This idea has been rolling around in my head for some time now but just hasn't quite made it to the blog yet. It centers around self-awareness and the importance of seeing yourself from a somewhat independent view. It came into focus a little more sharply this weekend from two conversations I had with two people at different points in their careers.
On Friday evening I went to dinner with a dear friend who will retire next Summer after 22 years of service. When I first learned of her choice, I doubted its' truth because she has been suffering under a boss lately who has done a lot to change her overall feeling about continuing to stay in the Army. I wondered if she might be taking a long term solution to a short term problem. On her last night in America on leave we went to a quiet restaurant and I asked her why she was hanging it up now. Her answers were truthful, poignant, and I think, reflect the thoughts and feelings that many of us face as we reach the end of our career. Essentially, her comments came down to this: She has served the Army since she was 17 years old. Her entire adult life has been in service to her Nation, her Army, and her Soldiers. She does not know how to do, or be, anything else. A lot of her self-definition comes from her professional being. But now she has started taking stock of that life and found out that along the way, she denied herself a lot of things. While service can provide focus and purpose and meaning, she is now becoming much more aware of the emptiness that sometimes surrounds her life. She desires something more complete. No more 16 hour days and coming home to an empty house. No more weekends where her dogs equal her companionship. No more requirement for 24 hour a day dedication to dealing with what someone else feels is the 'crisis of the moment'. It is time for her to dedicate some time to her in the hope that she can fill some of the empty spaces that her 22 years of service have created. She is not bitter about them, nor angry, nor sad, just aware. She is feeling a more acute need to fill those spaces, and that cannot only be done by the Army. Her definition requires more.
As we were talking, I asked her to consider what message, what legacy, she wanted to leave behind for those Soldiers who look at her as a role model. What message did she have for them?
The second conversation was with a female Drill Sergeant who had asked me for some advice concerning a follow-on assignment after her current tour ends. We had a great talk about a lot of things, but towards the end came upon the question of how her Soldiers view her. What do they see when they remember or think about her? What message does her presence and her service send? She is at a much different place in her career than my other friend. She is in the middle of the fray right now, fighting and searching and learning, and developing. The 'game' of the Army is still challenging and provides her with a lot to do, see, and learn. Her adventure is only just beginning. She is in many ways, the very same person as my first friend - totally absorbed in the requirements of the profession and somewhat unaware of the costs it extracts. She strikes me as willing to think deeply about herself, her awareness, and her roles, she just needs a mentor to foster the discussion.
Those two conversations set the stage for this:
There are 3 distinct people in each of us and as leaders we need to be aware of each of them equally. First, there is you. Who you really are - all alone in the dark by yourself. The you that that no one can see. This one admits your fears, your weaknesses, your hopes, desires and dreams. It admits your failings and foibles and those things that the outside world is generally not privy to. It accepts your idiosyncrasies, and habits. It's the you that only a life-long spouse might know after all the layers have been stripped away. It is the you who is both conceited and contrite, arrogant and fearful, generous and hateful. It is the you who admits it's shallowness and bigotry as equally as it lauds it's importance and contributions.
Then there is the professional you. That person who steps out into the world everyday and presents an image of something. This you is the interaction with the world and is full of judgment and doubt and role-playing. This is also the world of expectation. This you is partially a character created by the 'alone' you to hide those things you do not want others to see, and to navigate your way through the requirements of your outside world. This you generally paints the prettiest, most competent picture for others to consume. This you is often like a movie set where the picture on the screen is of an idyllic view of what the director wants the viewer to see, but it is only the store-front, or paint on canvas. Behind it there really is no structure.
Finally, there is the you as seen by that outside world. How others view you. What they see, hear, and feel through their interaction with you. It equals their interpretation of you. Their Orientation. An understanding of this you is very important because it has a lot to do with how your thoughts, ideas, plans, visisions, orders, directives etc get (or do not get) implemented. A lack of understanding that, who you think they see and interact with can be very different from their understanding of who they see and interact with, might be the least explored (and potentially most important) area of any leader development program. While we spend a lot of time trying to get folks to know themselves and to see the impact of that awareness on how they lead, we generally do not spend a lot of time fostering an awareness that the message we think we are sending might not be close to the message that those around us are receiving. To follow the movie set theme, this is the audience. They sit in their seats and think they are seeing a picture of downtown USA, but do not realize that it is partialy a facade. They are not permitted to look behind the wall. And if that is true, then aren't we selling them that facade? Soldiers follow because they believe in you and what you represent and their understanding of those things. If all we are is a facade of professionalism, haven't we done them a huge disservice?
The goal for true leadership competency should be to gain awareness of these three parts, and to bring them all together as closely as possible. Who I am when I am alone should closely resemble who my world sees as I interact with it, and if that happens, then in all likelihood, my world's interpretation of me will be pretty close as well.
Why does all this matter? Why can't I create two seperate people - the one I am by myself, and the one I give away for public consumption and interpretation? Why can't the professional and the personal me be separate? Simply stated: If you choose to live that way, sooner or later you will be undone by one or the other and then those you lead will never trust you again. Soldiers do not act, have faith in, or follow you because you hold a rank, position, or title. Not really. They may follow originally because they must based upon those things, but ultimately they do so reluctantly and without faith. Soldiers follow because they believe in you and that faith generates from their being able to find things in you that they can relate to. If they cannot find traits and behaviors and ideas to consider in their interaction with you then they are merely employees who will serve for only as long as the cost/benefit ratio makes sense to them. Soldiers who truly believe in you will follow you almost instinctively and with a faith that cannot be quantified or proven. And they cannot do that, and will not do that, if they think you are merely an actor playing a role in some long drawn out drama. Sooner or later they will decide to change the channel.
I try very hard to be honest about who I am with my Soldiers. Sometimes probably too much so. There really aren't too many secrets to my life. If you ask me, I'll likely tell you. My life and my experiences are pretty much an open book. I have found that it is a much more honest and ultimately positive way to lead. While I may not always be proud of myself or things I have done, I have found that there is not too much to be afraid of there. I try very hard not to sell an illusion. I may be a role model, but it is a role model with all the warts and failings and cheapness that can be me. When I speak to them about the roles we each have to play in the organization, it is not about personal acting or role-playing, it is about institutional positions and the expectations of each part of the organization. I play the role of the senior leader. It is the job I have. It has requirements and expectations. I have obligations to it. But it is not completely who I am. My Soldiers have roles to play as well, but they are not completely who they are. These are only one part of the larger awarenesses that we all possess.
My friend who is getting ready to retire appears to me to have recognized this. She gave all she had for a lot of years to her development and to living in the professional world. And now she recognizes the cost of that commitment. My friend the Drill Sergeant isn't fully aware yet, or hasn't totally recognized, the power of the role she is playing. And yet both are outstanding leaders. I wonder what words of wisdom the retiree will leave behind to her young acolytes who look to follow in her footsteps? I wonder if the Drill Sergeant can see that who she is all alone at night is a hell of a lot more powerful as a leader than the role she plays during the day? I wonder if either of them recognizes that they are being looked at, studied and emulated by others. And the greatest message there is that if you recognize that they want to be like you, shouldn't you at least provide them the fullest understanding of who you are?
Sometimes I wonder why I have been able to affect some folks the way that I have. Although I don't fully understand it, I am aware that there are people who look up to me, emulate me, and try to model themselves after me. When it comes up in conversation and I ask them why they feel that way, a lot of them seem to struggle a bit for an answer. They are not quite sure why they feel that way, but most will generally settle on this idea: I am real. I am not acting. My emotions are not crafted or hidden. I am human. Ultimately they find more to look up to in Jeff Fenlason than they do in Master Sergeant Fenlason, and somehow, it seems to me, there is a great lesson in leadership there. If only we all weren't so busy trying to hide all the time.
To my friends - Thank you both for helping me get to this place. I appreciate and celebrate the journeys you both are on. Thanks for letting me spend a small part of it with you.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#105 A Fragile First Step
"Boyd's sin was no less than a complete challenge to the way the American people and military were used to doing business. Schooled to prefer formulaic answers, checklists, and school solutions...it shuns openess, non-linearity and auftragstaktik (mission orders) in favor of technology, attrition and mass. It dislikes the political aspects of war and would prefer to apply merely military force to the targets selected. The syllogism works something like this: strategy equals targeting. The number and nature of targets destroyed best measure success. When all the targets are destroyed, the war is over. It is playing checkers, not chess. It's an attrition approach to war. It ignores the reality that it is the adversary who may determine if he will surrender, when, and on what terms. The American military in general sees war as a science and not an art, and are disposed to treat it as such. Despite using terminology stressing strategic effects, the military still tends to focus on the outputs (keeping score on targets) instead of on outcomes (the effects they seek to achieve).
Grant T. Hammond "The Mind at War - John Boyd and American Security"
I found this last night and started thinking about whether or not we have really made a true shift in how the Army thinks and does business despite all of the changes that have occurred over the last 10 years. Are we truly a changed culture? Will the requirements for adaptation firmly take hold, or will they simply be a small asterisk in our history books, "* For a 10 year period surrounding the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army dedicated itself to decentralization and agility. Sadly, with the end of those conflicts, the change did not last." In effect, this period of war has the potential to end too soon. Because change in the Army is so slow, we are only now beginning to see the human development requirements that decentralized warfare demands. If the Army comes home for good and the deployments and requirements for adaptation and development are no longer there, then I fear that a lot of the progress that has been made in leader development might simply fade away.
I lead in a very messy manner. I truly believe in subordinate empowerment and try as hard as I can to encourage and (at times) force my subordinates to provide their input and ideas to a problem. This leads to arguments and frustration and confusion on all sides. Sometimes they do not understand what I'm getting after and many times I do not understand their point of view and we must continually confront each other until we reach some form of common understanding. It can be time consuming and slow. It is inherently inefficient. It often leads to people feeling very frustrated and angry when they don't 'win' the argument, or I don't choose their preferred course of action. In the long run however, I still believe that this is the right method, not only for personal leadership at the one-on-one level, but also for the institution. I believe sincerely that the Army is going to have to fully adopt a more inclusive, a more questioning, and a more argumentative leadership model if it wants to retain any of the positive behavioral changes that the last 10 years have begun.
Why? Why would I choose to believe in a leadership model that encourages dissent, disagreement, and open questioning of authority and knowledge? The answer is actually very simple. In most cases, all of those things equal development. It teaches how to think. By allowing my subordinates to openly challenge me and my assumptions, they are being forced to think harder about the problem itself. They are being forced to question preconceived ideas about a potential solution. They are being required to think more deeply about what might, at first glance, appear to be a very surface level issue. And those same forces are at work from them to me. They make me think and question and challenge. They make me work harder to develop the best solution to the problem. They force me to continue to learn and grow. Success becomes collective, not individual. And of all the things that we need to hold on to that have been outcomes of our decade at war, the ability to think deeply and understand the variety of effects an individual action can have, is certainly the most critical.
