leaders build relationships through constant interaction with the local populace and Afghan Forces. The establishment of a strong relationship requires more than just an occasional village visit; it requires that leaders get to know the people as individuals. The unit leadership should know the village elders’ names, their tribe, and their unique tribal history. I would also encourage leaders to learn the names of some of the children, local shop-keepers and farmers; they will provide useful information from time to time. The more locals recognize the leader as a familiar friend – one that is committed to them and not someone they or their children should fear – then the better the chance the leader has to build a bridge between the host nation government and its people. By genuinely listening to the people and addressing their concerns, leaders can actively facilitate relationship building. It is important that the unit, not just the leadership, act in kind.”
What leaped out at me as I read that was the idea that the requirements for successful interaction on the COIN battlefield are precisely the same types of requirements we have to address with regard to leadership and Soldier welfare.
Watch what happens when you change a few simple words throughout the paragraph.
“A unit’s leaders build relationships through constant interaction with the Soldiers. The establishment of a strong relationship requires more than just an occasional barracks visit; it requires that leaders get to know the people as individuals. The unit leadership should know the Soldier’s names, their background, and their unique personal history. I would also encourage leaders to learn the names of some of their children, their local environment; both will provide useful information from time to time. The more Soldiers recognize the leader as a familiar friend – one that is committed to them and not someone they or their families should fear – then the better the chance the leader has to build a bridge between the Army organization and its people. By genuinely listening to the Soldiers and addressing their concerns, leaders can actively facilitate relationship building. It is important that the whole unit, not just the leadership, act in kind.”
Same sentiment, same concept, same successful outcome. CPT Israel's article provides other units some very solid ideas on how to successfully interact with the local population in Afghanistan. Build relationships, establish trust, demonstrate commitment etc. There is an entire field manual dedicated to that and people are reading, digesting, arguing, and tearing it apart trying to figure out exactly the right way to operate in a counterinsurgency environment. The Army is literally spending millions of dollars a year to hire very knowledgeable people to come in and teach the 'How to do COIN' classes at every level of the organization from Private to General. In essence, we are acting as if COIN is something new and unknown to the organization. Something that we must learn how to do in order to win the war.
My contention is that we already have that manual and in many ways, we already know how to do this, it just requires a different Orientation. Consider this short paragraph from FM 6-22, Army Leadership:
"Many leaders connect at a personal level with their followers so they will be able to understand the individual's circumstances and needs. As discussed previously in the chapter, building relationships is one way to gain influence and commitment from followers. Knowing others is the basis that many successful leaders use to treat people well. It includes everything from making sure a Soldier has time for an annual dental exam, to finding out about a person's preferred hobbies and pastimes."
What these 3 paragraphs demonstrate is a perfect example of how OODA works and clearly outline why the ability to quickly adjust your Orientation to your environment is an absolutely critical leader tool. By adjusting leader Orientation what becomes obvious is that the COIN concepts that we are spending huge dollar amounts and massive amounts of time on, show up again in the 2nd paragraph where I substituted the word Soldiers in place of Afghans, and again in the Army leadership manual. In fact, all three paragraphs are exactly the same except for the ethnicity and the locale of the principle people involved. If Army leaders would follow CPT Israel's COIN advice when dealing with their own subordinates, I contend that we could very quickly begin to deal with some of the social and behavioral issues that are plaguing the Army today.
I then realized that both paragraphs also demonstrate the concept of 'winning hearts and minds' just with a different audience to be influenced. 'Hearts and minds' gained a rather negative connotation after the failure of US counterinsurgent operations during the Vietnam War, but in truth it is the only way to win against an insurgent. This type of warfare requires a short list of things that must be done in order to prevail. First, you must separate the enemy from the populace. Second, you must provide provide the populace the basic necessities of life. Third, you must create a governmental system capable of providing for and protecting the population. And finally, you must demonstrate to the population that their lives will be better without the insurgent than they are with. These things are not done quickly and require equal amounts of violence, compassion, iron-handedness, patience, understanding and care. It will often require that all of these actions be demonstrated at the same time.
Funny, but that sounds an awful lot like leadership to me....
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#55 A Follow-Up
I have a few follow-up thoughts from both last week's post and the reply by JH. Although I wasn't really considering continuing this line of ideas regarding Post #53, two separate incidents have spurred a connecting line of thought that might be worth exploring.
The idea of the leader as an anchor has really struck a chord with me this week. I hadn't thought of the person or the position that way before. Probably because the Army definition of leadership concentrates around providing "Purpose, direction and motivation..." but doesn't spend much time talking about providing a place - and a face - for relationships, trust and a shelter from the storm.
First, from JH's post, the idea that Millennial's have very little faith in the institutions that surround them since almost from their youth they have seen nothing but scandal from their supposed heroes. Whether in government, sports, or entertainment, not a day goes by without some new form of scandalous behavior played out in an almost real-time news cycle. Couple that with the disintegration of the two parent household that became prevalent in the 1980's and you get a generation with no one to look up to, or respect. They have been let down, in many cases, by the very things that they were told are bedrock qualities of American life - namely faith in family, faith in government, faith in community and the idea that, in America, your dream to someday be a big league ball player can come true just by hard work and dedication. If only it were so. They just don't believe in Mom, Dad, apple pie, Chevrolet, and the American way. That just hasn't been their experience. Theirs has been quite the opposite.
Consider this: In their lifetimes, Millennial's have witnessed a public circumventing of the law in the Iran Contra hearings played out for weeks on television, a president impeached for lying and the public humiliation of having had an affair, the supreme court decide an election in which the guy with the most votes didn't win on a constitutional technicality that most people didn't understand, and a war started and prosecuted under faulty information and assumptions. A war in which many of their friends have either been killed or maimed. They had their faith in sports heroes dashed when the challenges to Roger Maris' single season home run record were found to be based on performance enhancing drug use. Remember when Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa were both chasing that record? Remember the excitement when the boys of summer were having a good time and there was excitement in waiting to see who would launch the next great shot out of the park? Remember when baseball became fun? When a ritual of the American summer made a triumphant return to glory? Turns out it was all an illusion. They had cheated and let us all down. Remember Olympic athlete Marion Jones? We were all so proud of her accomplishments.....Just another message that you cannot trust what is not right in front of you. Our hero's lives all become just as tawdry and cheap as our own.
JH summed this idea up very well when he wrote:
"There is a cultural realization that, “I can no longer trust outside of myself to help define who I am, because if I do, I will soon realize I was anchored in something false and unstable. The Millennial Generation has turned to the only thing certain to be real, themselves."
And so they trust themselves. And pretty much only themselves and others of their generation. They don't give damn about your institution, or your history, or your heraldry. They enter the world with their eyes set firmly on protecting and providing for the one thing they do trust. Themselves. And we contributed to that. As we adults watched our own lives slip into pettiness and disarray, we came together around the idea that this would not happen to our children. So we did everything we could to affirm their sense of individual identity, goodness and hope. They would be better than we were. If everything else in the world was hope less, we would make sure that they were individually hope full.
And that the outcome of that may be evidenced by something that another reader sent me this week. Check out the link below:
http://news.discovery.com/human/narcissism-epidemic-college-students.html
What the article states is that this is the most narcissistic and self absorbed generation ever. There are 3 paragraphs in the article that caught my eye. They are:
"Narcissism has increased among Americans over the past 15 years, a joint study from San Diego State University (SDSU) and the University of South Alabama has concluded. The results suggest that the United States is poised to experience social problems as younger narcissists age and move into positions of power."
and
"These traits include an unfounded sense of entitlement and overly high self-regard. "
and
"What this means is that we have generations of people entering the workforce that expect special treatment, are demanding of others and making risky decisions."
I have said many times before throughout my writings, that the struggle right now in the Army is one of basic trust. Anyone who calls themselves a leader or holds any form of leadership position must make a concerted effort to gain, or regain, the trust of their subordinates. It is not a given. We will have to make a large investment of time - on a person to person level, to establish that bond between the leader and the led. It is not natural for them to trust that institution will take care of them. All their learning and experiences say otherwise. Blind faith will not come easily. In fact, if you ever can get to a point where your subordinates have blind faith in your decisions, I would contend that it will be because of the amount of time and energy you put into gaining their trust and affirmation.
Here then is the circle: The Millennial is raised with a heightened sense of self-worth and a loss of traditional anchoring points of faith. They then grow up believing in their individual sense of their world and find others of their generation who feel the same way. They are no longer tied to the older generation's definitions of success and value. They define themselves in the context of a global economy, the web, and instant processing of information. If it resonates with them locally, they grab ahold of it - as a point of self-definition. If not, they let it slide by without acknowledging it's presence. They believe they are unique and different from any generation before them. That they have value. That they are equal. And that you should accept them as such.
And then they join the Army or any other large organization. They run into the top-down, hierarchy that says that you must start at the bottom and pay your dues. They run into structure and the nuances of human behavior, ego, power, toxic leadership and position. And they become disenfranchised very very quickly. In their eyes, it is just another example of the institution letting them down. This great and wonderful thing called the United States Army that supposedly represents the absolute pinnacle of the essence of being an American, honor, integrity, and service, is filled with people no better than their parents, communities, sports stars and government.
Interestingly though, I have read somewhere that Millennials are the first generation to select their parents as their role models. I can't remember where I saw that, but consider for a second what it means. They have come to respect Mom and Dad, not for their failings, but rather for their trying to provide as well as they could for their children. They may not like everything their parents did, or how they lived their lives, but they do give them credit for trying. And that is a very common trait among them. They want credit just for trying. Not for winning, not for being the best - in fact they often don't really seem to care - they want credit just for being on the field.
As we try to lead them, it seems to me that we first need to acknowledge these central points of their Orientation. As I have said before, if we don't we will miss each other in translation. We may be using the same words, but they will have much different interpretations. Once we overcome the language problem, the next step will be to provide a local face to an institutional idea. If we want them to be loyal to the country, and the Army, we will first have to demonstrate our loyalty to them. If we want them to espouse all the Army values, they will first have to be demonstrated by us to them. Locally, person-to-person. We will have to work to prove that not only does the institution value them, but that they too can place their faith in the institution. Their development might come more slowly. They will have to learn that sometimes simply being on the field isn't good enough. Sometimes you must win. Regardless of the cost. That there are things out there that are larger and more important than their individual wants and needs. And that if you lose, you cannot say, "Well, at least I tried." That you must get better until you do win. While that may seem like an obvious statement to previous generations, it may not be that way for this one.
In order to do these things, here is what I think must happen at the senior levels of the Army.
First, there must be an acknowledgement that this generation is a pivotal one, much like any generation where social dynamics are changed dramatically by technological advancement. We simply cannot underestimate the critical importance of global communications and information expansion. Second, we have to look beyond corporate responses and develop more personal ones to help them reorient to their Army world in a way that helps connect their individualism to the larger ethic of the organization. Third, we need constantly place the values requirements in front of them. The values need to be part of every class, training event, and daily integration. That is the only way to make the larger themes have a local impact. Finally, we have to develop the strength of character that makes losing unacceptable and honorable winning the only imaginable result.