Consider this from "The Mind of War":
"The implicit contract in maneuver warfare is mission type orders or auftragstaktik. The subordinate agrees to take near-term actions in keeping with the higher commander's intent. The superior agrees to allow his subordinate the freedom of judgment necessary to determine exactly how that should be accomplished. He is thus empowered to both recognize and take advantage of opportunities that he may encounter. The purpose is to harmonize, as Boyd would say, the actions and initiatives of the subordinate commanders with the superior's intent.....It provides a bottom-up, outside-in, real-world response in real time to transformations on the battlefield and thereby creates operational fluidity." Counterinsurgent warfare requires these things. We know that and have begun to encourage that initiative taking, but only in the last 3 years or so. It has not yet become the model for continued leader development. It is akin to an experiment that has had great results, but does not yet have developed protocols.
What that quote above doesn't say is that the development of those abilities to judge, perceive, and take advantage of situations to create advantage takes time, trust, and above all, a system that encourages initiative and growth. It is slow, inefficient, and extremely personal. The results will be a question mark, rather than empirical data. It is a system that for the Army, is in it's infancy. A system that is still very vulnerable to being discounted and written off only as a short term solution to the unique challenges of this period and type of warfare.
Why am I worried that the changes that have been implemented might not have developed a strong enough root structure yet to withstand the systemic assault that they will soon face? Because the evidence of the attack is everywhere. We are being told now that suddenly money will become scarce, so we will have to act efficiently to make the most of our resources. We are already seeing the return of the Power Point army of endless briefings and charts. We are already programming the expected training levels for units who don't even have a stated mission. I have read document after document that lays out a particular path that must be followed to achieve some arbitrary readiness state. And most disturbing of all, I have seen implementation guidance for personnel strength that extends the periods of service for those at the top of the NCO structure, but shortens the service for those at the bottom. The system is pushing back. It is trying to mount a counter-attack against the gains made by those who favor personal development as the key component in leader development in the years ahead. We have senior leaders stating that we must enhance and expand the educational opportunities of our mid-grade officers and (to a much lessor degree) NCO's, but when the bean-counters say, "Well, you can send X-thousand officers to grad school and hope they come back with expanded knowledge and judgment, or you can buy a new piece of equipment, but you can't do both.", which side do you think will win? And why are we extending the service life of those at the very top of the pile, when at the same time we are closing, compacting, and reducing the sheer number of units and formations, and organizations we have? How many senior NCO's and officers work at Joint Forces Command? If it gets closed, where will they go? If you add only 100 senior NCO's back into the Force, it has a trickle down effect on the entire structure for years to come. Advancements slow down, people become disenchanted because they cannot contribute in a meaningful manner and have their contributions pay off. A move like this almost begs for a return to a CYA, bureaucratic, keep-your-head-down-and-weather-the-storm response. We are headed in the wrong direction. What we should be doing is clearing the top out and elevating the middle while at the same time implementing these nascent leader development strategies we now have and then turning this back to the Force.
The most critical skill or attribute that anyone who would lead Soldiers in battle must possess is judgment. The ability to perceive, and then examine, and then create a course of action that will lead to the desired outcome. As long as war will be fought by men, this requirement is paramount. Without it, the amount of firepower a nation or group possesses won't matter. The key to prevailing in a struggle is knowing when, where, how much, and why you want to use it. And sometimes having the courage to decide not to.
We have taken a fragile first step toward enhancing the personal development of our younger leaders. We must be extremely careful not to have it washed away because we will not be able to accurately measure it's success or failure until the next war comes along.
A final thought: Earlier this week, I came across the following quote from Steven Covey:
"I am personally convinced that one person can be a change catalyst, a transformer in any situation, any organization. Such an individual is yeast that leavens the entire loaf. Ir requires vision, initiative, patience, respect, persistence, courage and faith to be a transforming leader.
To understand the power the system can have as it fights back to against change, consider this. Last week I had a conversation with someone who has been a supporter of my writing from almost the beginning. When I asked if there was a place for me and my ideas on leader development in the Army, he replied, "Not really. What you need to do is go be a First Sergeant. That way you become (my words not his) eligible to stay in the game." 105 straight weeks, hundreds or written pages, and tons of emails telling me to keep thinking, and pushing and writing, and the system has no place for me? That is how the system exerts it's pressure. That is the pressure we all must resist. Messy leadership, defined by mutual respect, a desire to learn, dialogue and the development of increased judgment is the road ahead. Those who think it is only relevant to counterinsurgency operations are simply wrong. If we truly prize adaptability, then we have to develop leaders who possess the ability to discern both sides of an issue, can see emerging trends, and take advantage of opportunities when presented. All in keeping with the trust they have been given by their superiors. This period of leader development is like a new-born baby. There will be a lot of messy nights along the way, but someday we can all look back with pride at a future leader and say, "I helped create that." We owe it to those at the bottom. We most often pay the price for failure at their level.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Grant T. Hammond "The Mind at War - John Boyd and American Security"
I found this last night and started thinking about whether or not we have really made a true shift in how the Army thinks and does business despite all of the changes that have occurred over the last 10 years. Are we truly a changed culture? Will the requirements for adaptation firmly take hold, or will they simply be a small asterisk in our history books, "* For a 10 year period surrounding the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army dedicated itself to decentralization and agility. Sadly, with the end of those conflicts, the change did not last." In effect, this period of war has the potential to end too soon. Because change in the Army is so slow, we are only now beginning to see the human development requirements that decentralized warfare demands. If the Army comes home for good and the deployments and requirements for adaptation and development are no longer there, then I fear that a lot of the progress that has been made in leader development might simply fade away.
I lead in a very messy manner. I truly believe in subordinate empowerment and try as hard as I can to encourage and (at times) force my subordinates to provide their input and ideas to a problem. This leads to arguments and frustration and confusion on all sides. Sometimes they do not understand what I'm getting after and many times I do not understand their point of view and we must continually confront each other until we reach some form of common understanding. It can be time consuming and slow. It is inherently inefficient. It often leads to people feeling very frustrated and angry when they don't 'win' the argument, or I don't choose their preferred course of action. In the long run however, I still believe that this is the right method, not only for personal leadership at the one-on-one level, but also for the institution. I believe sincerely that the Army is going to have to fully adopt a more inclusive, a more questioning, and a more argumentative leadership model if it wants to retain any of the positive behavioral changes that the last 10 years have begun.
Why? Why would I choose to believe in a leadership model that encourages dissent, disagreement, and open questioning of authority and knowledge? The answer is actually very simple. In most cases, all of those things equal development. It teaches how to think. By allowing my subordinates to openly challenge me and my assumptions, they are being forced to think harder about the problem itself. They are being forced to question preconceived ideas about a potential solution. They are being required to think more deeply about what might, at first glance, appear to be a very surface level issue. And those same forces are at work from them to me. They make me think and question and challenge. They make me work harder to develop the best solution to the problem. They force me to continue to learn and grow. Success becomes collective, not individual. And of all the things that we need to hold on to that have been outcomes of our decade at war, the ability to think deeply and understand the variety of effects an individual action can have, is certainly the most critical.
Consider this from "The Mind of War":
"The implicit contract in maneuver warfare is mission type orders or auftragstaktik. The subordinate agrees to take near-term actions in keeping with the higher commander's intent. The superior agrees to allow his subordinate the freedom of judgment necessary to determine exactly how that should be accomplished. He is thus empowered to both recognize and take advantage of opportunities that he may encounter. The purpose is to harmonize, as Boyd would say, the actions and initiatives of the subordinate commanders with the superior's intent.....It provides a bottom-up, outside-in, real-world response in real time to transformations on the battlefield and thereby creates operational fluidity." Counterinsurgent warfare requires these things. We know that and have begun to encourage that initiative taking, but only in the last 3 years or so. It has not yet become the model for continued leader development. It is akin to an experiment that has had great results, but does not yet have developed protocols.
What that quote above doesn't say is that the development of those abilities to judge, perceive, and take advantage of situations to create advantage takes time, trust, and above all, a system that encourages initiative and growth. It is slow, inefficient, and extremely personal. The results will be a question mark, rather than empirical data. It is a system that for the Army, is in it's infancy. A system that is still very vulnerable to being discounted and written off only as a short term solution to the unique challenges of this period and type of warfare.
Why am I worried that the changes that have been implemented might not have developed a strong enough root structure yet to withstand the systemic assault that they will soon face? Because the evidence of the attack is everywhere. We are being told now that suddenly money will become scarce, so we will have to act efficiently to make the most of our resources. We are already seeing the return of the Power Point army of endless briefings and charts. We are already programming the expected training levels for units who don't even have a stated mission. I have read document after document that lays out a particular path that must be followed to achieve some arbitrary readiness state. And most disturbing of all, I have seen implementation guidance for personnel strength that extends the periods of service for those at the top of the NCO structure, but shortens the service for those at the bottom. The system is pushing back. It is trying to mount a counter-attack against the gains made by those who favor personal development as the key component in leader development in the years ahead. We have senior leaders stating that we must enhance and expand the educational opportunities of our mid-grade officers and (to a much lessor degree) NCO's, but when the bean-counters say, "Well, you can send X-thousand officers to grad school and hope they come back with expanded knowledge and judgment, or you can buy a new piece of equipment, but you can't do both.", which side do you think will win? And why are we extending the service life of those at the very top of the pile, when at the same time we are closing, compacting, and reducing the sheer number of units and formations, and organizations we have? How many senior NCO's and officers work at Joint Forces Command? If it gets closed, where will they go? If you add only 100 senior NCO's back into the Force, it has a trickle down effect on the entire structure for years to come. Advancements slow down, people become disenchanted because they cannot contribute in a meaningful manner and have their contributions pay off. A move like this almost begs for a return to a CYA, bureaucratic, keep-your-head-down-and-weather-the-storm response. We are headed in the wrong direction. What we should be doing is clearing the top out and elevating the middle while at the same time implementing these nascent leader development strategies we now have and then turning this back to the Force.
The most critical skill or attribute that anyone who would lead Soldiers in battle must possess is judgment. The ability to perceive, and then examine, and then create a course of action that will lead to the desired outcome. As long as war will be fought by men, this requirement is paramount. Without it, the amount of firepower a nation or group possesses won't matter. The key to prevailing in a struggle is knowing when, where, how much, and why you want to use it. And sometimes having the courage to decide not to.
We have taken a fragile first step toward enhancing the personal development of our younger leaders. We must be extremely careful not to have it washed away because we will not be able to accurately measure it's success or failure until the next war comes along.