Earlier this past week I gave a presentation on OODA loops in the Human Dimension to some of the leaders of a unit on post. The briefing is designed to offer young leaders a way to reach out to their Soldiers and consider the many different option available to assist those who are struggling. When I got back to my office I received an email from one of the company commanders who had attended. This person thanked me for the brief and told me that for the first time in a long time, she didn't feel like she was on the outside looking in. That my briefing had validated a lot of her personal thoughts and feelings.....
Maybe, in some small way, I had provided her an anchor. We can build from there.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
The idea of the leader as an anchor has really struck a chord with me this week. I hadn't thought of the person or the position that way before. Probably because the Army definition of leadership concentrates around providing "Purpose, direction and motivation..." but doesn't spend much time talking about providing a place - and a face - for relationships, trust and a shelter from the storm.
First, from JH's post, the idea that Millennial's have very little faith in the institutions that surround them since almost from their youth they have seen nothing but scandal from their supposed heroes. Whether in government, sports, or entertainment, not a day goes by without some new form of scandalous behavior played out in an almost real-time news cycle. Couple that with the disintegration of the two parent household that became prevalent in the 1980's and you get a generation with no one to look up to, or respect. They have been let down, in many cases, by the very things that they were told are bedrock qualities of American life - namely faith in family, faith in government, faith in community and the idea that, in America, your dream to someday be a big league ball player can come true just by hard work and dedication. If only it were so. They just don't believe in Mom, Dad, apple pie, Chevrolet, and the American way. That just hasn't been their experience. Theirs has been quite the opposite.
Consider this: In their lifetimes, Millennial's have witnessed a public circumventing of the law in the Iran Contra hearings played out for weeks on television, a president impeached for lying and the public humiliation of having had an affair, the supreme court decide an election in which the guy with the most votes didn't win on a constitutional technicality that most people didn't understand, and a war started and prosecuted under faulty information and assumptions. A war in which many of their friends have either been killed or maimed. They had their faith in sports heroes dashed when the challenges to Roger Maris' single season home run record were found to be based on performance enhancing drug use. Remember when Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa were both chasing that record? Remember the excitement when the boys of summer were having a good time and there was excitement in waiting to see who would launch the next great shot out of the park? Remember when baseball became fun? When a ritual of the American summer made a triumphant return to glory? Turns out it was all an illusion. They had cheated and let us all down. Remember Olympic athlete Marion Jones? We were all so proud of her accomplishments.....Just another message that you cannot trust what is not right in front of you. Our hero's lives all become just as tawdry and cheap as our own.
JH summed this idea up very well when he wrote:
"There is a cultural realization that, “I can no longer trust outside of myself to help define who I am, because if I do, I will soon realize I was anchored in something false and unstable. The Millennial Generation has turned to the only thing certain to be real, themselves."
And so they trust themselves. And pretty much only themselves and others of their generation. They don't give damn about your institution, or your history, or your heraldry. They enter the world with their eyes set firmly on protecting and providing for the one thing they do trust. Themselves. And we contributed to that. As we adults watched our own lives slip into pettiness and disarray, we came together around the idea that this would not happen to our children. So we did everything we could to affirm their sense of individual identity, goodness and hope. They would be better than we were. If everything else in the world was hope less, we would make sure that they were individually hope full.
And that the outcome of that may be evidenced by something that another reader sent me this week. Check out the link below:
http://news.discovery.com/human/narcissism-epidemic-college-students.html
What the article states is that this is the most narcissistic and self absorbed generation ever. There are 3 paragraphs in the article that caught my eye. They are:
"Narcissism has increased among Americans over the past 15 years, a joint study from San Diego State University (SDSU) and the University of South Alabama has concluded. The results suggest that the United States is poised to experience social problems as younger narcissists age and move into positions of power."
and
"These traits include an unfounded sense of entitlement and overly high self-regard. "
and
"What this means is that we have generations of people entering the workforce that expect special treatment, are demanding of others and making risky decisions."
I have said many times before throughout my writings, that the struggle right now in the Army is one of basic trust. Anyone who calls themselves a leader or holds any form of leadership position must make a concerted effort to gain, or regain, the trust of their subordinates. It is not a given. We will have to make a large investment of time - on a person to person level, to establish that bond between the leader and the led. It is not natural for them to trust that institution will take care of them. All their learning and experiences say otherwise. Blind faith will not come easily. In fact, if you ever can get to a point where your subordinates have blind faith in your decisions, I would contend that it will be because of the amount of time and energy you put into gaining their trust and affirmation.
Here then is the circle: The Millennial is raised with a heightened sense of self-worth and a loss of traditional anchoring points of faith. They then grow up believing in their individual sense of their world and find others of their generation who feel the same way. They are no longer tied to the older generation's definitions of success and value. They define themselves in the context of a global economy, the web, and instant processing of information. If it resonates with them locally, they grab ahold of it - as a point of self-definition. If not, they let it slide by without acknowledging it's presence. They believe they are unique and different from any generation before them. That they have value. That they are equal. And that you should accept them as such.
And then they join the Army or any other large organization. They run into the top-down, hierarchy that says that you must start at the bottom and pay your dues. They run into structure and the nuances of human behavior, ego, power, toxic leadership and position. And they become disenfranchised very very quickly. In their eyes, it is just another example of the institution letting them down. This great and wonderful thing called the United States Army that supposedly represents the absolute pinnacle of the essence of being an American, honor, integrity, and service, is filled with people no better than their parents, communities, sports stars and government.
Interestingly though, I have read somewhere that Millennials are the first generation to select their parents as their role models. I can't remember where I saw that, but consider for a second what it means. They have come to respect Mom and Dad, not for their failings, but rather for their trying to provide as well as they could for their children. They may not like everything their parents did, or how they lived their lives, but they do give them credit for trying. And that is a very common trait among them. They want credit just for trying. Not for winning, not for being the best - in fact they often don't really seem to care - they want credit just for being on the field.
As we try to lead them, it seems to me that we first need to acknowledge these central points of their Orientation. As I have said before, if we don't we will miss each other in translation. We may be using the same words, but they will have much different interpretations. Once we overcome the language problem, the next step will be to provide a local face to an institutional idea. If we want them to be loyal to the country, and the Army, we will first have to demonstrate our loyalty to them. If we want them to espouse all the Army values, they will first have to be demonstrated by us to them. Locally, person-to-person. We will have to work to prove that not only does the institution value them, but that they too can place their faith in the institution. Their development might come more slowly. They will have to learn that sometimes simply being on the field isn't good enough. Sometimes you must win. Regardless of the cost. That there are things out there that are larger and more important than their individual wants and needs. And that if you lose, you cannot say, "Well, at least I tried." That you must get better until you do win. While that may seem like an obvious statement to previous generations, it may not be that way for this one.
In order to do these things, here is what I think must happen at the senior levels of the Army.
First, there must be an acknowledgement that this generation is a pivotal one, much like any generation where social dynamics are changed dramatically by technological advancement. We simply cannot underestimate the critical importance of global communications and information expansion. Second, we have to look beyond corporate responses and develop more personal ones to help them reorient to their Army world in a way that helps connect their individualism to the larger ethic of the organization. Third, we need constantly place the values requirements in front of them. The values need to be part of every class, training event, and daily integration. That is the only way to make the larger themes have a local impact. Finally, we have to develop the strength of character that makes losing unacceptable and honorable winning the only imaginable result.
Earlier this past week I gave a presentation on OODA loops in the Human Dimension to some of the leaders of a unit on post. The briefing is designed to offer young leaders a way to reach out to their Soldiers and consider the many different option available to assist those who are struggling. When I got back to my office I received an email from one of the company commanders who had attended. This person thanked me for the brief and told me that for the first time in a long time, she didn't feel like she was on the outside looking in. That my briefing had validated a lot of her personal thoughts and feelings.....
Maybe, in some small way, I had provided her an anchor. We can build from there.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#54 Guest Post from JH
The following is a guest post from JH. I have done this once before when I thought the subject and the writing were relevant to the content of the larger discussion. JH is a current Army officer with an interest similar to mine in human leader development. He is also a Millennial who provides the blog with a first-hand accounting of his perspective. He is specifically referencing and replying to my post, #53.
"I agree with everything you said, however I would like to look at a few points from a different angle. Specifically I want to address the Millennial Generation, anchors, and lack of confidence in leadership by those in the Millennial Generation and how it relates back to the Army structure and its mission.
I think first, as you have done, and you and I have discussed previously, we need to look at what created the Millennial Generation. In the hierarchy, you referenced the need for security as a key. Before we define what this security feels like, we first need to address a different topic. In order to satisfy the question of security, one internally has to answer the question, am I secure? That cannot be done until one first is able to define the word “I.” Defining ourselves and having a complete sense of self is an impossible task, and I believe Bennis’s points play into that more than we realize at first glance.
A prominent Christian Theologian, Michael Himes explains it best in his book, "Doing the Truth in Love: Conversations About God, Relationships and Service." He cites an example from Lewis Carroll’s book, "Alice in Wonderland." In this passage, Alice finds herself in a conversation with the caterpillar and asks him how she can get to a particular destination. The caterpillar, being a strict logistician, replies, “Who are you?” The caterpillar cannot answer Alice’s question until all the parts of his question have been defined, namely, who is Alice. Alice tries to answer the question by giving her name, where she is from etc. The caterpillar cannot accept her answers which are descriptions of who Alice is, not a definition.
This story illustrates for us our inability to actually define ourselves. In actuality, until our journey through life is complete, who we are is not quite finished. Himes argues the point further stating, if we were to give one sweeping statement that defines who we are at a specific point in time, the second we do that we immediately become different than before we gave that definition. Himes argues that the only true answer to who we are is a mystery, yet we continually must describe, refine and attempt to define ourselves. The answer of who we are is integral in how we see ourselves and act in our environment and function as a person.
In an effort to attempt to define who we are, we continually rely on descriptions and identification of self with other entities. It helps us try and zero in on the answer. When asked the question who are you, one may answer, “I am in the Army,” “I am from Florida,” or “I work with Fenlason.” These answers begin to arrive closer to who we are. Looking for deeper answers than occupation or geographical origin, one can use ideologies to describe themselves. “I am a republican,” “I am a democrat,” “I am a Soldier.” Many people often identify with a hero or popular person to try and get closer to a definition. The technique is to associate or anchor one’s self with the image of a personal hero. Heroes can come from anywhere, politics, work, family; virtually any place that a person can identify an ideology represented by a specific person. In politics, a great number of Americans were able to anchor themselves with heroes such as JFK. In the sports arena, many people once anchored themselves with the image of OJ Simpson, or Tiger Woods, evidenced purely by the number of companies who have used these figures to sell products, or how many sports jerseys people buy with a specific player’s name on them. These particular examples illustrate clearly what is one key factor in the creation of the Millennial Generation. Increasingly prevalent through media attention and publicity, public heroes whose ideologies we associate with to help describe ourselves, have become toppled by scandal and dishonesty. As the symbols prove inconsistent with the ideologies we attributed to them, it causes us to question the existence of the ideology itself. We lose trust in where we once felt anchored, and inherently lose a sense of who we are. In politics, while people like JFK from the 60’s, practiced behavior inconsistent with attributed ideology, it was not prevalent public concern or knowledge at the time. Not until the Watergate scandal when the President, a symbol of our national identity, American ideals, and most importantly a symbol of leadership truly undermined the public’s ability to anchor themselves in the idea that we can trust our leadership. What once was a firm anchor, (politics aside) as a symbol of leadership proved definitively that any leader, even the President, can betray our trust. The removal of that safety blanket has been a significant contribution to what we now see with the Millennial Generation. There is a cultural realization that, “I can no longer trust outside of myself to help define who I am, because if I do, I will soon realize I was anchored in something false and unstable. The Millennial Generation has turned to the only thing certain to be real, themselves. This makes even self description impossible.
Using yourself to define you is like using a word in its own definition. You find more and more those in the Millennial Generation feel unable to anchor. They float with the wind, the tide, and their feelings. Their initial response to potential anchors of sports heroes, political leaders and ideologies is distrust and skepticism. Not able to describe or refine the definition of self makes one stop searching for answers to who and what I am and, am I secure? As a leader of this generation, the only way to truly provide security is to have a strong sense of self and earn the trust of those you lead that you can be that anchor.
Those who work in the Army can provide a good anchor and teach others to answers the question of “who am I,” but only through personal relationships with those they lead. Reflecting back on my “leadership training,” what was emphasized was a high PT score, taking charge when in charge, and being able to display confidence. Absent from my training was any emphasis on getting to know others, increasing my ability to interact with people, or EO type discussions or assessments. Throughout my Army experience, zero or no tolerance for mistakes has been a constant theme. Results have been more important than process. Focus on people and the “business of people” is often echoed, but seldom practiced. Bennis says audacity is an integral part of leadership. With audacity comes an increase in the opportunity for mistakes. You either function as part of the team, or you’re outside. If you diminish the image of a leader then you are no longer allowed as part of the team. Common military stereotypes of poor social skills and rigid personalities contribute to this idea. These stereotypes come from a generation that bought into the system for the systems sake. They were able to anchor themselves in the organization and help define themselves by it. The nature of leadership has since changed. The large face of the organization is no longer a strong anchor. We have to personally assure through relationship and example those we lead in smaller units; we must demonstrate that it is safe to trust. We continually have to reaffirm that trust. Only when a Soldier is anchored and confident in that anchor will they feel secure. It is then that we can teach them to further define themselves, become productive leaders and become anchors to others. Only when all that takes place, can we teach them to achieve self actualization.
A word on how this relates to the integral part of the Army’s definition of leadership, “…operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.” The current “mission” very clearly appears to be something similar to, “Partner with local nationals in our OEF/OIF missions to influence stability.” One could argue, with the numbers of junior officers and Soldiers getting out, what we mean by “Improving the organization” could best be defined by examples such as the study on, “Retaining Officer Talent” and other initiatives to make the organization better for its people, and make the people better for the organization. Being able to “influence” those in the organization to operate to accomplish those missions can be found in the essence of the missions themselves.
The revamp of the counseling system, additional cultural or leadership training, a new system for evaluating leadership and increased emphasis on language training are all programs aimed at achieving those goals. They can provide technical skills to enhance mission accomplishment, but do not ever teach individuals the “tactical” art required to achieve or even prove mission accomplishment. The tactical art of influencing those to partner effectively or influencing those to make the organization better for its people must be taught on an individual level with a master and apprentice. It cannot be accomplished through a series of steps or by doing a task. It cannot be explained, it must be demonstrated. The apprentice must immerse themselves in the deepest understanding of how to practice the art, or they will never successfully be able to practice the art on their own. The two missions ironically, are identical at their core. They are the two areas in which our organization appears to have the most difficulty achieving success. Fenlason said it best when he said, “One of my responsibilities is to provide them the place and opportunity to do that.” If every leader in the organization “influenced” by attempting to form a relationship with those they led to provide a “place and opportunity” to feel anchored and work towards self actualization, they would understand the art required in today’s missions of partnership and leadership because they would be practicing it. Those missions cannot be answered with a “how we partner” smart card or taught in a “leadership 101” course. Providing security for Soldiers we lead and security for local nationals in the combat operating environment cannot be approached as a science, measured or quantified. One either feels it, or they don’t. One either has the finesse to perceive its presence in others, or they don’t. If we, as an organization are not effectively “operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization,” then by our own definition are we really leading, or are we floating, unanchored, and unsecured? Are we constantly rowing, believing if we do something hard enough or enough times, someday the organization will be able to anchor and answer the question, “Am I secure?” I think the best answer to that question is, “Who are you?”
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
"I agree with everything you said, however I would like to look at a few points from a different angle. Specifically I want to address the Millennial Generation, anchors, and lack of confidence in leadership by those in the Millennial Generation and how it relates back to the Army structure and its mission.
I think first, as you have done, and you and I have discussed previously, we need to look at what created the Millennial Generation. In the hierarchy, you referenced the need for security as a key. Before we define what this security feels like, we first need to address a different topic. In order to satisfy the question of security, one internally has to answer the question, am I secure? That cannot be done until one first is able to define the word “I.” Defining ourselves and having a complete sense of self is an impossible task, and I believe Bennis’s points play into that more than we realize at first glance.
A prominent Christian Theologian, Michael Himes explains it best in his book, "Doing the Truth in Love: Conversations About God, Relationships and Service." He cites an example from Lewis Carroll’s book, "Alice in Wonderland." In this passage, Alice finds herself in a conversation with the caterpillar and asks him how she can get to a particular destination. The caterpillar, being a strict logistician, replies, “Who are you?” The caterpillar cannot answer Alice’s question until all the parts of his question have been defined, namely, who is Alice. Alice tries to answer the question by giving her name, where she is from etc. The caterpillar cannot accept her answers which are descriptions of who Alice is, not a definition.
This story illustrates for us our inability to actually define ourselves. In actuality, until our journey through life is complete, who we are is not quite finished. Himes argues the point further stating, if we were to give one sweeping statement that defines who we are at a specific point in time, the second we do that we immediately become different than before we gave that definition. Himes argues that the only true answer to who we are is a mystery, yet we continually must describe, refine and attempt to define ourselves. The answer of who we are is integral in how we see ourselves and act in our environment and function as a person.
In an effort to attempt to define who we are, we continually rely on descriptions and identification of self with other entities. It helps us try and zero in on the answer. When asked the question who are you, one may answer, “I am in the Army,” “I am from Florida,” or “I work with Fenlason.” These answers begin to arrive closer to who we are. Looking for deeper answers than occupation or geographical origin, one can use ideologies to describe themselves. “I am a republican,” “I am a democrat,” “I am a Soldier.” Many people often identify with a hero or popular person to try and get closer to a definition. The technique is to associate or anchor one’s self with the image of a personal hero. Heroes can come from anywhere, politics, work, family; virtually any place that a person can identify an ideology represented by a specific person. In politics, a great number of Americans were able to anchor themselves with heroes such as JFK. In the sports arena, many people once anchored themselves with the image of OJ Simpson, or Tiger Woods, evidenced purely by the number of companies who have used these figures to sell products, or how many sports jerseys people buy with a specific player’s name on them. These particular examples illustrate clearly what is one key factor in the creation of the Millennial Generation. Increasingly prevalent through media attention and publicity, public heroes whose ideologies we associate with to help describe ourselves, have become toppled by scandal and dishonesty. As the symbols prove inconsistent with the ideologies we attributed to them, it causes us to question the existence of the ideology itself. We lose trust in where we once felt anchored, and inherently lose a sense of who we are. In politics, while people like JFK from the 60’s, practiced behavior inconsistent with attributed ideology, it was not prevalent public concern or knowledge at the time. Not until the Watergate scandal when the President, a symbol of our national identity, American ideals, and most importantly a symbol of leadership truly undermined the public’s ability to anchor themselves in the idea that we can trust our leadership. What once was a firm anchor, (politics aside) as a symbol of leadership proved definitively that any leader, even the President, can betray our trust. The removal of that safety blanket has been a significant contribution to what we now see with the Millennial Generation. There is a cultural realization that, “I can no longer trust outside of myself to help define who I am, because if I do, I will soon realize I was anchored in something false and unstable. The Millennial Generation has turned to the only thing certain to be real, themselves. This makes even self description impossible.
Using yourself to define you is like using a word in its own definition. You find more and more those in the Millennial Generation feel unable to anchor. They float with the wind, the tide, and their feelings. Their initial response to potential anchors of sports heroes, political leaders and ideologies is distrust and skepticism. Not able to describe or refine the definition of self makes one stop searching for answers to who and what I am and, am I secure? As a leader of this generation, the only way to truly provide security is to have a strong sense of self and earn the trust of those you lead that you can be that anchor.
Those who work in the Army can provide a good anchor and teach others to answers the question of “who am I,” but only through personal relationships with those they lead. Reflecting back on my “leadership training,” what was emphasized was a high PT score, taking charge when in charge, and being able to display confidence. Absent from my training was any emphasis on getting to know others, increasing my ability to interact with people, or EO type discussions or assessments. Throughout my Army experience, zero or no tolerance for mistakes has been a constant theme. Results have been more important than process. Focus on people and the “business of people” is often echoed, but seldom practiced. Bennis says audacity is an integral part of leadership. With audacity comes an increase in the opportunity for mistakes. You either function as part of the team, or you’re outside. If you diminish the image of a leader then you are no longer allowed as part of the team. Common military stereotypes of poor social skills and rigid personalities contribute to this idea. These stereotypes come from a generation that bought into the system for the systems sake. They were able to anchor themselves in the organization and help define themselves by it. The nature of leadership has since changed. The large face of the organization is no longer a strong anchor. We have to personally assure through relationship and example those we lead in smaller units; we must demonstrate that it is safe to trust. We continually have to reaffirm that trust. Only when a Soldier is anchored and confident in that anchor will they feel secure. It is then that we can teach them to further define themselves, become productive leaders and become anchors to others. Only when all that takes place, can we teach them to achieve self actualization.
A word on how this relates to the integral part of the Army’s definition of leadership, “…operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.” The current “mission” very clearly appears to be something similar to, “Partner with local nationals in our OEF/OIF missions to influence stability.” One could argue, with the numbers of junior officers and Soldiers getting out, what we mean by “Improving the organization” could best be defined by examples such as the study on, “Retaining Officer Talent” and other initiatives to make the organization better for its people, and make the people better for the organization. Being able to “influence” those in the organization to operate to accomplish those missions can be found in the essence of the missions themselves.
The revamp of the counseling system, additional cultural or leadership training, a new system for evaluating leadership and increased emphasis on language training are all programs aimed at achieving those goals. They can provide technical skills to enhance mission accomplishment, but do not ever teach individuals the “tactical” art required to achieve or even prove mission accomplishment. The tactical art of influencing those to partner effectively or influencing those to make the organization better for its people must be taught on an individual level with a master and apprentice. It cannot be accomplished through a series of steps or by doing a task. It cannot be explained, it must be demonstrated. The apprentice must immerse themselves in the deepest understanding of how to practice the art, or they will never successfully be able to practice the art on their own. The two missions ironically, are identical at their core. They are the two areas in which our organization appears to have the most difficulty achieving success. Fenlason said it best when he said, “One of my responsibilities is to provide them the place and opportunity to do that.” If every leader in the organization “influenced” by attempting to form a relationship with those they led to provide a “place and opportunity” to feel anchored and work towards self actualization, they would understand the art required in today’s missions of partnership and leadership because they would be practicing it. Those missions cannot be answered with a “how we partner” smart card or taught in a “leadership 101” course. Providing security for Soldiers we lead and security for local nationals in the combat operating environment cannot be approached as a science, measured or quantified. One either feels it, or they don’t. One either has the finesse to perceive its presence in others, or they don’t. If we, as an organization are not effectively “operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization,” then by our own definition are we really leading, or are we floating, unanchored, and unsecured? Are we constantly rowing, believing if we do something hard enough or enough times, someday the organization will be able to anchor and answer the question, “Am I secure?” I think the best answer to that question is, “Who are you?”