A final thought: Earlier this week, I came across the following quote from Steven Covey:
"I am personally convinced that one person can be a change catalyst, a transformer in any situation, any organization. Such an individual is yeast that leavens the entire loaf. Ir requires vision, initiative, patience, respect, persistence, courage and faith to be a transforming leader.
To understand the power the system can have as it fights back to against change, consider this. Last week I had a conversation with someone who has been a supporter of my writing from almost the beginning. When I asked if there was a place for me and my ideas on leader development in the Army, he replied, "Not really. What you need to do is go be a First Sergeant. That way you become (my words not his) eligible to stay in the game." 105 straight weeks, hundreds or written pages, and tons of emails telling me to keep thinking, and pushing and writing, and the system has no place for me? That is how the system exerts it's pressure. That is the pressure we all must resist. Messy leadership, defined by mutual respect, a desire to learn, dialogue and the development of increased judgment is the road ahead. Those who think it is only relevant to counterinsurgency operations are simply wrong. If we truly prize adaptability, then we have to develop leaders who possess the ability to discern both sides of an issue, can see emerging trends, and take advantage of opportunities when presented. All in keeping with the trust they have been given by their superiors. This period of leader development is like a new-born baby. There will be a lot of messy nights along the way, but someday we can all look back with pride at a future leader and say, "I helped create that." We owe it to those at the bottom. We most often pay the price for failure at their level.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
# 104 We Already Have the Answers - We Just Don't Listen
As I was looking for source material this week I came across two monologues worth consideration. The first is entitled "C2 for Complex Endeavors - Transitioning From Command and Control to Command and Trust" and the second is "A Behavioral Model of Team Sense-making". Both are from the International Command and Control Research And Technology Symposium. I had downloaded the first awhile back and cannot find the link, but you can find the link to the Command and Control Research Project homepage here:
http://dodccrp.org/
(If you are interested in a copy of the first, just send me an email and I'll send it to you.)
Consider the following quotes from the "C2 for Complex Endeavors" paper:
"Use your people by allowing everyone to do his job. When a subordinate is free to do his job, he perceives the trust and confidence from his superiors and takes pride in his job, himself and the organizations goals and objectives. Delegation of sufficient authority and proper use of subordinates helps develop future leaders. This is a moral responsibility of every commander."
In army-speak, this equals decentralization and trust.
and from George Patton
"No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike. In too many organizations, toadyism is buried like a cancer. It must be removed with the sharpest bayonet available. All sorts of suggestions, ideas, concepts, and opinions must be allowed to promote an environment of learning and imagination. A fault of many potentially fine commanders is a lack of the ability to admit that other people have good ideas. If younger Soldiers are not allowed to use and cultivate their imaginations and their abilities for abstract thought, where will we get the next generations of qualified, motivated, and confident commanders? Commanders who never ask for an opinion, never listen to suggestions, and think they have the only correct idea find that their Soldiers will stop communicating altogether. They'll begin to sit on their asses and wait for orders before doing anything. No matter how high in the ranks a man goes, he can't know everything. We can always learn from each other. Juniors must learn not only to be allowed to use their imaginations, but they must be encouraged to do so.”
In Army-speak, this is the recognition of the perils of hierarchical thinking and risk-aversion.
Whenever I spend time looking for quotes or bits of wisdom for the blog, it seems to me that time and again, we already have the answers we are looking for, we just need to heed the advice of those who came before us. Does anyone but me think it strange that from the earliest commanders in the field there has been a recognition that trust up and down any chain of command is essential for unit success? It doesn't matter what your professional field is, successful organizations are built around common goals and a trust that the members of the organization from the lowest to the highest understand and are dedicated to them. I could be managing a grocery store, running a high-tech company, organizing a charitable fund-raiser, or leading troops in the field. It simply does not matter what the function of the organization is, it only matters that its' members share a common understanding of the purpose of the endeavor and trust that those above and below them share that same understanding.
Does your organization work that way? Think about it for a moment. How many of the issues you face as a leader are the result of divergent understandings of the tasks that must be completed, the reason they must be done, and the ultimate end-state desired by the organization itself? Do your people trust your understanding of their present reality? Do they even know how you view it? Do they have a mechanism to bring concerns or ideas to you? Is their input valued as equally as your own? Do they believe that you are working in their best interest? In short, do they trust you? And of equal importance, what mechanisms have you put in place to engender or ensure that trust development is critical to organizational success and effectiveness?
Once I started thinking about that, I came across the second document regarding sense-making. The word alone gave me pause and got me to considering how we make sense of our world and then how we ensure that that sense is commonly shared with others. How does it happen? How can two people look at the same problem and then come to a common understanding of its' requirements and outcomes? Can it be done in a manner that satisfies both parties? And, of course, the more people you introduce to the problem, the greater the possibility for discordant views becomes. My wife and I often have enough trouble coming to a common understanding of our priorities. Once we add in my daughter, the reality of simple problem solving and common understanding goes completely out the window! Now consider your office staff, any large corporation, or an army. No wonder it sometimes seems that change happens too slowly. There are so many divergent viewpoints that have to be brought into a common understanding first. And with 1.5 million people in the military, that's going to take awhile!
So any culture of trust and mutual understanding must first be seen through the idea of collective sense-making. Leaders have to have a vision of the final product, without necessarily knowing the challenges of getting there and then ensure that the folks in their organization share that same understanding. I can visualize the outcome of a project or mission, but then I have to also ensure that everyone else shares the same vision. And since those people have to be met individually to ensure that their piece of the puzzle meshes with the desired outcome, it becomes very time consuming.
As defined in the article, sense-making is:
“The result of a never-ending effort to challenge expectations and to consider alternate possibilities” (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001). Sensemaking is said to exhibit
the following properties (Weick 1995): grounded in identity construction; retrospective; enactive of sensible environments; social; ongoing; focused on and by extracted cues; driven by plausibility rather than accuracy."
I think the key to that definition is "never-ending effort to challenge expectations and consider alternate possibilities". From the top to the bottom of any hierarchical unit, there must be a mechanism to continuously check and re-check assumptions and then be able to adapt responses when they do not bear scrutiny. This brings to mind the idea of mental agility and even more importantly, a willingness to let go of previously held assumptions. For any organization to be successful, there must exist - at every level - a mindset that disabuses any thought of entrenched behavior. A truly successful leader must be willing to discard previously held beliefs when they are no longer effective. And organizationally, there must be a challenge mechanism in place throughout. In the Army this would mean that a large portion of any leaders responsibilities would be to require constant feedback from subordinates and then value that feedback enough to challenge their own belief systems for overall unit success. Too many places in the Army right now do not prize this 'friction' of ideas. Their leaders tend to do one of two things: First, they hold on to models of behavior and action that are outdated because they are comfortable with them, or two, they sit on the fence and wait to see which way the prevailing winds will blow before jumping into the ship at the last minute. Both of these trends are not conducive to competent decision making, mental agility, or the long term health of any organization. When a dynamic human being environment is more affected by its' bureaucratic structure' than by its' people, it will ultimately fail.
If you look at a lot of the things the Army is publishing these days you come across the word 'attributes' a lot more than you did in my early career. Suddenly, we are all interested in the required 'attributes' of a Soldier. Not skills, not a technical ability, but behavioral attributes. Things like 'judgment' and 'character'. I wonder why that is? Seems to me that there is a recognition now that our earlier emphasis on the technical skills and abilities did not account very well for the development of judgment. In effect, because we were going to fight an all-out battle to be decided in one crushing blow, it was more important that we develop a Soldier's ability to pull the trigger accurately than it was to imbue in him the ability to decide if he should pull the trigger at all. After a decade at war, we have come to the realization that we must develop both skills in concert. It is not a matter of A or B, it must be AB equally, and the argument can be made that judgment and character are ultimately more important than technical skill and ability.
Consider the following models of positive sense-making and negative sense-making as outlined in the article"
Enable Sensemaking (E) - Positive
॰ E1: Challenges assumptions or takes opposite view
॰ E2: Suggests alternatives
॰ E3: Displays self-questioning or doubt
॰ E4: Displays reliance on other team members
॰ E5: Reveals thought process aloud
॰ E6: Pays attention to others’ views
॰ E7: Openly shares info and opinions
॰ E8: Tells stories of past events or future possibilities
Inhibit Sensemaking (I) - Negative
॰ I1: Shows preference for formal process
॰ I2: Pushes for formal discussion
॰ I3: Rejects complex explanations
॰ I4: Affinity for like-minded thinkers
॰ I5: Attacks others’ contributions
॰ I6: Pushes for conclusions
॰ I7: Shows frustration overtly
॰ I8: Shows occasional disinterest
Which one resonates more with you as being prevalent in your organization? Why? If you look closely at the lists above, you will see that just behind the positive attributes mentioned their is a priority on people. An emphasis on collaboration. A willingness to share knowledge and experience and question norms. If you look at the more negative list, you can plainly see the institution. The organization itself acting as a force independent of the people.
For the positive behaviors of successful organizations to take root, some very basic things must occur. First, there must be an explicit value placed on people. They must be treated as the crown jewels of the organization. Second, trust has got to be imbued from the very first day they enter the it. They must believe and be allowed to demonstrate why their particular talents are of value. They cannot be hired under the pretense that they have value and then have that value stripped from them when they report for work. They must be trusted implicitly as being able to contribute immediately. This is critical. I cannot emphasize it enough. They also must be expected to contribute immediately. Third, their must be an understanding of roles and how those roles affect how individuals view their unfolding reality.
To use my organization as an example, when I came in I told my subordinates that I would earn their trust but by virtue of their knowledge of their jobs and their experience in the organization they already had mine. I trusted them 100% sight unseen. They were explicitly allowed to distrust me. I believe that over time, I have now gained their trust to a greater or lesser degree based upon the individual. I then went about dismantling as much of the structure as I could and replaced it with the understanding of roles and collaboration. I intentionally went about team-building by removing as much of the hierarchy as I could. I have consciously emphasized their value as people rather than mere employees. Whenever possible, I have tried to place their needs ahead of the organizations. Giving a guy or gal some time off on their anniversary may create a small problem on the training schedule, but it pays itself back 1000 fold when a more critical need surfaces. And finally, I truly do not see myself as 'better' than them and they are not only allowed, but almost required, to question my judgment when it doesn't make sense. While some are more comfortable with that than others, overall, it has worked well. They do not hesitate to tell me when they think I'm full of shit. I routinely want their feedback and ideas and have created a learning friction that allows us to solve our challenges much more quickly. Reaching a common consensus has become much easier because we are all stakeholders in the outcome. I have also given them their own projects and supported their personal desires as much as possible. They have pride in ownership and that pride drives them to continually push themselves harder to surpass their own expectations. They have not failed our customers yet. We are peers in the sense that we share a common understanding of what we need to accomplish and the obstacles we face. Now each of us plays our part, does our duty, lives up to our expectations and is beholden to the team over their individual priorities.