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#53 Maslow and Me...And Bennis
In 2003, Warren Bennis, an internationally renowned expert on leadership and leader development updated his classic book, "On Becoming a Leader". In Chapter one, "Mastering the Context" he addresses the issue of a perceived lack of governmental and corporate leadership by asking the question, "Where have all the leaders gone?", and then goes on to address why we need leaders in the first place. Bennis posits 3 reasons that leaders are necessary:
"First, they are responsible for the effectiveness of organizations. The success or failure of all organizations whether basketball teams, community-action groups, moviemakers, or automobile manufacturers rests on the perceived quality at the top."
"Second, the change and upheaval of the past years has left us no place to hide. We need anchors in our lives, something like a trim-tab factor, a guiding purpose."
"Third, there is a pervasive national concern about the integrity of our institutions."
I think that these are all very true and very important statements both in and out of the Army. I also think they point out some of the difficulties we face. However, they also imply that these issues are particular to a point in time - say the last 15 or 20 years. They sort of imply that over the last 2 decades there has been some form of fundamental change in the collective understanding and value system of Americans that has led to the search for 'effective leaders.'
Personally, I think that the order is a little backwards. I think that the 2nd sentence should have come first. I think every individual has a distinct need for anchors in their lives and leaders help fill that role. Every one of us is driven by Maslow's hierarchy, and by recognizing and accepting that, the anchoring function of leadership can be more correctly applied. Outlined below are the parts of the hierarchy:
Physiological Needs
These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction.
Safety Needs
When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.
Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.
Needs for Esteem
When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
Needs for Self-Actualization
When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.
The primacy of Bennis' 2nd sentence is further backed up by one particular word in the first, 'perceived'. I have repeated time and again that the understanding of the situation and the expected outcomes by those at the bottom of the chain is absolutely critical to organizational success. They must at first 'perceive' (feel without proof) that the leader knows what he/she is doing and that he/she is keeping an eye out for their welfare and concerns. In essence the subordinate senses that the leader is fulfilling one of the 'anchor' requirements we all have. In fact, they do not have to be able to empirically prove that the leader cares about them. It is enough that they emotionally feel it. The leader actions and outcomes over an extended period will provide them the empirical data, but it is not an immediate requirement. The perception is.
Finally, it is very much true that there is, and has been, a perception of a lack of integrity in our national institutions over the last 2 decades, with both government and corporate scandals abounding every time you turn around. However, this presupposes that they are unique to this time in history which is patently false. We have always had scandal in both government and business. There has always been strife and deceitfulness inherent to both our corporate and governmental systems. Democracy - as practiced in America - has always been about deal-making, and the entire free-enterprise system almost encourages, if not explicitly condones, ethical waffling in exchange for a higher profit margin. We still hold the Carnegies, Mellons, Rockefellers etc as models of business, but people forget that they amassed their fortunes by preying on their workers and creating an indentured class who fueled their fabulous wealth. In fact, it is interesting to note that while those families are all well known now for their philanthropic work, the vast fortunes that allow for these charitable deeds were made quite squarely from many questionably unethical practices at the time. For people to suddenly find these things distasteful is a little bit naive. I have always found it interesting that Americans constantly complain about their politicians, but will not elect someone who doesn't know how to play the game. If there is a true distaste for our elected officials, then we have no one to blame except ourselves because we will not elect people based only on demonstrated personal character.
FM 6-22 " Army Leadership" defines leadership as, "..the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization."
Dictionary.com offers these definitions of the word 'influence':
"1. The capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.
2. The action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others:
3. A person or thing that exerts influence. "
While this post may seem somewhat disjointed so far, I think it comes together like this. First, we all have a need for an anchor in our lives that provides the baseline requirements laid out by Maslow. That can be a person or an institution. The Army at the base level provides much of the 'Safety' tier that we all require. The idea that safety needs go largely unnoticed until, "...periods of disorganization in the social structure", is very important to the issues surrounding the Army today. 8 years of war have called into question the fundamental trust that we all had in both the purpose and methods of the Army, it's leadership, and the very definition of what an Army leader is. There is a very strong perception by the common Soldier that his/her leaders are not, or cannot, meet this 'Safety' requirement. While they may or may not be able to prove it, they certainly feel it.
At the local level, the idea of influencing becomes critical. In Bennis' definition, the leader provides the comfort and anchor that the subordinate feels. There is a sort of happiness or benevolence feel to it. The Army definition strikes me as a little bit more oriented towards force or manipulation. I know it's not necessarily meant that way, but the Army idea of influencing others to do something seems a little more coercive to me. Which of course is entirely backed up by the hierarchical structure and rules developed by the institution itself.
In my opinion, we need to concentrate our leader development efforts towards repairing the perception of subordinates that their leaders cannot meet their safety demands, and simultaneously increase our efforts to address - at the personal level - the need for 'Love, Affection and Belongingness'. War and loss create the isolation and loneliness that we all try to overcome. The death of comrades, the re-emergence of base 'kill-or-be-killed' predatory behaviors all contribute to isolation and disconnectedness. I think many of the behavioral and family difficulties that I have outline in previous posts can be directly attributed to this feeling of a lack of belongingness. And so a leader has to provide the sense of comradeship and community we all desire. And that sense, that perception, has to be realized by the followers on a fundamental level. Even if they cannot prove it, they must feel it.
If we do these things, we will slowly bring back the individual from the fringe. By providing a sense of belonging, coupled with their trust in our ability to care and provide for them we will remove the greatest obstacles to individual growth. We can then move on to meeting their need for 'Esteem'.
The final part of the Army's definition of leadership includes the phrase, "...while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization." To me, this implies a somewhat impersonal business or system model. What would happen though if we saw improving the organization not in unit terms, but rather in meeting the need for esteem for the people who make up the organization? This is where I think we are currently failing the most. American society has produced a generation of people, "Millennials" who are very individualistic, protected and who have been affirmed all their lives. The Army then blunts that by distrusting and dismissing their thoughts, ideas and interpretation of their world. Millennials were not raised for institutional living. The very structure of the Army and it's somewhat autocratic workings cuts against the grain of their expectations.
I saw all of these things happening this week. I am a much different type of leader than the previous person who ran the organization. I am not better or worse, just different. This week was the first time my Soldiers got to see a little bit of 'how' I work. You can plainly see that they are nervous about the change at the top. They do not know what it means to them. They have lost an anchor point and suddenly are aware of their lack of 'Safety'. They are also struggling a bit with the need for 'Love, Affection and Belongingness'. The change in leader style has a lot to do with that. Former shared interpretations are now open again for individual interpretation. Most importantly however, they are at a loss to deal with my idea of inclusion. The previous leader provided a solid, known, but slightly distanced, anchor. My style is more focused on inclusion, and individual contribution to mission accomplishment. It is clear that they do not all feel comfortable with suddenly being invited to the table. Much like my thoughts on politicians, they seem to not like the way that the Army leadership system works, but given the opportunity to change it, they become very aware of their lack of confidence and ability to choose a different path. They do not know how, nor are they sure that they want, to become their own anchors.
One of my responsibilities is to provide them the place and opportunity to do that.
As always, your thoughts and comments are more than welcome.
"First, they are responsible for the effectiveness of organizations. The success or failure of all organizations whether basketball teams, community-action groups, moviemakers, or automobile manufacturers rests on the perceived quality at the top."
"Second, the change and upheaval of the past years has left us no place to hide. We need anchors in our lives, something like a trim-tab factor, a guiding purpose."
"Third, there is a pervasive national concern about the integrity of our institutions."
I think that these are all very true and very important statements both in and out of the Army. I also think they point out some of the difficulties we face. However, they also imply that these issues are particular to a point in time - say the last 15 or 20 years. They sort of imply that over the last 2 decades there has been some form of fundamental change in the collective understanding and value system of Americans that has led to the search for 'effective leaders.'
Personally, I think that the order is a little backwards. I think that the 2nd sentence should have come first. I think every individual has a distinct need for anchors in their lives and leaders help fill that role. Every one of us is driven by Maslow's hierarchy, and by recognizing and accepting that, the anchoring function of leadership can be more correctly applied. Outlined below are the parts of the hierarchy:
Physiological Needs
These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction.
Safety Needs
When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.
Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.
Needs for Esteem
When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
Needs for Self-Actualization
When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.
The primacy of Bennis' 2nd sentence is further backed up by one particular word in the first, 'perceived'. I have repeated time and again that the understanding of the situation and the expected outcomes by those at the bottom of the chain is absolutely critical to organizational success. They must at first 'perceive' (feel without proof) that the leader knows what he/she is doing and that he/she is keeping an eye out for their welfare and concerns. In essence the subordinate senses that the leader is fulfilling one of the 'anchor' requirements we all have. In fact, they do not have to be able to empirically prove that the leader cares about them. It is enough that they emotionally feel it. The leader actions and outcomes over an extended period will provide them the empirical data, but it is not an immediate requirement. The perception is.
Finally, it is very much true that there is, and has been, a perception of a lack of integrity in our national institutions over the last 2 decades, with both government and corporate scandals abounding every time you turn around. However, this presupposes that they are unique to this time in history which is patently false. We have always had scandal in both government and business. There has always been strife and deceitfulness inherent to both our corporate and governmental systems. Democracy - as practiced in America - has always been about deal-making, and the entire free-enterprise system almost encourages, if not explicitly condones, ethical waffling in exchange for a higher profit margin. We still hold the Carnegies, Mellons, Rockefellers etc as models of business, but people forget that they amassed their fortunes by preying on their workers and creating an indentured class who fueled their fabulous wealth. In fact, it is interesting to note that while those families are all well known now for their philanthropic work, the vast fortunes that allow for these charitable deeds were made quite squarely from many questionably unethical practices at the time. For people to suddenly find these things distasteful is a little bit naive. I have always found it interesting that Americans constantly complain about their politicians, but will not elect someone who doesn't know how to play the game. If there is a true distaste for our elected officials, then we have no one to blame except ourselves because we will not elect people based only on demonstrated personal character.
FM 6-22 " Army Leadership" defines leadership as, "..the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization."
Dictionary.com offers these definitions of the word 'influence':
"1. The capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.
2. The action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others:
3. A person or thing that exerts influence. "
While this post may seem somewhat disjointed so far, I think it comes together like this. First, we all have a need for an anchor in our lives that provides the baseline requirements laid out by Maslow. That can be a person or an institution. The Army at the base level provides much of the 'Safety' tier that we all require. The idea that safety needs go largely unnoticed until, "...periods of disorganization in the social structure", is very important to the issues surrounding the Army today. 8 years of war have called into question the fundamental trust that we all had in both the purpose and methods of the Army, it's leadership, and the very definition of what an Army leader is. There is a very strong perception by the common Soldier that his/her leaders are not, or cannot, meet this 'Safety' requirement. While they may or may not be able to prove it, they certainly feel it.
At the local level, the idea of influencing becomes critical. In Bennis' definition, the leader provides the comfort and anchor that the subordinate feels. There is a sort of happiness or benevolence feel to it. The Army definition strikes me as a little bit more oriented towards force or manipulation. I know it's not necessarily meant that way, but the Army idea of influencing others to do something seems a little more coercive to me. Which of course is entirely backed up by the hierarchical structure and rules developed by the institution itself.
In my opinion, we need to concentrate our leader development efforts towards repairing the perception of subordinates that their leaders cannot meet their safety demands, and simultaneously increase our efforts to address - at the personal level - the need for 'Love, Affection and Belongingness'. War and loss create the isolation and loneliness that we all try to overcome. The death of comrades, the re-emergence of base 'kill-or-be-killed' predatory behaviors all contribute to isolation and disconnectedness. I think many of the behavioral and family difficulties that I have outline in previous posts can be directly attributed to this feeling of a lack of belongingness. And so a leader has to provide the sense of comradeship and community we all desire. And that sense, that perception, has to be realized by the followers on a fundamental level. Even if they cannot prove it, they must feel it.
If we do these things, we will slowly bring back the individual from the fringe. By providing a sense of belonging, coupled with their trust in our ability to care and provide for them we will remove the greatest obstacles to individual growth. We can then move on to meeting their need for 'Esteem'.
The final part of the Army's definition of leadership includes the phrase, "...while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization." To me, this implies a somewhat impersonal business or system model. What would happen though if we saw improving the organization not in unit terms, but rather in meeting the need for esteem for the people who make up the organization? This is where I think we are currently failing the most. American society has produced a generation of people, "Millennials" who are very individualistic, protected and who have been affirmed all their lives. The Army then blunts that by distrusting and dismissing their thoughts, ideas and interpretation of their world. Millennials were not raised for institutional living. The very structure of the Army and it's somewhat autocratic workings cuts against the grain of their expectations.
I saw all of these things happening this week. I am a much different type of leader than the previous person who ran the organization. I am not better or worse, just different. This week was the first time my Soldiers got to see a little bit of 'how' I work. You can plainly see that they are nervous about the change at the top. They do not know what it means to them. They have lost an anchor point and suddenly are aware of their lack of 'Safety'. They are also struggling a bit with the need for 'Love, Affection and Belongingness'. The change in leader style has a lot to do with that. Former shared interpretations are now open again for individual interpretation. Most importantly however, they are at a loss to deal with my idea of inclusion. The previous leader provided a solid, known, but slightly distanced, anchor. My style is more focused on inclusion, and individual contribution to mission accomplishment. It is clear that they do not all feel comfortable with suddenly being invited to the table. Much like my thoughts on politicians, they seem to not like the way that the Army leadership system works, but given the opportunity to change it, they become very aware of their lack of confidence and ability to choose a different path. They do not know how, nor are they sure that they want, to become their own anchors.
One of my responsibilities is to provide them the place and opportunity to do that.
As always, your thoughts and comments are more than welcome.
#52 The Toxic Unknown
Due to my writings here and another blog I write on Army Knowledge Online (AKO), I have gained some attention recently from people throughout the Army especially with regard to the "Black Hearts" incident. Over the past month or so, I have been in contact with a few different folks from the Army Center of Excellence for the Professional Military Ethic at the US Military Academy at West Point who have expressed an interest in looking at the ethical leadership challenges posed by incidents such as occurred to 1st platoon. After 4 years (yesterday was the 4 year anniversary of the attack on the Al Janabi family), there appears to be an interest in looking at the incident in greater depth to see what leadership lessons can be learned to try to ensure that something like that event never happens again. I am more than pleased to try to be of assistance to their efforts and am grateful for their interest in my work, both here and on AKO.
Yesterday I was sent an article entitled 'Toxic Leadership' by C.C., one of the administrators at Battle Command Knowledge Systems, the Army's official information sharing website embedded in Army Knowledge Online (AKO). The article was published in the July-August 2004 issue of Military Review Magazine and was written by Col George E. Reed. The moderator who sent it to me thought I might be interested in the authors thoughts on command climate and the impact leaders have on the overall feeling in their units. Col Reed offers the following as key elements of something called toxic leader syndrome:
"1. An apparent lack of concern for the well-being of subordinates.
2. A personality or interpersonal technique that negatively affects organizational climate.
3. A conviction by by subordinates that the leader is motivated primarily by self-interest."
After providing an example of of toxic leadership and how toxic leaders manifest themselves in units, the author goes on to ask the question:
"Why, we ask, does an organization so obviously people oriented and that places so much emphasis on leadership tolerate them?"
And right there may be the heart of the issue. The Army may claim to be people oriented, but when your catch-phrase is "Mission first, Soldiers always", there is an ethic within the organization that the mission must, and will, be accomplished no matter the cost. Additionally, in an organization that claims to put an emphasis on leadership, we really don't. By never studying the elements of human behavior, and only concentrating on the processes in place to work toward mission accomplishment, we have removed the priority of leading emotive, thoughtful human beings and replaced it with the supremacy of mission accomplishment. Add to that the constant movement of people in and out of organizations and the never-ending shuffling of personnel to meet mission requirements, and it becomes very difficult to isolate a toxic leader long enough to prevent the spread of the disease.
What the article doesn't consider however, is the fact that toxic leaders don't know, nor do they think they are toxic. If you look at the 3 key elements outlined above, and then read 'Black Hearts' with regard to my platoon's interpretation of my actions, you could easily come to think that I have (or at least had) a toxic leadership style. Interesting. The label of toxic leader is clearly placed on the battalion commander throughout the book. Most people who know me, or have worked for or with me, would not consider me a toxic leader. No do I consider myself one. I generally do not like folks with toxic personalities, and have worked to develop a leadership style almost in defiance of that model. In fact, most would probably identify me as a team player and a person who tries to lead by brains and persuasion rather than by force. Generally, I'm considered a nice guy and pretty easy to get along with. But still, using the components above, and taken in the context of my Soldier's perceptions of me in the book, I fit at least 2 of the 3 categories above.
This implies that leadership is only truly successful as seen through the eyes of the led. This was also true in 1st platoon. The original platoon sergeant in the story essentially quit when he became aware that he was going to be replaced, but the Soldiers remained extremely loyal to him and continued to think highly of him even after he had left them behind. They believed that he was a good leader and someone who was always looking out for them, even when that was not the case. I did not enjoy that confidence with them. I was always cognizant of that fact, but did not really consider the effect it was having on them. Without a mechanism to provide the leader some form of feedback on how they are perceived by their subordinates, there is no way to know - in 'real time' - whether or not one is being viewed positively or negatively by the organization. It is the rarest of people who have that sort of self-awareness, and sense of self that can recognize - in the moment - their effect on the unit.
Another cause of toxic leadership may be the character of the Army itself. Army leaders are expected to be type A, self-reliant, self-confident people. We try to raise them that way. There is little recognition, or respect for, the type B, more laid back personality. We want 'meat eaters', not 'flower pickers'. 'Meat eaters' develop somewhat idiosyncratic personalities that become critical elements of their leadership style. In essence they become a character. A larger-than-life personality that provides the emotional essence of the unit. General Patton was a 'meat eater'. So weren't General Andrew Jackson, and General Norm Schwartzkopf. They carried with them the aura of knowing exactly what needed to be done, and the force of will to carry it through. In 'Black Hearts', Tony Uribe carried that kind of personality aura. These type of men are the role models we continue to use to build our leaders today. Even Generals Eisenhower, Marshall, or Powell, although arguably more important to the success of the Army at their particular point in time, don't carry the same emotional power of the 'meat eater' generals throughout our history. Ask a hundred Soldiers which of our great leaders they would most want to emulate, and I don't think General Washington will be number one on the list.
And so we struggle today to find leaders whose Soldiers can identify with them and who can balance an understanding of the people in the organization with the requirements of mission accomplishment.
I watched some of that happen this week. As I get ready to assume a new set of responsibilities next week, I had the opportunity to speak with the cadre of the unit I will run. In light of what has happened to me over the past 4 years, I sat down the day before and wrote out some notes - my leadership philosophy, that I felt they should know. This seemed important to me because there will be a marked difference in leadership styles between me and the person I'm replacing. Not that I will be any better or any worse, but that the way we do our business will be different. I felt that the Soldiers should hear directly from me what I consider to be important, and why. They should also know how I perceive my responsibilities and theirs. The following are my notes:
1. People are more important than things.
2. "How" to think is more important than "what" to think.
3. We are accountable to/for ourselves, our peers, the organization, and most importantly, the students.
4. Our professionalism is a measure of respect for the student, the organization and the institution.
5. Dialogue beats discussion - Trust me, there will be a lot of it.
6. I will earn your trust. By virtue of experience, understanding and knowledge of your responsibilities , you already have mine. Don't abuse it.
7. Initiative, creativity and independence are good traits. Understand their limits and be prepared to accept accountability.
8. Understand Task / Purpose / Intent. View things by expected outcomes or observable behaviors.
9. If I do not provide a clear intent, you have a right and an obligation to ask for one.
10. I work for you. What does that mean?
As we worked through each of these thoughts, you could see that all of them were trying to figure out what I was saying and a method to compare / contrast this new understanding of the environment with the one they had gotten used to under their previous leader. You could tell that some of what I talked about made them happy, and some of it made them uncomfortable. Some parts they heard fit their idea of a 'good' leader and some parts made them wonder.
As I write this, and put forth the idea that almost everything in the realm of leader development is a bottom-up process, I keep feeling a little tug at the back of my brain that says that is not how it goes. The bottom doesn't get a vote. The top sets the tone and tenor and then enforces the standard until it is achieved. That if you let the bottom dictate the terms of the discussion then the unit will never get anywhere. Interestingly, that notion was also addressed in the 'Toxic Leadership' article.
"Many in the study group were concerned how a multi-rater 360 degree evaluation program would be implemented. Some were concerned about leaders pandering to subordinates or leaders not being forceful or demanding. Others felt that Soldiers are fully capable of distinguishing between the leader who sets and enforces high standards from the abusive and petty toxic leader: "Soldiers want competent leaders. You want somebody who can take charge and get the job done even if he is a little rough sometimes. You are going to favor that guy over somebody who wants to hold your hand and pat you on the back all the time. Troops know the difference."
So now we go to the opposite end of the spectrum. In order for the unit to succeed, the leader must create an environment that is positively viewed through the subordinates eyes. But, pandering to the subordinate will not lead to that outcome. In fact, pandering and not establishing high standards of behavior will lead to exactly the opposite. The unit will fail because the leader wasn't demanding enough.
Which leads me back once again to OODA loops as a method of viewing personal behavior, and the 6 viewpoints that I outlined last week.