We know the answers to leader development. They have not changed much over the millennium. Value people over things, trust that given an opportunity to succeed most of people will, and create organizations driven by mutual respect and collaboration and open and candid communication. If the CEO of Microsoft, Apple, General Motors etc can do it. Then certainly the Army can, and your organization can as well.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
http://dodccrp.org/
(If you are interested in a copy of the first, just send me an email and I'll send it to you.)
Consider the following quotes from the "C2 for Complex Endeavors" paper:
"Use your people by allowing everyone to do his job. When a subordinate is free to do his job, he perceives the trust and confidence from his superiors and takes pride in his job, himself and the organizations goals and objectives. Delegation of sufficient authority and proper use of subordinates helps develop future leaders. This is a moral responsibility of every commander."
In army-speak, this equals decentralization and trust.
and from George Patton
"No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike. In too many organizations, toadyism is buried like a cancer. It must be removed with the sharpest bayonet available. All sorts of suggestions, ideas, concepts, and opinions must be allowed to promote an environment of learning and imagination. A fault of many potentially fine commanders is a lack of the ability to admit that other people have good ideas. If younger Soldiers are not allowed to use and cultivate their imaginations and their abilities for abstract thought, where will we get the next generations of qualified, motivated, and confident commanders? Commanders who never ask for an opinion, never listen to suggestions, and think they have the only correct idea find that their Soldiers will stop communicating altogether. They'll begin to sit on their asses and wait for orders before doing anything. No matter how high in the ranks a man goes, he can't know everything. We can always learn from each other. Juniors must learn not only to be allowed to use their imaginations, but they must be encouraged to do so.”
In Army-speak, this is the recognition of the perils of hierarchical thinking and risk-aversion.
Whenever I spend time looking for quotes or bits of wisdom for the blog, it seems to me that time and again, we already have the answers we are looking for, we just need to heed the advice of those who came before us. Does anyone but me think it strange that from the earliest commanders in the field there has been a recognition that trust up and down any chain of command is essential for unit success? It doesn't matter what your professional field is, successful organizations are built around common goals and a trust that the members of the organization from the lowest to the highest understand and are dedicated to them. I could be managing a grocery store, running a high-tech company, organizing a charitable fund-raiser, or leading troops in the field. It simply does not matter what the function of the organization is, it only matters that its' members share a common understanding of the purpose of the endeavor and trust that those above and below them share that same understanding.
Does your organization work that way? Think about it for a moment. How many of the issues you face as a leader are the result of divergent understandings of the tasks that must be completed, the reason they must be done, and the ultimate end-state desired by the organization itself? Do your people trust your understanding of their present reality? Do they even know how you view it? Do they have a mechanism to bring concerns or ideas to you? Is their input valued as equally as your own? Do they believe that you are working in their best interest? In short, do they trust you? And of equal importance, what mechanisms have you put in place to engender or ensure that trust development is critical to organizational success and effectiveness?
Once I started thinking about that, I came across the second document regarding sense-making. The word alone gave me pause and got me to considering how we make sense of our world and then how we ensure that that sense is commonly shared with others. How does it happen? How can two people look at the same problem and then come to a common understanding of its' requirements and outcomes? Can it be done in a manner that satisfies both parties? And, of course, the more people you introduce to the problem, the greater the possibility for discordant views becomes. My wife and I often have enough trouble coming to a common understanding of our priorities. Once we add in my daughter, the reality of simple problem solving and common understanding goes completely out the window! Now consider your office staff, any large corporation, or an army. No wonder it sometimes seems that change happens too slowly. There are so many divergent viewpoints that have to be brought into a common understanding first. And with 1.5 million people in the military, that's going to take awhile!
So any culture of trust and mutual understanding must first be seen through the idea of collective sense-making. Leaders have to have a vision of the final product, without necessarily knowing the challenges of getting there and then ensure that the folks in their organization share that same understanding. I can visualize the outcome of a project or mission, but then I have to also ensure that everyone else shares the same vision. And since those people have to be met individually to ensure that their piece of the puzzle meshes with the desired outcome, it becomes very time consuming.
As defined in the article, sense-making is:
“The result of a never-ending effort to challenge expectations and to consider alternate possibilities” (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001). Sensemaking is said to exhibit
the following properties (Weick 1995): grounded in identity construction; retrospective; enactive of sensible environments; social; ongoing; focused on and by extracted cues; driven by plausibility rather than accuracy."
I think the key to that definition is "never-ending effort to challenge expectations and consider alternate possibilities". From the top to the bottom of any hierarchical unit, there must be a mechanism to continuously check and re-check assumptions and then be able to adapt responses when they do not bear scrutiny. This brings to mind the idea of mental agility and even more importantly, a willingness to let go of previously held assumptions. For any organization to be successful, there must exist - at every level - a mindset that disabuses any thought of entrenched behavior. A truly successful leader must be willing to discard previously held beliefs when they are no longer effective. And organizationally, there must be a challenge mechanism in place throughout. In the Army this would mean that a large portion of any leaders responsibilities would be to require constant feedback from subordinates and then value that feedback enough to challenge their own belief systems for overall unit success. Too many places in the Army right now do not prize this 'friction' of ideas. Their leaders tend to do one of two things: First, they hold on to models of behavior and action that are outdated because they are comfortable with them, or two, they sit on the fence and wait to see which way the prevailing winds will blow before jumping into the ship at the last minute. Both of these trends are not conducive to competent decision making, mental agility, or the long term health of any organization. When a dynamic human being environment is more affected by its' bureaucratic structure' than by its' people, it will ultimately fail.
If you look at a lot of the things the Army is publishing these days you come across the word 'attributes' a lot more than you did in my early career. Suddenly, we are all interested in the required 'attributes' of a Soldier. Not skills, not a technical ability, but behavioral attributes. Things like 'judgment' and 'character'. I wonder why that is? Seems to me that there is a recognition now that our earlier emphasis on the technical skills and abilities did not account very well for the development of judgment. In effect, because we were going to fight an all-out battle to be decided in one crushing blow, it was more important that we develop a Soldier's ability to pull the trigger accurately than it was to imbue in him the ability to decide if he should pull the trigger at all. After a decade at war, we have come to the realization that we must develop both skills in concert. It is not a matter of A or B, it must be AB equally, and the argument can be made that judgment and character are ultimately more important than technical skill and ability.
Consider the following models of positive sense-making and negative sense-making as outlined in the article"
Enable Sensemaking (E) - Positive
॰ E1: Challenges assumptions or takes opposite view
॰ E2: Suggests alternatives
॰ E3: Displays self-questioning or doubt
॰ E4: Displays reliance on other team members
॰ E5: Reveals thought process aloud
॰ E6: Pays attention to others’ views
॰ E7: Openly shares info and opinions
॰ E8: Tells stories of past events or future possibilities
Inhibit Sensemaking (I) - Negative
॰ I1: Shows preference for formal process
॰ I2: Pushes for formal discussion
॰ I3: Rejects complex explanations
॰ I4: Affinity for like-minded thinkers
॰ I5: Attacks others’ contributions
॰ I6: Pushes for conclusions
॰ I7: Shows frustration overtly
॰ I8: Shows occasional disinterest
Which one resonates more with you as being prevalent in your organization? Why? If you look closely at the lists above, you will see that just behind the positive attributes mentioned their is a priority on people. An emphasis on collaboration. A willingness to share knowledge and experience and question norms. If you look at the more negative list, you can plainly see the institution. The organization itself acting as a force independent of the people.
For the positive behaviors of successful organizations to take root, some very basic things must occur. First, there must be an explicit value placed on people. They must be treated as the crown jewels of the organization. Second, trust has got to be imbued from the very first day they enter the it. They must believe and be allowed to demonstrate why their particular talents are of value. They cannot be hired under the pretense that they have value and then have that value stripped from them when they report for work. They must be trusted implicitly as being able to contribute immediately. This is critical. I cannot emphasize it enough. They also must be expected to contribute immediately. Third, their must be an understanding of roles and how those roles affect how individuals view their unfolding reality.
To use my organization as an example, when I came in I told my subordinates that I would earn their trust but by virtue of their knowledge of their jobs and their experience in the organization they already had mine. I trusted them 100% sight unseen. They were explicitly allowed to distrust me. I believe that over time, I have now gained their trust to a greater or lesser degree based upon the individual. I then went about dismantling as much of the structure as I could and replaced it with the understanding of roles and collaboration. I intentionally went about team-building by removing as much of the hierarchy as I could. I have consciously emphasized their value as people rather than mere employees. Whenever possible, I have tried to place their needs ahead of the organizations. Giving a guy or gal some time off on their anniversary may create a small problem on the training schedule, but it pays itself back 1000 fold when a more critical need surfaces. And finally, I truly do not see myself as 'better' than them and they are not only allowed, but almost required, to question my judgment when it doesn't make sense. While some are more comfortable with that than others, overall, it has worked well. They do not hesitate to tell me when they think I'm full of shit. I routinely want their feedback and ideas and have created a learning friction that allows us to solve our challenges much more quickly. Reaching a common consensus has become much easier because we are all stakeholders in the outcome. I have also given them their own projects and supported their personal desires as much as possible. They have pride in ownership and that pride drives them to continually push themselves harder to surpass their own expectations. They have not failed our customers yet. We are peers in the sense that we share a common understanding of what we need to accomplish and the obstacles we face. Now each of us plays our part, does our duty, lives up to our expectations and is beholden to the team over their individual priorities.
We know the answers to leader development. They have not changed much over the millennium. Value people over things, trust that given an opportunity to succeed most of people will, and create organizations driven by mutual respect and collaboration and open and candid communication. If the CEO of Microsoft, Apple, General Motors etc can do it. Then certainly the Army can, and your organization can as well.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#103 Leadership, Transitions and Change
Three Questions:
1. Do you believe that all people should be treated equally?
2. Do you believe in equal opportunity for everyone?
3. Do you believe that each individual should be judged and rewarded by their contributions to their organization?
My guess is that most of us will almost reflexively answer "Yes" to all three. It is part of the our American mindset that people are due fair treatment, that no one should be denied the opportunity to succeed, and that as individuals, we want to be judged by our own contributions and abilities, not lumped together with the masses.
A question was once asked of General (Ret) Eric Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff of the Army:
"What is a General Officer's chief responsibility to the institution?"
His answer: "To manage transitions."