I know that I am not as much an authoritarian and disciplinarian as the unit's previous leader. I also know that that does not mean that I have lower standards of expected behavior, but that they will be enforced differently than he did it. They do not know that. I know that my methods work - over time - to develop individual leader skills for my subordinates because that has happened in other units in the past. I know that the subordinates do not entirely trust me right now and are feeling me out to see if the manner in which I operate is some form of a trick. They are not used to being taken entirely seriously, and treated as equal players at the table. Although I wish I could remove that concern immediately, I know I cannot. I know that any decisions I make as the leader will have at least 3 different interpretations: What I decided and the reason I provided, their interpretation of the validity of the reason, and by extension my reasoning process, and their personal inclusion or exclusion from the decision making process.
In many ways, the paragraph above is exactly why autocratic, authoritarian and often toxic leaders continue to exist in the Army and in industry. They make life simple. The mental math outlined above is the really hard work of human being leadership, and not too many people want to do that. It's a lot easier sometimes to just be an asshole!
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Yesterday I was sent an article entitled 'Toxic Leadership' by C.C., one of the administrators at Battle Command Knowledge Systems, the Army's official information sharing website embedded in Army Knowledge Online (AKO). The article was published in the July-August 2004 issue of Military Review Magazine and was written by Col George E. Reed. The moderator who sent it to me thought I might be interested in the authors thoughts on command climate and the impact leaders have on the overall feeling in their units. Col Reed offers the following as key elements of something called toxic leader syndrome:
"1. An apparent lack of concern for the well-being of subordinates.
2. A personality or interpersonal technique that negatively affects organizational climate.
3. A conviction by by subordinates that the leader is motivated primarily by self-interest."
After providing an example of of toxic leadership and how toxic leaders manifest themselves in units, the author goes on to ask the question:
"Why, we ask, does an organization so obviously people oriented and that places so much emphasis on leadership tolerate them?"
And right there may be the heart of the issue. The Army may claim to be people oriented, but when your catch-phrase is "Mission first, Soldiers always", there is an ethic within the organization that the mission must, and will, be accomplished no matter the cost. Additionally, in an organization that claims to put an emphasis on leadership, we really don't. By never studying the elements of human behavior, and only concentrating on the processes in place to work toward mission accomplishment, we have removed the priority of leading emotive, thoughtful human beings and replaced it with the supremacy of mission accomplishment. Add to that the constant movement of people in and out of organizations and the never-ending shuffling of personnel to meet mission requirements, and it becomes very difficult to isolate a toxic leader long enough to prevent the spread of the disease.
What the article doesn't consider however, is the fact that toxic leaders don't know, nor do they think they are toxic. If you look at the 3 key elements outlined above, and then read 'Black Hearts' with regard to my platoon's interpretation of my actions, you could easily come to think that I have (or at least had) a toxic leadership style. Interesting. The label of toxic leader is clearly placed on the battalion commander throughout the book. Most people who know me, or have worked for or with me, would not consider me a toxic leader. No do I consider myself one. I generally do not like folks with toxic personalities, and have worked to develop a leadership style almost in defiance of that model. In fact, most would probably identify me as a team player and a person who tries to lead by brains and persuasion rather than by force. Generally, I'm considered a nice guy and pretty easy to get along with. But still, using the components above, and taken in the context of my Soldier's perceptions of me in the book, I fit at least 2 of the 3 categories above.
This implies that leadership is only truly successful as seen through the eyes of the led. This was also true in 1st platoon. The original platoon sergeant in the story essentially quit when he became aware that he was going to be replaced, but the Soldiers remained extremely loyal to him and continued to think highly of him even after he had left them behind. They believed that he was a good leader and someone who was always looking out for them, even when that was not the case. I did not enjoy that confidence with them. I was always cognizant of that fact, but did not really consider the effect it was having on them. Without a mechanism to provide the leader some form of feedback on how they are perceived by their subordinates, there is no way to know - in 'real time' - whether or not one is being viewed positively or negatively by the organization. It is the rarest of people who have that sort of self-awareness, and sense of self that can recognize - in the moment - their effect on the unit.
Another cause of toxic leadership may be the character of the Army itself. Army leaders are expected to be type A, self-reliant, self-confident people. We try to raise them that way. There is little recognition, or respect for, the type B, more laid back personality. We want 'meat eaters', not 'flower pickers'. 'Meat eaters' develop somewhat idiosyncratic personalities that become critical elements of their leadership style. In essence they become a character. A larger-than-life personality that provides the emotional essence of the unit. General Patton was a 'meat eater'. So weren't General Andrew Jackson, and General Norm Schwartzkopf. They carried with them the aura of knowing exactly what needed to be done, and the force of will to carry it through. In 'Black Hearts', Tony Uribe carried that kind of personality aura. These type of men are the role models we continue to use to build our leaders today. Even Generals Eisenhower, Marshall, or Powell, although arguably more important to the success of the Army at their particular point in time, don't carry the same emotional power of the 'meat eater' generals throughout our history. Ask a hundred Soldiers which of our great leaders they would most want to emulate, and I don't think General Washington will be number one on the list.
And so we struggle today to find leaders whose Soldiers can identify with them and who can balance an understanding of the people in the organization with the requirements of mission accomplishment.
I watched some of that happen this week. As I get ready to assume a new set of responsibilities next week, I had the opportunity to speak with the cadre of the unit I will run. In light of what has happened to me over the past 4 years, I sat down the day before and wrote out some notes - my leadership philosophy, that I felt they should know. This seemed important to me because there will be a marked difference in leadership styles between me and the person I'm replacing. Not that I will be any better or any worse, but that the way we do our business will be different. I felt that the Soldiers should hear directly from me what I consider to be important, and why. They should also know how I perceive my responsibilities and theirs. The following are my notes:
1. People are more important than things.
2. "How" to think is more important than "what" to think.
3. We are accountable to/for ourselves, our peers, the organization, and most importantly, the students.
4. Our professionalism is a measure of respect for the student, the organization and the institution.
5. Dialogue beats discussion - Trust me, there will be a lot of it.
6. I will earn your trust. By virtue of experience, understanding and knowledge of your responsibilities , you already have mine. Don't abuse it.
7. Initiative, creativity and independence are good traits. Understand their limits and be prepared to accept accountability.
8. Understand Task / Purpose / Intent. View things by expected outcomes or observable behaviors.
9. If I do not provide a clear intent, you have a right and an obligation to ask for one.
10. I work for you. What does that mean?
As we worked through each of these thoughts, you could see that all of them were trying to figure out what I was saying and a method to compare / contrast this new understanding of the environment with the one they had gotten used to under their previous leader. You could tell that some of what I talked about made them happy, and some of it made them uncomfortable. Some parts they heard fit their idea of a 'good' leader and some parts made them wonder.
As I write this, and put forth the idea that almost everything in the realm of leader development is a bottom-up process, I keep feeling a little tug at the back of my brain that says that is not how it goes. The bottom doesn't get a vote. The top sets the tone and tenor and then enforces the standard until it is achieved. That if you let the bottom dictate the terms of the discussion then the unit will never get anywhere. Interestingly, that notion was also addressed in the 'Toxic Leadership' article.
"Many in the study group were concerned how a multi-rater 360 degree evaluation program would be implemented. Some were concerned about leaders pandering to subordinates or leaders not being forceful or demanding. Others felt that Soldiers are fully capable of distinguishing between the leader who sets and enforces high standards from the abusive and petty toxic leader: "Soldiers want competent leaders. You want somebody who can take charge and get the job done even if he is a little rough sometimes. You are going to favor that guy over somebody who wants to hold your hand and pat you on the back all the time. Troops know the difference."
So now we go to the opposite end of the spectrum. In order for the unit to succeed, the leader must create an environment that is positively viewed through the subordinates eyes. But, pandering to the subordinate will not lead to that outcome. In fact, pandering and not establishing high standards of behavior will lead to exactly the opposite. The unit will fail because the leader wasn't demanding enough.
Which leads me back once again to OODA loops as a method of viewing personal behavior, and the 6 viewpoints that I outlined last week.
I know that I am not as much an authoritarian and disciplinarian as the unit's previous leader. I also know that that does not mean that I have lower standards of expected behavior, but that they will be enforced differently than he did it. They do not know that. I know that my methods work - over time - to develop individual leader skills for my subordinates because that has happened in other units in the past. I know that the subordinates do not entirely trust me right now and are feeling me out to see if the manner in which I operate is some form of a trick. They are not used to being taken entirely seriously, and treated as equal players at the table. Although I wish I could remove that concern immediately, I know I cannot. I know that any decisions I make as the leader will have at least 3 different interpretations: What I decided and the reason I provided, their interpretation of the validity of the reason, and by extension my reasoning process, and their personal inclusion or exclusion from the decision making process.
In many ways, the paragraph above is exactly why autocratic, authoritarian and often toxic leaders continue to exist in the Army and in industry. They make life simple. The mental math outlined above is the really hard work of human being leadership, and not too many people want to do that. It's a lot easier sometimes to just be an asshole!
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#51 The Times They are a Changin'
Last night as I was looking over my small source library, the book "Follow Me 1" by MG Aubrey 'Red' Newman, originally written in 1981 and updated in 1997 got my attention. This morning I started to thumb through it to see what caught my eye. The book's subtitle is "The Human Element in Leadership", which seems to follow nicely the general theme of most of my writing.
As I was flipping through, I came across the following passage:
"In Walter Reed hospital near the end of his life, Lieutenant General Huebner said in substance, 'People are important, things are not - and nothing is more important than the respect of one man for another.' So now we have this amplified relation: discipline must be imposed, but loyalty must be earned - yet the highest form of discipline exists only when there is mutual loyalty up and down."
This has been a very surprising and busy week. First, beginning next Monday I will have a new set of responsibilities. I will continue to serve as the Division's senior marksmanship instructor, but will also become responsible for the Division's training program for those individuals who are preparing to deploy. Most of the requirements are mandated from the Army, so it's more like managing the throughput of people, but I'm sure that there will be areas where the methods and thoughts I have developed might be able to have an impact. It's a matter of 'Orientation', and being able to get others to 'Orient' in a similar manner. More importantly, for the first time since returning from Iraq, I will again have troops subordinate to me for whom I am responsible. The time has come to re-enter the arena in a small way and lead Soldiers in the execution of a mission. For many this would be just another normal progressive event. However, after 3 years away and with the thoughts and ideas formed in the aftermath of my experience in Iraq, I don't take this change lightly. As I said once before, sitting here writing a blog or offering my opinion on something I read is one thing, but at some point it has to be put into action. Otherwise it is all just academic, armchair quarterbacking. I am reminded of an oft-quoted phrase, "Those who can't do, teach." It's time to see if 'doing' or 'teaching' is the way ahead for me. There is merit and need for both. I may have come to the fork in the road. I have been leading myself for the last 3 years and, of course, I like the results I get. I wonder if that particular leadership style and approach can be transferred to others....We'll see.
Second, this blog and a parallel one that I run on the Army's webpage blew up in a totally unexpected manner. Over the last month or so, I have increasingly participated in forum discussions and information exchanges within AKO (Army Knowledge Online). That introduced me to a person who then read this blog. She shared the link with some other people in her office and by the end of the week, it had been forwarded to some other high ranking folks who also expressed an interest. Throughout the week, I had some phone calls and exchanges with people who are interested in my thoughts and experiences, specifically with regard to Iraq and the aftermath, and the journey of leadership discovery I've started here. I want the thank G.E. and J.D for seeing something here that they deem worth reading. I am honored to be a small player in their process. It is also nice to know that the audience is growing.