(Taken from an interview with General Martin Demspey. You can find the video link below:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa425Q8zKiI&feature=channel
I've been thinking a lot about the 3 questions above and transitions this week. Over the last few months there have been two documents produced that could have an impact on the Army (and the entire Armed Forces) for decades ahead. And at the core of both of them are the 3 questions. The two documents are the "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf
and, "From Representation to Inclusion - Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military" produced by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC)
http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Draft%20Report
Obviously, the DADT report deals with the repeal of the ban against openly gay or lesbian service members in the Armed Forces which has already been signed by the President and awaits either an attempted reversal in Congress, or an implementation strategy to be delivered to the Secretary of Defense and the President. The MLDC report looked into issues surrounding diversity and opportunity for service members and, among many other things, recommends a repeal of the combat exclusion policies that forbid women from serving in "direct ground combat" positions. While only a small portion of the overall report, any reversal of that group of restrictive policies would represent a significant change in the current operating model for many Army organizations.
Both of these reports are important, and should be read by everyone to further the dialogue regarding potential policy changes in the years ahead. Why? Because policies are only words on paper. Leadership, good or bad, turns the words into action and reality.
The purpose of this post however is not to argue one way or another on either report. Each reader will have to form their own personal point of view on whether they agree or disagree with the recommendations they contain. And that is something I want people to do. I want you to take a hard look about how you personally feel about both issues because that introspection will ultimately make you a better leader. However, the responsibility to take action rests solely with our elected representatives. As General Dempsey rightly pointed out in his interview, the Armed Forces must remain a servant of the Nation and apolitical. It is the purview of the President and the Congress to enact laws and policies that affect how we operate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the recommendations, it is correct that our elected leaders request information and recommendations be made. However, I think it is important that leaders begin to determine and inform their own understandings of both reports. To that end, here are mine:
1. I do not care about the private sexual orientation of a Soldier. A persons' sexual orientation is their own business whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Simply put, it's not my concern on a personal level.
2. Women are already, and have always been, in combat. The Services recognize this. Right now they are all playing in the 'gray' areas of legal interpretation that have an important negative effect on how women are viewed across the force.
So, Fenlason doesn't care about gays in the military, nor does he think that women should be involuntarily excluded from serving in units that are likely to engage in direct ground combat.
Those two statements form my Orientation. However, right now, my Orientation doesn't matter because neither policy has actually been changed, so it only serves to inform others. I include it here as a matter of literary honesty. If you're going to read my work, you might as well know where I stand. And since I write and publish, I think it would be disingenuous to talk all around these two issues without making my own ideas known. But, beyond being my personal feelings on the issues, they have no relevance. Who cares what Fenlason thinks? You can agree or disagree with me and you will be as entitled to your opinions and thoughts as I am to mine. We are equal. From Private to General at this point, we are equal.
The opposite of that however is that the two statements above are very important because I lead an organization. Therefore I have responsibilities to the Army and my unit and my Orientation will help inform and determine my Actions and my Actions will have an effect on those above and below me in the institution. While you may agree or disagree with me personally, and I may agree or disagree with a policy personally, as a leader, I have a responsibility to enforce, enact, enable, and institute whatever policies the elected and appointed leaders over me determine. I also have a responsibility to respect your viewpoint. I may not agree with it, and we may have a vigorous dialogue about it, but I must respect it. That is the essence of both service and discipline.
However, if you go back to General Shinseki's comment that leaders manage transitions then something else becomes apparent as well. There has to be an awareness of the transitional period itself. There has to be someone or something that forces the introspections, reviews, and questions the existing norms to see whether or not they remain relevant. As I was watching General Dempsy's video I kept wondering what drove him to start thinking about our institutional ethic and the profession in the first place. What skill set does he have that allowed him to perceive that we are in entering into a period where many of the things that we have previously done, or held as critical to organizational success, need to be reviewed? What attributes does he possess that allow him to 'feel' that we might be out of sync and then try to put his finger on why he feels that way? More importantly, how can we develop that mindset in our leader development programs? Because, honestly, isn't that a key function of leading any group? To point it in a particular direction and then guide it to achieve its' objective? And then remain perceptive enough to notice when the conditions have changed and require another transition? As we have seen in the private sector recently, the idea that we live in a static world is an antiquated notion of yesteryear. We have now entered a period of dynamic and rapid change. Things are happening very quickly and our ability to perceive and act upon them quickly to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves is a critical skill. We have been hearing this theme with regard to combat operations and counterinsurgency operations for years - that this is a thinking mans war and that he who can capitalize on his successes faster will ultimately prevail. A classic OODA loop.
But we have not used this process to look at ourselves until now. Both reports make mention of some critical trends that form the Observation:
"Recent statistics from the Pentagon show that three out of four young people ages 17–24 are not eligible to join the military because they do not meet entry requirements related to education level, test scores, citizenship, health status, and criminal record. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to meet these eligibility requirements than are non-Hispanic whites, and that gap has
been widening." (MLDC)
"When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect." (DADT)
"Despite this record of success, however, the transformation of the Armed Forces remains unfinished. Women and minorities are still underrepresented in leadership positions. Demographic changes in the United States are reshaping the pool from which the Armed Forces may enlist and promote future military leaders. Prolonged conflicts of unprecedented complexity require agile leadership that leverages all the capabilities at its disposal. Like the private sector, the U.S. military recognizes the need for a diverse workforce that includes a greater range of individual competencies, including skills, education, and professional backgrounds." (MLDC)
"Consistently, the survey results revealed a large group of around 50–55% of Service
members who thought that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have mixed or no effect; another 15–20% who said repeal would have a positive effect; and about 30% who said it would have a negative effect. The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses were asked about whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for their Service member’s future plans to stay in the military, 74% said repeal would have no effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier." (DADT)
Both reports also accept that (1) Homosexuals are currently serving in the Armed Forces, and (2) That women have been, and are, engaged in direct combat with the enemy.
So, the type of wars we are likely to be fighting in the next decades are incredibly complex and nuanced, the pool of human resources we have to draw from is shrinking, our leadership is not reflective of the population they serve, and at least half the force doesn't really care about someone's sexual orientation.
Welcome to the world of transitions! And your next leadership challenge...
But if we step back for a moment, the key understanding here may be the phrase "Periods of transition". Periods of transition imply that there will then be a period of stasis. You go through a change to arrive at a new static environment. And that may be the key misinterpretation in all of this. What would happen if we taught not transitional periods of change, but rather transitional periods of stasis? What if everyone we put in leadership positions grew up expecting change - personal, professional, from within the organization and without? Then we would be focusing our development programs around the idea of perceiving change. We would develop people who could rapidly form new understandings in light of new circumstances and leverage dynamic thought to achieve the unit's mission.
The DADT and MLDC reports are important because they can be used to look at ourselves more clearly. On a personal level, everyone who reads them must ask whether or not they agree or disagree with the recommendations and then determine whether they wish to continue their service in light of any contrary personal beliefs. On an institutional level they are remarkable for there recognition of changing conditions and for taking a hard look at possible solutions. At the leader level they represent an opportunity to consider transitional leadership and rapid assimilation of new and emerging requirements.
We have accepted that the ability to rapidly recognize and adapt to change on the battlefield is a critical skill-set. We now have the opportunity through a series of documents to look at ourselves and determine whether or not we need to change the institution as well.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
1. Do you believe that all people should be treated equally?
2. Do you believe in equal opportunity for everyone?
3. Do you believe that each individual should be judged and rewarded by their contributions to their organization?
My guess is that most of us will almost reflexively answer "Yes" to all three. It is part of the our American mindset that people are due fair treatment, that no one should be denied the opportunity to succeed, and that as individuals, we want to be judged by our own contributions and abilities, not lumped together with the masses.
A question was once asked of General (Ret) Eric Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff of the Army:
"What is a General Officer's chief responsibility to the institution?"
His answer: "To manage transitions."
(Taken from an interview with General Martin Demspey. You can find the video link below:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa425Q8zKiI&feature=channel
I've been thinking a lot about the 3 questions above and transitions this week. Over the last few months there have been two documents produced that could have an impact on the Army (and the entire Armed Forces) for decades ahead. And at the core of both of them are the 3 questions. The two documents are the "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf
and, "From Representation to Inclusion - Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military" produced by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC)
http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Draft%20Report
Obviously, the DADT report deals with the repeal of the ban against openly gay or lesbian service members in the Armed Forces which has already been signed by the President and awaits either an attempted reversal in Congress, or an implementation strategy to be delivered to the Secretary of Defense and the President. The MLDC report looked into issues surrounding diversity and opportunity for service members and, among many other things, recommends a repeal of the combat exclusion policies that forbid women from serving in "direct ground combat" positions. While only a small portion of the overall report, any reversal of that group of restrictive policies would represent a significant change in the current operating model for many Army organizations.
Both of these reports are important, and should be read by everyone to further the dialogue regarding potential policy changes in the years ahead. Why? Because policies are only words on paper. Leadership, good or bad, turns the words into action and reality.
The purpose of this post however is not to argue one way or another on either report. Each reader will have to form their own personal point of view on whether they agree or disagree with the recommendations they contain. And that is something I want people to do. I want you to take a hard look about how you personally feel about both issues because that introspection will ultimately make you a better leader. However, the responsibility to take action rests solely with our elected representatives. As General Dempsey rightly pointed out in his interview, the Armed Forces must remain a servant of the Nation and apolitical. It is the purview of the President and the Congress to enact laws and policies that affect how we operate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the recommendations, it is correct that our elected leaders request information and recommendations be made. However, I think it is important that leaders begin to determine and inform their own understandings of both reports. To that end, here are mine:
1. I do not care about the private sexual orientation of a Soldier. A persons' sexual orientation is their own business whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Simply put, it's not my concern on a personal level.
2. Women are already, and have always been, in combat. The Services recognize this. Right now they are all playing in the 'gray' areas of legal interpretation that have an important negative effect on how women are viewed across the force.
So, Fenlason doesn't care about gays in the military, nor does he think that women should be involuntarily excluded from serving in units that are likely to engage in direct ground combat.
Those two statements form my Orientation. However, right now, my Orientation doesn't matter because neither policy has actually been changed, so it only serves to inform others. I include it here as a matter of literary honesty. If you're going to read my work, you might as well know where I stand. And since I write and publish, I think it would be disingenuous to talk all around these two issues without making my own ideas known. But, beyond being my personal feelings on the issues, they have no relevance. Who cares what Fenlason thinks? You can agree or disagree with me and you will be as entitled to your opinions and thoughts as I am to mine. We are equal. From Private to General at this point, we are equal.
The opposite of that however is that the two statements above are very important because I lead an organization. Therefore I have responsibilities to the Army and my unit and my Orientation will help inform and determine my Actions and my Actions will have an effect on those above and below me in the institution. While you may agree or disagree with me personally, and I may agree or disagree with a policy personally, as a leader, I have a responsibility to enforce, enact, enable, and institute whatever policies the elected and appointed leaders over me determine. I also have a responsibility to respect your viewpoint. I may not agree with it, and we may have a vigorous dialogue about it, but I must respect it. That is the essence of both service and discipline.
However, if you go back to General Shinseki's comment that leaders manage transitions then something else becomes apparent as well. There has to be an awareness of the transitional period itself. There has to be someone or something that forces the introspections, reviews, and questions the existing norms to see whether or not they remain relevant. As I was watching General Dempsy's video I kept wondering what drove him to start thinking about our institutional ethic and the profession in the first place. What skill set does he have that allowed him to perceive that we are in entering into a period where many of the things that we have previously done, or held as critical to organizational success, need to be reviewed? What attributes does he possess that allow him to 'feel' that we might be out of sync and then try to put his finger on why he feels that way? More importantly, how can we develop that mindset in our leader development programs? Because, honestly, isn't that a key function of leading any group? To point it in a particular direction and then guide it to achieve its' objective? And then remain perceptive enough to notice when the conditions have changed and require another transition? As we have seen in the private sector recently, the idea that we live in a static world is an antiquated notion of yesteryear. We have now entered a period of dynamic and rapid change. Things are happening very quickly and our ability to perceive and act upon them quickly to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves is a critical skill. We have been hearing this theme with regard to combat operations and counterinsurgency operations for years - that this is a thinking mans war and that he who can capitalize on his successes faster will ultimately prevail. A classic OODA loop.
But we have not used this process to look at ourselves until now. Both reports make mention of some critical trends that form the Observation:
"Recent statistics from the Pentagon show that three out of four young people ages 17–24 are not eligible to join the military because they do not meet entry requirements related to education level, test scores, citizenship, health status, and criminal record. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to meet these eligibility requirements than are non-Hispanic whites, and that gap has
been widening." (MLDC)
"When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect." (DADT)
"Despite this record of success, however, the transformation of the Armed Forces remains unfinished. Women and minorities are still underrepresented in leadership positions. Demographic changes in the United States are reshaping the pool from which the Armed Forces may enlist and promote future military leaders. Prolonged conflicts of unprecedented complexity require agile leadership that leverages all the capabilities at its disposal. Like the private sector, the U.S. military recognizes the need for a diverse workforce that includes a greater range of individual competencies, including skills, education, and professional backgrounds." (MLDC)
"Consistently, the survey results revealed a large group of around 50–55% of Service
members who thought that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have mixed or no effect; another 15–20% who said repeal would have a positive effect; and about 30% who said it would have a negative effect. The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses were asked about whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for their Service member’s future plans to stay in the military, 74% said repeal would have no effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier." (DADT)
Both reports also accept that (1) Homosexuals are currently serving in the Armed Forces, and (2) That women have been, and are, engaged in direct combat with the enemy.
So, the type of wars we are likely to be fighting in the next decades are incredibly complex and nuanced, the pool of human resources we have to draw from is shrinking, our leadership is not reflective of the population they serve, and at least half the force doesn't really care about someone's sexual orientation.
Welcome to the world of transitions! And your next leadership challenge...
But if we step back for a moment, the key understanding here may be the phrase "Periods of transition". Periods of transition imply that there will then be a period of stasis. You go through a change to arrive at a new static environment. And that may be the key misinterpretation in all of this. What would happen if we taught not transitional periods of change, but rather transitional periods of stasis? What if everyone we put in leadership positions grew up expecting change - personal, professional, from within the organization and without? Then we would be focusing our development programs around the idea of perceiving change. We would develop people who could rapidly form new understandings in light of new circumstances and leverage dynamic thought to achieve the unit's mission.
The DADT and MLDC reports are important because they can be used to look at ourselves more clearly. On a personal level, everyone who reads them must ask whether or not they agree or disagree with the recommendations and then determine whether they wish to continue their service in light of any contrary personal beliefs. On an institutional level they are remarkable for there recognition of changing conditions and for taking a hard look at possible solutions. At the leader level they represent an opportunity to consider transitional leadership and rapid assimilation of new and emerging requirements.
We have accepted that the ability to rapidly recognize and adapt to change on the battlefield is a critical skill-set. We now have the opportunity through a series of documents to look at ourselves and determine whether or not we need to change the institution as well.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#102 "The Content of Our Character"
Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of our national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and because of that there have been a lot of news programs lately commemorating his life and his work. As I was watching some of them throughout the week, I remembered back to the 8th grade when I was made to memorize and then recite his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. There is a portion of that speech where Dr. King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I started to think about the words, "..content of their character" and what they mean for leaders. What is your character? What helps create it, define it, and how much time do we spend thinking about it?
And then I got a gift from the gods. Joe D. has been a follower of the blog almost since it's inception. He replies often and he and I have an on-going dialogue, that, although we have never met personally, allows me to call him a friend. I am grateful for all of his support and commentary over the years.
The other morning Joe sent me a document written by Vice Admiral James Stockdale entitled, " Courage Under Fire - Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior". (Although I have searched for an on-line copy of the document I cannot find one, so if you are interested in reading it send me a note.)
As people may or may not know, Vice Admiral Stockdale was a fighter pilot in Vietnam who was shot down and then held captive by the North Vietnamese for 8 years. According to the introduction of his paper he was tortured 15 times, kept in leg irons for 2 years and spent over 4 years of his captivity in solitary confinement. He was also a student of philosophy and had been studying the works of Epictetus while serving in Vietnam.
Epictetus was considered one of the Stoic philosophers and the main theme of his works was that there are things that a person can control and there are things that he cannot. Stockdale put it like this:
"As I ejected from that airplane I had the understanding that a Stoic always kept separate files in his mind for (A) those things that are “up to him” and (B) those things that are “not up to him.” Another way of saying it is (A) those things that are “within his power” and (B) those things that are “beyond his power.” Still another way of saying it is (A) those things that are within the grasp of “his Will, his Free Will” and (B) those things that are beyond it. All in category B are “external,” beyond my control, ultimately dooming me to fear and anxiety if I covet them. All in category A are up to me, within my power, within my will, and properly subjects for my total concern and involvement. They include my opinions, my aims, my aversions, my own grief, my own joy, my judgments, my attitude about what is going on, my own good, and my own evil."
I would call these things one's Orientation. They are, at your core, those things that are ultimately yours regardless of circumstance. They cannot be taken, only surrendered. And more importantly, learning to separate what matters - really matters - from that which does not. Stockdale makes an important point here that I believe has real relevance to leader development today:
"What is not up to you? beyond your power? Not subject to your will in the last analysis? For starters, let’s take “your station in life.” As I glide down toward that little town on my short parachute ride, I’m just about to learn how negligible is my control over my station in life. It’s not at all up to me. I’m going right now from being the leader of a hundred-plus pilots and a thousand men and, good-
ness knows, all sorts of symbolic status and goodwill, to being an object of contempt. I’ll be known as a “criminal.” But that’s not half the revelation that is the realization of your own fragility—that you can be reduced by wind and rain and ice and seawater or men to a helpless, sobbing wreck—unable to control even your own bowels in a matter of minutes. And, more than even that, you’re going to face fragilities you never before let yourself believe you could have––like
after mere minutes, in a flurry of action while being bound with tourniquet-tight ropes, with care, by a professional, hands behind, jackknifed forward and down toward your ankles held secure in lugs
attached to an iron bar, that, with the onrush of anxiety, knowing your upper body’s circulation has been stopped and feeling the ever-growing induced pain and the ever-closing-in of claustrophobia, you can be made to blurt out answers, sometimes correct answers, to questions about anything they know you know. “Station in life,” then, can be changed from that of a dignified and competent gentleman of culture to that of a panic-stricken, sobbing, self-loathing wreck in a matter of minutes. So what? To live under the false pretense that you will forever have control of your station in life is to ride for a fall; you’re asking for disappointment. So make sure in your heart of hearts, in your inner self, that you treat your station in life with indifference, not with contempt, only with indifference."
You can lose so many of those things that define you in your present reality. Your title, your place, your possessions, everything. And what will you have then? Who will you be? Without some consideration of those important questions how can you lead others? How can you be led by others? How can you form the content of your character?
Stockdale realized something else during his captivity that I also think is important for leaders to consider which is the idea that once you learn to surrender those "Station in life" things that currently seem so important, the ability of others to define - and gain power over you, is greatly diminished. Because they believe so strongly that they can affect you by changing that status, the methods they employ are aimed incorrectly in that direction. In effect, they are attempting to influence you in ways that will not work, because those ways or methods hold no value to you. If leadership is the ability to influence others, then knowing what others hold most dear becomes even more important to understand. If, as a leader, your method of exerting influence touches something your subordinates care deeply about, then you will be successful in moving them in a particular direction. If the influence does not, then you will fail.
These are important ideas to think about. So much of who we are is actually controlled by forces outside of us. I cannot control what others think about me, how they view me, or how much they value me. That is entirely up to them. I can only present me - in my current form. They will decide to confer, or not confer, their respect and value on me. To chase after their approbation will only exhaust me because I can never stop running. And so the question becomes, what will they see? Whatever that is, that is what is in my control. The rest is up to them. And whatever that may be, I am certain that it equals the content of my character. To put it simply, I used to tell trainees that at the end of the day, all you have is your name. What that means to others you cannot control. What it means to you, you can. Therefore, the goal of all personal development ought to be the refinement and development of our character. You cannot lead others without it. You can force, coerce, or threaten them for sure, but you cannot lead them without the development and understanding of your character. Ultimately, what this idea brings up is that I choose to lead others, and I choose to be led by others. The power of choice is mine. And that power resides with each of us. My Soldiers choose to be led by me. My title and position place me in their path, but it is ultimately their choice to allow themselves to be led by me. If they were to choose one day to say that they did not wish to be led by me anymore, in reality there would be precious little that I could do that would affect them. Have you ever considered that?
Have you ever thought about what would happen if you lost everything that currently defines you? Your home, job, title, money, possessions? What would happen if all of that were stripped away? If you went from commander to private? From CEO to janitor? From ruler to prisoner? Is your sense of self-worth intimately tied to all of these external things? The fear of losing these defining things - especially in a hierarchical military system has an extremely powerful influence. People do and say things everyday that they do not believe out of fear that their station will be reduced and they will lose all the defining labels they currently have. They agree to plans that will not work, they obediently tote the current party line, they get wrapped up entirely in their personal location on the organization's totem pole. At the core of it, they are afraid to be alone with themselves, so they protect at all costs their status identities.