Third, there was a 'bloggers' roundtable discussion this week between LTG Mark Hertling and the media regarding Initial Military Training (IME). The conversation itself centered on changes being made to IME in light of the needs of our current Army, a realization that physical fitness in recruits has declined and that it will take longer to develop them without injuring them, that we need to update our values and ethics training, and finally, that there are unique characteristics of the Millennial generation that the Army must address. In general, a lot of what I have been writing and commenting on since I started this. The important part though was how I found it. It was posted to the TRADOC group on Facebook! Wait, a 3 star general holding an information conference with bloggers and it was posted to a social media site? Wow! The times they really are 'a changin'.
The purpose of the OODA process is to shorten the decision - time cycle by learning to recognize yourself, your adversary, and the environment as quickly and clearly as possible to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. I suddenly find myself squarely inside my own OODA loop. Unfolding circumstances are happening in 'real time' and my mental and environmental 'comfort zones' are changing. It will be good to challenge my ideas and assumptions. Otherwise, I might begin to believe my own bullshit.
Trust and respect. These 2 ideas are intimately tied to each other. It is impossible to gain trust without first earning respect. Conversely, their can be no respect without an attendant element of trust. Discipline, both individual and group is the framework for building both. How discipline is exercised, imposed or displayed will have an marked effect on the measure of trust and respect reciprocated between the leader and the led.
Let me try 3 series of free-flowing thoughts and see if I can tie some of this together:
People are more important than things....people are the singular most important part of the Army....any organization requires a common value system and ethic to function....respect for both the person and the institution engenders trust....trust and respect are demonstrated through individual discipline and acceptance of group norms....
OODA can be applied to human leadership....senior leaders are recognizing the changing conditions (both human and environmental) and are trying to shorten the 'decision - time' cycle....
I will have the opportunity to put some of these thoughts into practice again....I am no longer so arrogantly self-confident that I can guarantee a particular outcome.... Iraq changed that. The outcome is not a forgone conclusion. In fact, there are as many possible outcomes as their are people involved. The important part is to be able to OODA that in 'real time'. The six views of every situation will be critical to remember. Now, the best that I can do is to remain firmly centered in my personal value system, recognize that others view our shared world differently than I do, clearly and plainly state the Task, Purpose and Intent, and demonstrate the respect for the talents and ideas of others that will engender trust. All because people are more important than things.
.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
As I was flipping through, I came across the following passage:
"In Walter Reed hospital near the end of his life, Lieutenant General Huebner said in substance, 'People are important, things are not - and nothing is more important than the respect of one man for another.' So now we have this amplified relation: discipline must be imposed, but loyalty must be earned - yet the highest form of discipline exists only when there is mutual loyalty up and down."
This has been a very surprising and busy week. First, beginning next Monday I will have a new set of responsibilities. I will continue to serve as the Division's senior marksmanship instructor, but will also become responsible for the Division's training program for those individuals who are preparing to deploy. Most of the requirements are mandated from the Army, so it's more like managing the throughput of people, but I'm sure that there will be areas where the methods and thoughts I have developed might be able to have an impact. It's a matter of 'Orientation', and being able to get others to 'Orient' in a similar manner. More importantly, for the first time since returning from Iraq, I will again have troops subordinate to me for whom I am responsible. The time has come to re-enter the arena in a small way and lead Soldiers in the execution of a mission. For many this would be just another normal progressive event. However, after 3 years away and with the thoughts and ideas formed in the aftermath of my experience in Iraq, I don't take this change lightly. As I said once before, sitting here writing a blog or offering my opinion on something I read is one thing, but at some point it has to be put into action. Otherwise it is all just academic, armchair quarterbacking. I am reminded of an oft-quoted phrase, "Those who can't do, teach." It's time to see if 'doing' or 'teaching' is the way ahead for me. There is merit and need for both. I may have come to the fork in the road. I have been leading myself for the last 3 years and, of course, I like the results I get. I wonder if that particular leadership style and approach can be transferred to others....We'll see.
Second, this blog and a parallel one that I run on the Army's webpage blew up in a totally unexpected manner. Over the last month or so, I have increasingly participated in forum discussions and information exchanges within AKO (Army Knowledge Online). That introduced me to a person who then read this blog. She shared the link with some other people in her office and by the end of the week, it had been forwarded to some other high ranking folks who also expressed an interest. Throughout the week, I had some phone calls and exchanges with people who are interested in my thoughts and experiences, specifically with regard to Iraq and the aftermath, and the journey of leadership discovery I've started here. I want the thank G.E. and J.D for seeing something here that they deem worth reading. I am honored to be a small player in their process. It is also nice to know that the audience is growing.
Third, there was a 'bloggers' roundtable discussion this week between LTG Mark Hertling and the media regarding Initial Military Training (IME). The conversation itself centered on changes being made to IME in light of the needs of our current Army, a realization that physical fitness in recruits has declined and that it will take longer to develop them without injuring them, that we need to update our values and ethics training, and finally, that there are unique characteristics of the Millennial generation that the Army must address. In general, a lot of what I have been writing and commenting on since I started this. The important part though was how I found it. It was posted to the TRADOC group on Facebook! Wait, a 3 star general holding an information conference with bloggers and it was posted to a social media site? Wow! The times they really are 'a changin'.
The purpose of the OODA process is to shorten the decision - time cycle by learning to recognize yourself, your adversary, and the environment as quickly and clearly as possible to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. I suddenly find myself squarely inside my own OODA loop. Unfolding circumstances are happening in 'real time' and my mental and environmental 'comfort zones' are changing. It will be good to challenge my ideas and assumptions. Otherwise, I might begin to believe my own bullshit.
Trust and respect. These 2 ideas are intimately tied to each other. It is impossible to gain trust without first earning respect. Conversely, their can be no respect without an attendant element of trust. Discipline, both individual and group is the framework for building both. How discipline is exercised, imposed or displayed will have an marked effect on the measure of trust and respect reciprocated between the leader and the led.
Let me try 3 series of free-flowing thoughts and see if I can tie some of this together:
People are more important than things....people are the singular most important part of the Army....any organization requires a common value system and ethic to function....respect for both the person and the institution engenders trust....trust and respect are demonstrated through individual discipline and acceptance of group norms....
OODA can be applied to human leadership....senior leaders are recognizing the changing conditions (both human and environmental) and are trying to shorten the 'decision - time' cycle....
I will have the opportunity to put some of these thoughts into practice again....I am no longer so arrogantly self-confident that I can guarantee a particular outcome.... Iraq changed that. The outcome is not a forgone conclusion. In fact, there are as many possible outcomes as their are people involved. The important part is to be able to OODA that in 'real time'. The six views of every situation will be critical to remember. Now, the best that I can do is to remain firmly centered in my personal value system, recognize that others view our shared world differently than I do, clearly and plainly state the Task, Purpose and Intent, and demonstrate the respect for the talents and ideas of others that will engender trust. All because people are more important than things.
.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#50 Finding My Voice
"No matter how fine it's weapons, no matter how accurate it's intelligence, in the final analysis, the Army is dependant on the quality of it's men" - General Matthew Ridgway
I started this enterprise about 9 months ago to provide me a place to think . The events of the last 4 years have caused me to reconsider many of the ideas that prior to that point, I had taken for granted. My professional life had moved along nicely and given me no reason to think otherwise. I had been promoted and awarded and was generally considered 'one of the good guys'. Iraq - and it's aftermath of investigations, courts martial, the Green trial, and finally "Black Hearts" brought much of what I knew (or thought I knew) about leadership into question and the blog provides me a place to work through some of the lingering issues.
It has become a journey in it's own right. Once I started looking below the surface I realized that the study of human being leadership is incredibly complex and nuanced. You cannot apply cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solutions to it. And that is where the journey really began. Now, 50 posts later, I have come to a different understanding not only of leadership as an idea or theory, but I have also begun to realize how critical the complexities and nuances are - especially when it has to be exercised in extreme situations.
Originally, this journey was somewhat haphazard. Each week something would strike me and I'd try to follow that thread to some cosmic level, or conversely, take a cosmic idea and make it fit into my understanding. That's kind of the first 20 posts or so. OODA, marksmanship, women in combat, the ideas of senior Army leaders etc. No real theme, just general scattered thoughts and opinions that seemed somehow related to my search for awareness and understanding.
In the last month or so however, and I think importantly, with the addition of the Values Series , things are beginning to gain a rough outline and form. The idea now is to summarize some of the various ideas and bring them together. I am finding out that in leadership it is often the strings that attach larger ideas that are the most important part.
In any organization, values and ethics play an incredibly complex and ever-changing role. These are both the individual values of the people who are part of the organization, and the stated norms of behavior for the institution itself. The institution usually has some codified set of underpinning ethos that guides it. In business it might be profit margin, in a non-profit it may be the ability to assist the less-fortunate, for a preservationist group it may be protection of natural resources etc. For the military, there is something called the PME, the Professional Military Ethic. PME is the set of guiding principles that form the acceptable norms of behavior for the Army. Mission accomplishment, dedication to the service itself, self-sacrifice etc.
However, the institutional ethic must be challenged and relooked every now and again to see whether it remains relevant to those who comprise it. The Army is beginning to study that again after 8 years of war, because it's last review was most likely done in peacetime and under different operating conditions. The values of the individuals who comprise the institution become very very important to defining the institution itself. For example, if a businesses ethos is driven by profit margin, then those who work there will prize one set of personal values over another. If making a profit it the key, then how I do it may not be all that important. An extreme example of that idea could be eco-terrorism where the 'preservationist' ethic believes that spiking trees and injuring loggers is fair play to preserve the natural environment. Therefore, while the institutional ethic of preservation may be something that I espouse, the value system of the people that leads to methods such as tree spiking might be something that I cannot. You cannot have an successful institutional ethos, without having a complimentary common personal value system.
So, leadership must start with the inculcation of individual values. It is pointless to argue what a generation should or should not have internalized for values when they arrive at your door. They will come as they are. After all, it was the previous generation of leaders and the environment that created the current generation of followers. For example, many people in the Army are complaining (as they always have) about this generation of Soldiers. They're fat, they're lazy, they break too easily, they don't have any backbone etc. What's overlooked in that statement is that we made them. The reason many of them are fat and lazy and don't know how to live in the outside world, is that we didn't, or couldn't, provide that to them. Many many Soldiers come from single parent homes that are the result of the explosion in the divorce rate in the 80's, and from less than ideal backgrounds. So, if I'm a single or divorced parent working 40 or more hours a week just to provide the basic provisions for my family, then my children come home from school and lock themselves in the house and do their chores and then plop themselves in front of the computer or television until I get home. Then we eat dinner and the responsibilities of household maintenance eat up another hour or 2 until we collapse exhausted and start the cycle all over again the next day. The collapse of the previous family model - a primary breadwinner and a primary parent who ferried children to school and clubs and sporting events etc has had an effect on the development of young people. No one's fault. And not necessarily all bad. For example, while the divorce rate in America may be high, most divorced parents do try very hard to provide stability and care for their children. There is a lesson there - namely that even though I might not like my ex anymore, I still have professional obligations to interact with them as equitably as possible. So, in exchange for fat and lazy, we may have gotten flexibility and the idea of fair interaction.