These ideas came together in a powerful way this past week. I have been tasked to develop a program for the entire Division. As we prepare to brief a senior leader, threats have been made that I will get fired if the product is not to his liking. But we are currently playing a guessing game with what he wants. What was originally asked for cannot be delivered correctly in the time allotted. It has been refined many times and we had gained his approval awhile back. But who knows how that has changed since the last briefing. And at every level between he and I people are guessing and reinterpreting what they think he wants to see. We are chasing approbation. But what influence he believes he has over subordinates he truly does not. He might say that everyone will do this or that, but in reality those units have leaders who will choose what their Soldier will or will not do. People around me are very concerned about this potential that we might be fired. They are worried about it and have mentioned it often. And their nervousness for awhile had the effect of making me nervous. What if I get it wrong? What if he doesn't like the product we present? What if he does fire me? What if, what if, what if? And then I really asked myself, "What if?" I know that the product I will deliver will get results, and will be good for the unit. I know that, and I can prove that. I have been doing it for the last 3 years. I know it because over 3,000 Soldiers have benefited from it. So what am I afraid of? And then Epictetus showed up in my in-box. A gift from the gods. Turns out that I was afraid of a loss of station. I might lose my title. I might lose my place in the organization. I might lose the respect of others. But those things were never mine to begin with. They were all external.
I have been here before under much more serious circumstances than these. The lessons of Epictetus were first shown to me in the aftermath of what happened in Iraq, I just wasn't smart enough to see them then. My Orientation was in the wrong place. Little by little my understanding of the depth of these lessons is becoming more clear to me. At 42 years old, I have become a student again. I get a sneaking suspicion that it will never stop.
I will deliver my briefing - the best that I can produce. That is up to me. That cannot be taken from me. What I can control is me, what I demand of myself, and the content of my character. The rest doesn't really matter much. I am not working for his approbation, I am working for mine. The only fear remaining is that any loss of the 'externals' might reduce my ability to assist other people. This is not about me. I will be fine no matter what the outcome is. That is because the choice to be that way is mine alone. I answer only to my expectations of me. Somewhere in there you can judge for yourself the content of my character.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I started to think about the words, "..content of their character" and what they mean for leaders. What is your character? What helps create it, define it, and how much time do we spend thinking about it?
And then I got a gift from the gods. Joe D. has been a follower of the blog almost since it's inception. He replies often and he and I have an on-going dialogue, that, although we have never met personally, allows me to call him a friend. I am grateful for all of his support and commentary over the years.
The other morning Joe sent me a document written by Vice Admiral James Stockdale entitled, " Courage Under Fire - Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior". (Although I have searched for an on-line copy of the document I cannot find one, so if you are interested in reading it send me a note.)
As people may or may not know, Vice Admiral Stockdale was a fighter pilot in Vietnam who was shot down and then held captive by the North Vietnamese for 8 years. According to the introduction of his paper he was tortured 15 times, kept in leg irons for 2 years and spent over 4 years of his captivity in solitary confinement. He was also a student of philosophy and had been studying the works of Epictetus while serving in Vietnam.
Epictetus was considered one of the Stoic philosophers and the main theme of his works was that there are things that a person can control and there are things that he cannot. Stockdale put it like this:
"As I ejected from that airplane I had the understanding that a Stoic always kept separate files in his mind for (A) those things that are “up to him” and (B) those things that are “not up to him.” Another way of saying it is (A) those things that are “within his power” and (B) those things that are “beyond his power.” Still another way of saying it is (A) those things that are within the grasp of “his Will, his Free Will” and (B) those things that are beyond it. All in category B are “external,” beyond my control, ultimately dooming me to fear and anxiety if I covet them. All in category A are up to me, within my power, within my will, and properly subjects for my total concern and involvement. They include my opinions, my aims, my aversions, my own grief, my own joy, my judgments, my attitude about what is going on, my own good, and my own evil."
I would call these things one's Orientation. They are, at your core, those things that are ultimately yours regardless of circumstance. They cannot be taken, only surrendered. And more importantly, learning to separate what matters - really matters - from that which does not. Stockdale makes an important point here that I believe has real relevance to leader development today:
"What is not up to you? beyond your power? Not subject to your will in the last analysis? For starters, let’s take “your station in life.” As I glide down toward that little town on my short parachute ride, I’m just about to learn how negligible is my control over my station in life. It’s not at all up to me. I’m going right now from being the leader of a hundred-plus pilots and a thousand men and, good-
ness knows, all sorts of symbolic status and goodwill, to being an object of contempt. I’ll be known as a “criminal.” But that’s not half the revelation that is the realization of your own fragility—that you can be reduced by wind and rain and ice and seawater or men to a helpless, sobbing wreck—unable to control even your own bowels in a matter of minutes. And, more than even that, you’re going to face fragilities you never before let yourself believe you could have––like
after mere minutes, in a flurry of action while being bound with tourniquet-tight ropes, with care, by a professional, hands behind, jackknifed forward and down toward your ankles held secure in lugs
attached to an iron bar, that, with the onrush of anxiety, knowing your upper body’s circulation has been stopped and feeling the ever-growing induced pain and the ever-closing-in of claustrophobia, you can be made to blurt out answers, sometimes correct answers, to questions about anything they know you know. “Station in life,” then, can be changed from that of a dignified and competent gentleman of culture to that of a panic-stricken, sobbing, self-loathing wreck in a matter of minutes. So what? To live under the false pretense that you will forever have control of your station in life is to ride for a fall; you’re asking for disappointment. So make sure in your heart of hearts, in your inner self, that you treat your station in life with indifference, not with contempt, only with indifference."
You can lose so many of those things that define you in your present reality. Your title, your place, your possessions, everything. And what will you have then? Who will you be? Without some consideration of those important questions how can you lead others? How can you be led by others? How can you form the content of your character?
Stockdale realized something else during his captivity that I also think is important for leaders to consider which is the idea that once you learn to surrender those "Station in life" things that currently seem so important, the ability of others to define - and gain power over you, is greatly diminished. Because they believe so strongly that they can affect you by changing that status, the methods they employ are aimed incorrectly in that direction. In effect, they are attempting to influence you in ways that will not work, because those ways or methods hold no value to you. If leadership is the ability to influence others, then knowing what others hold most dear becomes even more important to understand. If, as a leader, your method of exerting influence touches something your subordinates care deeply about, then you will be successful in moving them in a particular direction. If the influence does not, then you will fail.
These are important ideas to think about. So much of who we are is actually controlled by forces outside of us. I cannot control what others think about me, how they view me, or how much they value me. That is entirely up to them. I can only present me - in my current form. They will decide to confer, or not confer, their respect and value on me. To chase after their approbation will only exhaust me because I can never stop running. And so the question becomes, what will they see? Whatever that is, that is what is in my control. The rest is up to them. And whatever that may be, I am certain that it equals the content of my character. To put it simply, I used to tell trainees that at the end of the day, all you have is your name. What that means to others you cannot control. What it means to you, you can. Therefore, the goal of all personal development ought to be the refinement and development of our character. You cannot lead others without it. You can force, coerce, or threaten them for sure, but you cannot lead them without the development and understanding of your character. Ultimately, what this idea brings up is that I choose to lead others, and I choose to be led by others. The power of choice is mine. And that power resides with each of us. My Soldiers choose to be led by me. My title and position place me in their path, but it is ultimately their choice to allow themselves to be led by me. If they were to choose one day to say that they did not wish to be led by me anymore, in reality there would be precious little that I could do that would affect them. Have you ever considered that?
Have you ever thought about what would happen if you lost everything that currently defines you? Your home, job, title, money, possessions? What would happen if all of that were stripped away? If you went from commander to private? From CEO to janitor? From ruler to prisoner? Is your sense of self-worth intimately tied to all of these external things? The fear of losing these defining things - especially in a hierarchical military system has an extremely powerful influence. People do and say things everyday that they do not believe out of fear that their station will be reduced and they will lose all the defining labels they currently have. They agree to plans that will not work, they obediently tote the current party line, they get wrapped up entirely in their personal location on the organization's totem pole. At the core of it, they are afraid to be alone with themselves, so they protect at all costs their status identities.
These ideas came together in a powerful way this past week. I have been tasked to develop a program for the entire Division. As we prepare to brief a senior leader, threats have been made that I will get fired if the product is not to his liking. But we are currently playing a guessing game with what he wants. What was originally asked for cannot be delivered correctly in the time allotted. It has been refined many times and we had gained his approval awhile back. But who knows how that has changed since the last briefing. And at every level between he and I people are guessing and reinterpreting what they think he wants to see. We are chasing approbation. But what influence he believes he has over subordinates he truly does not. He might say that everyone will do this or that, but in reality those units have leaders who will choose what their Soldier will or will not do. People around me are very concerned about this potential that we might be fired. They are worried about it and have mentioned it often. And their nervousness for awhile had the effect of making me nervous. What if I get it wrong? What if he doesn't like the product we present? What if he does fire me? What if, what if, what if? And then I really asked myself, "What if?" I know that the product I will deliver will get results, and will be good for the unit. I know that, and I can prove that. I have been doing it for the last 3 years. I know it because over 3,000 Soldiers have benefited from it. So what am I afraid of? And then Epictetus showed up in my in-box. A gift from the gods. Turns out that I was afraid of a loss of station. I might lose my title. I might lose my place in the organization. I might lose the respect of others. But those things were never mine to begin with. They were all external.
I have been here before under much more serious circumstances than these. The lessons of Epictetus were first shown to me in the aftermath of what happened in Iraq, I just wasn't smart enough to see them then. My Orientation was in the wrong place. Little by little my understanding of the depth of these lessons is becoming more clear to me. At 42 years old, I have become a student again. I get a sneaking suspicion that it will never stop.
I will deliver my briefing - the best that I can produce. That is up to me. That cannot be taken from me. What I can control is me, what I demand of myself, and the content of my character. The rest doesn't really matter much. I am not working for his approbation, I am working for mine. The only fear remaining is that any loss of the 'externals' might reduce my ability to assist other people. This is not about me. I will be fine no matter what the outcome is. That is because the choice to be that way is mine alone. I answer only to my expectations of me. Somewhere in there you can judge for yourself the content of my character.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#101 The Qualifying Words and the Profession
I was reading through the Army White Paper entitled "The Profession of Arms" yesterday morning and came across the following paragraph:
"If leaders allow disconnects between word and deed, gaps can be created between espoused values, and values in use—when Soldiers or leaders do not ―'walk the talk' in line with espoused Army beliefs and values. This creates confusion across the ranks and leads to dysfunctional and demoralizing behavior. For example, [emphasis added by me] if the Army espouses the importance of Soldier and leader education and professional development yet does not invest in it adequately, or has selection practices that make leaders who pursue broadening developmental experiences less competitive for advancement, the Army appears hypocritical. However, if the espoused beliefs and values are reasonably congruent with the Army‘s deeper underlying assumptions, then the articulation of those values into a philosophy of operating can be a powerful source to help create cohesion, unity of effort, and identity."