Values are key. Recognizing how they are being formed in real time, not as we were raised, or as we might wish them to be is the next understanding. There are 6 separate but equal parts to leading people and accomplishing any mission or task.
1. How the leader sees the problem.
2. How the follower sees the problem.
3. How the leader sees the follower.
4. How the follower sees the leader.
5. How the leader sees the environment.
6. How the follower sees the environment.
HOW ALL OF THOSE INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER
OODA provides a mechanism to do that. While COL Boyd saw the OODA cycle in operational and strategic terms, I believe that it can also be applied to human leadership in this manner:
1. I must know me and understand my 'Orientation'. (Why I think, act, and operate like I do.)
2. I must gain an understanding of my leaders and followers and try to gain an understanding of their 'Orientations'. (Why those above and below me think, act, and operate like they do.)
3. Both leader and follower must have a common 'Orientation' towards the operating environment. (What's the problem and what solutions are available to solve it?)
The Army spends very little time requiring leaders to study self-awareness. Instead of focusing on those skills, abilities and attributes that make each leader unique, they spend too much time focusing on the processes that try to make each leader the same. Only after tragedy or triumph do we spend any time looking at the human beings who participated in either event. "Black Hearts" is instructive in that manner. Had those events never happened, then no one would have called into question the 'leadership' abilities of any of the participants. In fact, had they never happened, many of the maligned leaders would have been viewed entirely differently by the institution. The same can be true for many heroic' leaders. Had some decision they made turned out differently, then their actions may not have been viewed so heroically. If Audie Murphy gets killed, instead of holding off a furious attack, then we wouldn't have a legend, we'd have just another dead Soldier. If you read "Black Hearts" on a larger level, what you will see is that many of the characters did not have a well formed 'self-awareness' mechanism and that their individualized 'Orientation' of their environment was not shared by others. There were individual moral value failures, coupled with a confusing institutional ethic that was missed by most people due to a lack of ability to accurately and quickly OODA their environment from more than one viewpoint. If you look at the alleged 'leadership' deficiencies, what you will find is that most of them were most likely in the interaction and inter-relationship of the 6 parts outlined above.
Another key part of leader and organizational development is a healthy 'loyal opposition' component. Without a mechanism for critical debate and opposing viewpoints almost every organization will, over time, degenerate. The posts about GM and the collapse of the automobile industry were an attempt to point that out. Senior leaders in the Army seem to also recognize this, but the vast middle isn't there yet. 'Loyal opposition' is also important to relevancy. Jut as industry always has a future concept and design component, so too should any organization where the principle component is people. Without the dialogue to challenge existing ideas and behaviors, the corporate ethos becomes too dogmatic instead of being continually dynamic.
Which all comes back to this. The Army Future Force Concept plan recognizes and calls for a more decentralized focus and operations in the years ahead. The document is the framework for everything we do from the schoolhouse, to acquisition, to training, to operating, so it is critically important. It defines how the Army will spend it's resources - both human and material for a decade or more.
Decentralization requires trust. Trust requires a common understanding of the problem and accepts that there may be a variety of solutions. Trust recognizes that a solution may not work or have the intended outcome. The solution chosen will be based largely on the value system of the individual and their understanding of the ethical framework of the institution. The Institution is made of people who come from a particular time, place and environment - therefore their personal value systems are subject to change and be different than their superiors and subordinates. Recognizing that different generations can have different values and different views on how to solve a problem is key. Providing the opportunity for that interaction to occur is critical to operational success and relevancy. Tying all of that together in a commonly understood PME is the hard job of leadership.
The first 50 have been fun. I'm looking forward to the next. As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
I started this enterprise about 9 months ago to provide me a place to think . The events of the last 4 years have caused me to reconsider many of the ideas that prior to that point, I had taken for granted. My professional life had moved along nicely and given me no reason to think otherwise. I had been promoted and awarded and was generally considered 'one of the good guys'. Iraq - and it's aftermath of investigations, courts martial, the Green trial, and finally "Black Hearts" brought much of what I knew (or thought I knew) about leadership into question and the blog provides me a place to work through some of the lingering issues.
It has become a journey in it's own right. Once I started looking below the surface I realized that the study of human being leadership is incredibly complex and nuanced. You cannot apply cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solutions to it. And that is where the journey really began. Now, 50 posts later, I have come to a different understanding not only of leadership as an idea or theory, but I have also begun to realize how critical the complexities and nuances are - especially when it has to be exercised in extreme situations.
Originally, this journey was somewhat haphazard. Each week something would strike me and I'd try to follow that thread to some cosmic level, or conversely, take a cosmic idea and make it fit into my understanding. That's kind of the first 20 posts or so. OODA, marksmanship, women in combat, the ideas of senior Army leaders etc. No real theme, just general scattered thoughts and opinions that seemed somehow related to my search for awareness and understanding.
In the last month or so however, and I think importantly, with the addition of the Values Series , things are beginning to gain a rough outline and form. The idea now is to summarize some of the various ideas and bring them together. I am finding out that in leadership it is often the strings that attach larger ideas that are the most important part.
In any organization, values and ethics play an incredibly complex and ever-changing role. These are both the individual values of the people who are part of the organization, and the stated norms of behavior for the institution itself. The institution usually has some codified set of underpinning ethos that guides it. In business it might be profit margin, in a non-profit it may be the ability to assist the less-fortunate, for a preservationist group it may be protection of natural resources etc. For the military, there is something called the PME, the Professional Military Ethic. PME is the set of guiding principles that form the acceptable norms of behavior for the Army. Mission accomplishment, dedication to the service itself, self-sacrifice etc.
However, the institutional ethic must be challenged and relooked every now and again to see whether it remains relevant to those who comprise it. The Army is beginning to study that again after 8 years of war, because it's last review was most likely done in peacetime and under different operating conditions. The values of the individuals who comprise the institution become very very important to defining the institution itself. For example, if a businesses ethos is driven by profit margin, then those who work there will prize one set of personal values over another. If making a profit it the key, then how I do it may not be all that important. An extreme example of that idea could be eco-terrorism where the 'preservationist' ethic believes that spiking trees and injuring loggers is fair play to preserve the natural environment. Therefore, while the institutional ethic of preservation may be something that I espouse, the value system of the people that leads to methods such as tree spiking might be something that I cannot. You cannot have an successful institutional ethos, without having a complimentary common personal value system.
So, leadership must start with the inculcation of individual values. It is pointless to argue what a generation should or should not have internalized for values when they arrive at your door. They will come as they are. After all, it was the previous generation of leaders and the environment that created the current generation of followers. For example, many people in the Army are complaining (as they always have) about this generation of Soldiers. They're fat, they're lazy, they break too easily, they don't have any backbone etc. What's overlooked in that statement is that we made them. The reason many of them are fat and lazy and don't know how to live in the outside world, is that we didn't, or couldn't, provide that to them. Many many Soldiers come from single parent homes that are the result of the explosion in the divorce rate in the 80's, and from less than ideal backgrounds. So, if I'm a single or divorced parent working 40 or more hours a week just to provide the basic provisions for my family, then my children come home from school and lock themselves in the house and do their chores and then plop themselves in front of the computer or television until I get home. Then we eat dinner and the responsibilities of household maintenance eat up another hour or 2 until we collapse exhausted and start the cycle all over again the next day. The collapse of the previous family model - a primary breadwinner and a primary parent who ferried children to school and clubs and sporting events etc has had an effect on the development of young people. No one's fault. And not necessarily all bad. For example, while the divorce rate in America may be high, most divorced parents do try very hard to provide stability and care for their children. There is a lesson there - namely that even though I might not like my ex anymore, I still have professional obligations to interact with them as equitably as possible. So, in exchange for fat and lazy, we may have gotten flexibility and the idea of fair interaction.
Values are key. Recognizing how they are being formed in real time, not as we were raised, or as we might wish them to be is the next understanding. There are 6 separate but equal parts to leading people and accomplishing any mission or task.
1. How the leader sees the problem.
2. How the follower sees the problem.
3. How the leader sees the follower.
4. How the follower sees the leader.
5. How the leader sees the environment.
6. How the follower sees the environment.
HOW ALL OF THOSE INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER
OODA provides a mechanism to do that. While COL Boyd saw the OODA cycle in operational and strategic terms, I believe that it can also be applied to human leadership in this manner:
1. I must know me and understand my 'Orientation'. (Why I think, act, and operate like I do.)
2. I must gain an understanding of my leaders and followers and try to gain an understanding of their 'Orientations'. (Why those above and below me think, act, and operate like they do.)
3. Both leader and follower must have a common 'Orientation' towards the operating environment. (What's the problem and what solutions are available to solve it?)
The Army spends very little time requiring leaders to study self-awareness. Instead of focusing on those skills, abilities and attributes that make each leader unique, they spend too much time focusing on the processes that try to make each leader the same. Only after tragedy or triumph do we spend any time looking at the human beings who participated in either event. "Black Hearts" is instructive in that manner. Had those events never happened, then no one would have called into question the 'leadership' abilities of any of the participants. In fact, had they never happened, many of the maligned leaders would have been viewed entirely differently by the institution. The same can be true for many heroic' leaders. Had some decision they made turned out differently, then their actions may not have been viewed so heroically. If Audie Murphy gets killed, instead of holding off a furious attack, then we wouldn't have a legend, we'd have just another dead Soldier. If you read "Black Hearts" on a larger level, what you will see is that many of the characters did not have a well formed 'self-awareness' mechanism and that their individualized 'Orientation' of their environment was not shared by others. There were individual moral value failures, coupled with a confusing institutional ethic that was missed by most people due to a lack of ability to accurately and quickly OODA their environment from more than one viewpoint. If you look at the alleged 'leadership' deficiencies, what you will find is that most of them were most likely in the interaction and inter-relationship of the 6 parts outlined above.
Another key part of leader and organizational development is a healthy 'loyal opposition' component. Without a mechanism for critical debate and opposing viewpoints almost every organization will, over time, degenerate. The posts about GM and the collapse of the automobile industry were an attempt to point that out. Senior leaders in the Army seem to also recognize this, but the vast middle isn't there yet. 'Loyal opposition' is also important to relevancy. Jut as industry always has a future concept and design component, so too should any organization where the principle component is people. Without the dialogue to challenge existing ideas and behaviors, the corporate ethos becomes too dogmatic instead of being continually dynamic.
Which all comes back to this. The Army Future Force Concept plan recognizes and calls for a more decentralized focus and operations in the years ahead. The document is the framework for everything we do from the schoolhouse, to acquisition, to training, to operating, so it is critically important. It defines how the Army will spend it's resources - both human and material for a decade or more.
Decentralization requires trust. Trust requires a common understanding of the problem and accepts that there may be a variety of solutions. Trust recognizes that a solution may not work or have the intended outcome. The solution chosen will be based largely on the value system of the individual and their understanding of the ethical framework of the institution. The Institution is made of people who come from a particular time, place and environment - therefore their personal value systems are subject to change and be different than their superiors and subordinates. Recognizing that different generations can have different values and different views on how to solve a problem is key. Providing the opportunity for that interaction to occur is critical to operational success and relevancy. Tying all of that together in a commonly understood PME is the hard job of leadership.
The first 50 have been fun. I'm looking forward to the next. As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)