If...should...could...might...can...
In that entire paragraph, one little two letter word makes all the difference. If. "If the Army espouses the importance of Soldier and leader education..." The inclusion of the qualifying word if implies that it is possible that the Army does not actually do this it just says it does. And the world is full of qualifying words such as these and those words have immediate and long-term impacts on the organization. Not can have impacts. Does.
Leaders need to consider qualifying words very carefully. They have a huge impact on every aspect of how their actions and decisions will be interpreted by their subordinates. Qualifying words crack the door open to the disconnects mentioned in the opening sentence. They invite re-interpretation at every level above and below them. They inherently recognize and allow for different Orientations. When was the last time we ever considered a word like 'if' or 'should' in a class on leader development? The more you think about it, the qualifying words truly are the operational difference between success and failure. They are the binding thread of the commanders intent.
Re-write first sentence of that paragraph slightly differently and watch what happens:
"When leaders allow disconnects between word and deed, gaps are created between espoused values and values in use..."
In reality, the paragraph above should have removed the word if and simply acknowledged that the Army has not done a very good job on concentrating on Soldier education and leader development over the last two decades or so. We send Soldiers to schools, but they do not return educated. Especially in our NCO schoolhouses. Rote memorization does not equal learning. It only equals a surface level rudimentary skill of being able to regurgitate a fact or statement without the understanding of the deeper requirements of the statement itself. "I will always place the mission first." is a statement of fact. I can memorize it in 2 seconds. However, it takes a lifetime to understand its' meaning. It takes a lifetime to internalize it to such a degree that it can withstand the vaguaries of interpretation and challenges that it makes upon a leader. It takes but a second to understand that "I will always place the mission first" means that I - as an individual Soldier - am prepared to give my life to accomplish the mission, and more importantly, that I, as a leader, am prepared to sacrifice lives in order to accomplish the mission. But it takes much more time to ask "Are you really willing to die for a piece of ground in some far away place?" "Are you really prepared to sacrifice other young men and women on that piece of ground which has been contested for millennium?" In these considerations and understandings the burden of leading Soldiers weighs most heavily. Education confronts those burdens, rote memorization does not. In answering those questions we confront one of the most powerful requirements of the profession and the professional.
The idea for this post came to me the other evening when I received a link to an Atlantic Monthly magazine article written by Tim Kane entitled: "Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving". You can find the link below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/8346/1/
In the article, Mr. Kane makes the following point:
"From officer evaluations to promotions to job assignments, all branches of the military operate more like a government bureaucracy with a unionized workforce than like a cutting-edge meritocracy."
Now, compare that to the following idea in the White Paper:
"Strategic leaders‘ actions also signal to Soldiers and junior leaders whether they are serving in a profession where, for example, individual merits of competence and character are the sole measures of certification or, instead, in an occupational or bureaucratic system where other measures apply. Such actions determine whether Soldiers see themselves as professionals serving a calling or as time-servers filing a government job.... Some of these systems are now out of balance after nine years of war, making the current challenge more urgent [emphasis added]. In short, strategic leaders ensure that they produce the necessary conditions for the Army to be a profession."
These two sources, one from outside the organization and one from within, both recognize the same truth. In many ways, we have moved away from being a profession seen as a calling or vocation, and have moved towards a bureaucratic system demanding conformity and institutionalized thinking. And that movement has had consequences. Quite honestly, there are no qualifying words needed. We know it to be true. Any hard look at the profession requires the acceptance of facts - an acceptance of current reality. To open the door for inaction by using qualifying words like 'if' does not further the discussion at all.
Why all this time on little words like 'if' and 'should'? Because when any leader is forced to look hard at the outcomes of the multiple courses of action that derive from them, they can then start the education and judgment process which is critical to being a professional. It does not matter what the field is. A young lawyer learns the rules of the law. A young doctor learns the steps to performing a surgical procedure. But they gain an education in could, if, and might. Could, if, and might require the application of judgment and a constant awareness of changing conditions. The education and learning that are critical requirements of any profession begin with the qualifying words. The rest is just rote memorization. Leadership begins with the acknowledgment of the significance of the little words, the recognition of their power to re-orient the intent, and the requirement to speak and act in such a manner that the entire organization has a clear understanding of their operational outcomes.
If this post seems a little disjointed to you, relax. It seems the same to me too. The ideas are there, they are just not quite as articulately presented as I am comfortable with. But maybe that's the point. In struggling to get these thoughts on the page, I am really dealing with the struggles of being a professional. Chronologically, I read the Atlantic Monthly article the other night, and then came across the paragraphs from the White Paper yesterday. What struck me was the difference in tone. Mr. Kane's article speaks definitely while the White Paper equivocates. And since I have received a half a dozen emails or Facebook responses agreeing with most of Kane's piece, I started thinking where is the disconnect? Turns out, it's in all those little qualifying words. Maybe I need to spend more time thinking them. Suddenly, they seem rather important to me.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
"If leaders allow disconnects between word and deed, gaps can be created between espoused values, and values in use—when Soldiers or leaders do not ―'walk the talk' in line with espoused Army beliefs and values. This creates confusion across the ranks and leads to dysfunctional and demoralizing behavior. For example, [emphasis added by me] if the Army espouses the importance of Soldier and leader education and professional development yet does not invest in it adequately, or has selection practices that make leaders who pursue broadening developmental experiences less competitive for advancement, the Army appears hypocritical. However, if the espoused beliefs and values are reasonably congruent with the Army‘s deeper underlying assumptions, then the articulation of those values into a philosophy of operating can be a powerful source to help create cohesion, unity of effort, and identity."
If...should...could...might...can...
In that entire paragraph, one little two letter word makes all the difference. If. "If the Army espouses the importance of Soldier and leader education..." The inclusion of the qualifying word if implies that it is possible that the Army does not actually do this it just says it does. And the world is full of qualifying words such as these and those words have immediate and long-term impacts on the organization. Not can have impacts. Does.
Leaders need to consider qualifying words very carefully. They have a huge impact on every aspect of how their actions and decisions will be interpreted by their subordinates. Qualifying words crack the door open to the disconnects mentioned in the opening sentence. They invite re-interpretation at every level above and below them. They inherently recognize and allow for different Orientations. When was the last time we ever considered a word like 'if' or 'should' in a class on leader development? The more you think about it, the qualifying words truly are the operational difference between success and failure. They are the binding thread of the commanders intent.
Re-write first sentence of that paragraph slightly differently and watch what happens:
"When leaders allow disconnects between word and deed, gaps are created between espoused values and values in use..."
In reality, the paragraph above should have removed the word if and simply acknowledged that the Army has not done a very good job on concentrating on Soldier education and leader development over the last two decades or so. We send Soldiers to schools, but they do not return educated. Especially in our NCO schoolhouses. Rote memorization does not equal learning. It only equals a surface level rudimentary skill of being able to regurgitate a fact or statement without the understanding of the deeper requirements of the statement itself. "I will always place the mission first." is a statement of fact. I can memorize it in 2 seconds. However, it takes a lifetime to understand its' meaning. It takes a lifetime to internalize it to such a degree that it can withstand the vaguaries of interpretation and challenges that it makes upon a leader. It takes but a second to understand that "I will always place the mission first" means that I - as an individual Soldier - am prepared to give my life to accomplish the mission, and more importantly, that I, as a leader, am prepared to sacrifice lives in order to accomplish the mission. But it takes much more time to ask "Are you really willing to die for a piece of ground in some far away place?" "Are you really prepared to sacrifice other young men and women on that piece of ground which has been contested for millennium?" In these considerations and understandings the burden of leading Soldiers weighs most heavily. Education confronts those burdens, rote memorization does not. In answering those questions we confront one of the most powerful requirements of the profession and the professional.
The idea for this post came to me the other evening when I received a link to an Atlantic Monthly magazine article written by Tim Kane entitled: "Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving". You can find the link below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/8346/1/
In the article, Mr. Kane makes the following point:
"From officer evaluations to promotions to job assignments, all branches of the military operate more like a government bureaucracy with a unionized workforce than like a cutting-edge meritocracy."
Now, compare that to the following idea in the White Paper:
"Strategic leaders‘ actions also signal to Soldiers and junior leaders whether they are serving in a profession where, for example, individual merits of competence and character are the sole measures of certification or, instead, in an occupational or bureaucratic system where other measures apply. Such actions determine whether Soldiers see themselves as professionals serving a calling or as time-servers filing a government job.... Some of these systems are now out of balance after nine years of war, making the current challenge more urgent [emphasis added]. In short, strategic leaders ensure that they produce the necessary conditions for the Army to be a profession."
These two sources, one from outside the organization and one from within, both recognize the same truth. In many ways, we have moved away from being a profession seen as a calling or vocation, and have moved towards a bureaucratic system demanding conformity and institutionalized thinking. And that movement has had consequences. Quite honestly, there are no qualifying words needed. We know it to be true. Any hard look at the profession requires the acceptance of facts - an acceptance of current reality. To open the door for inaction by using qualifying words like 'if' does not further the discussion at all.
Why all this time on little words like 'if' and 'should'? Because when any leader is forced to look hard at the outcomes of the multiple courses of action that derive from them, they can then start the education and judgment process which is critical to being a professional. It does not matter what the field is. A young lawyer learns the rules of the law. A young doctor learns the steps to performing a surgical procedure. But they gain an education in could, if, and might. Could, if, and might require the application of judgment and a constant awareness of changing conditions. The education and learning that are critical requirements of any profession begin with the qualifying words. The rest is just rote memorization. Leadership begins with the acknowledgment of the significance of the little words, the recognition of their power to re-orient the intent, and the requirement to speak and act in such a manner that the entire organization has a clear understanding of their operational outcomes.
If this post seems a little disjointed to you, relax. It seems the same to me too. The ideas are there, they are just not quite as articulately presented as I am comfortable with. But maybe that's the point. In struggling to get these thoughts on the page, I am really dealing with the struggles of being a professional. Chronologically, I read the Atlantic Monthly article the other night, and then came across the paragraphs from the White Paper yesterday. What struck me was the difference in tone. Mr. Kane's article speaks definitely while the White Paper equivocates. And since I have received a half a dozen emails or Facebook responses agreeing with most of Kane's piece, I started thinking where is the disconnect? Turns out, it's in all those little qualifying words. Maybe I need to spend more time thinking them. Suddenly, they seem rather important to me.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)