"Begin at once to live, and count each separate day as a separate life."
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
~Seneca
If you are a regular reader here, then it should be obvious by now that the tone of the postings has shifted quite strongly over the past 9 weeks or so. From #113 "The Invincibility Myth" forward to today, there has been very little focus on the Army or the problems or issues I see in it or any of the the things that occupied my brain for many posts previous to that. The focus has instead turned inward. Looking at myself and hopefully prompting you to do a little of the same. To take some time and start asking some hard questions. To challenge myself to look beyond what I think is true about how I move through my world and to look for my true self - my authentic self. I have not done this alone and it has taken the wisdom, faith, friendship and guidance of a very special friend to help me identify and then confront myself honestly. The journey so far has been instructive and illuminating. I share parts of it here to hopefully prompt you to start thinking about yourself earlier than I did. To really work hard to discover the authenticity and truth of who you are. As my understandings grow, I share them with you as a gift. A gift of friendship. A gift of the potential for authentic leadership. If something here rings true to you, then take a moment to dig a little deeper. In the end, what you discover will be a more complete understanding of who you really are. And people follow leaders who know who they are.
As I continue to uncover my own authenticity, one of the most impactful discoveries I made is that, in every critical way, I have lived my life in fear. Personally and professionally. Fear of loss...Fear of failure...Fear of judgment...Fear of trust...Fear of living fully. Most importantly, though I have feared loving other people completely. For all of the outside appearances, fear is a defining characteristic of my life. It is both troubling and incredibly emancipating to see that. Now I know. Now I can recognize it. Now I can begin to put it down.
It has been amazing to see how powerful fear is as a controlling influence in my life. Fear has built an entire behavior system and emotional response system to protect itself and perpetuate itself in my life and without realizing it I often let it define and color almost every aspect of my interaction with my world and with other people. Fear became me.
Fear will define how you lead. It certainly did for me. It is such a powerful force that it will craft entire response mechanisms to protect itself. Fear is a parasite inside of all of us and if left unchecked, will sooner or later devour us without our even knowing it. You cannot fully interact in your world and with other people if you always have one eye out looking for those things that you fear most deeply. I cannot lead others fully if I am always afraid of my bosses' judgment. I cannot ensure success if I always have one eye peeled looking to avoid failure. I cannot love and care for others if I am always waiting for the day when they leave me behind. Fear shuts off at least half of living fully.
True and authentic leaders do not face this problem. The are not paralyzed by fear. They recognize it as no more than an emotion passing through them and then ask themselves the single most important question possible, "Why am I feeling this way?" They do not react to the fear, they become aware of it and then seek to understand its' origin. Other than that, they give it no merit. Once they understand the origin, then they choose a response. They choose to give it merit or not. They choose to alter their actions because of it or not. They control it, it does not control them.
What are your fears? What things silently control how you perceive your world? Ever spend any time thinking about that? If you want to lead other people in any endeavor, I am finding out that seeing and confronting your own fears first is a critical step in the development of authenticity and authenticity is the absolute key ingredient in successful leadership. People instinctively follow those who have an authenticity that resonates outward and pulls others in. An authenticity that sends a message of strength, understanding, confidence and a belief in the outcome of any mission. The perception from others that you are acting out of fear eliminates those positive attributes completely, no matter how hard you build systems to hide it from them.
In a lot of my earlier posts, I wrote about COL John Boyd and the OODA cycle. Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. Over and over, in post after post, I said that the 2nd O, Orient, is the absolutely critical piece to making the loop work. Without a proper Orientation, you cannot know that your Decide is correct and the Act is affected by that choice.
I have been turning the OODA cycle sharply inwards over the past 9 weeks and am now finding out how powerfully fear has affected all of my Decides and most of my Acts. Even though I couldn't see it clearly in earlier writing, I instinctively knew that my Orientation was the critical piece and that there was an understanding deep inside of me that there were gaps and holes there that weren't allowing my authenticity to reveal itself. I just couldn't sit still long enough to listen.
How many leaders do you know who are truly authentic? Think about it....What is it about those few people who you know who are truly genuine, who seem to move effortlessly through their world, who seem to be the most stable and balanced and true? What is it about them that you find so attracting? If you look very closely, what you will probably find is that they are comfortable in their own skin. They accept themselves fully. They understand who they are. Maybe instinctively, or maybe with some help, but either way they exude a comfort as they navigate their world. Ever stop and think about why they are so attractive to the rest of us? Ever stop for a moment to consider what it is that they possess that we don't? One of the key pieces to answering that will be to look at how they handle fear and how we do.
Natural leaders have a healthy understanding of themselves. In fact, they love themselves as whole, complete and worthy. They live in a balance. They accept consciously or not that they have an inherent value separate from anyone or anything else. They accept and value their own worthiness. They can laugh as easily as cry, they feel every emotion completely but do not give them any more weight than they actually deserve. They hold themselves to healthy standards and no more so than they expect of others. They do not live in fear of judgment. In effect, they control themselves. They see themselves clearly. Do you?
For me, fear of failure, fear of judgement, fear of losing love, fear of being alone, all of these are symptoms...they are not the true problem. They are how the true problem makes itself known to me. Once you see a fear as an objective thing, giving it no emotional weight whatsoever beyond a recognition that it exists, then it becomes much less paralyzing and controlling. I can now work on the larger underlying problem. Solving that will allow a lot of other things to slip away. Once they are gone, authenticity and the power of being truly me will shine through. That is authentic leadership. That is the leadership that people react most strongly to. In some ways, it is as simple as being who you are. In order to do that though, you have to know who you are first. That is the hard work I'm doing now and trying to share with you.
This blog is about leadership. Specifically about military leadership in the Army. And while the Army and it's development systems produce some very good, very powerful and very impactful leaders, the truth is that those people likely already possessed all the attributes needed for authentic leadership. That is something the Army and most organizations never think about. They think they are providing the answers to how to be a leader. Authentic leaders already know it. They live it everyday. It resides within them.
As I begin to see the truth of who I am, a more complete picture, the need for artifice and pretending and posturing seems to melt away. And as it does, the fears that bind me also leave. I still have one last large step to go, but at least now I know what the hell it is I'm looking at. At least now I can Orient myself correctly.
In order to lead others, it is critical that you can lead yourself first. Think about that for a moment and the purpose of these last 9 posts will become abundantly clear. This still is a blog about military leadership. In fact, with each post these days, it feels like it is actually getting one step closer to achieving that aim. To helping people understand that in order to lead Soldiers on the battlefield, or anywhere else, you first must be able to lead yourself. And in order to lead yourself, you have to have a very clear picture of who your authentic self is. Without that, ultimately, sooner or later, fear and failure will pay you a visit. And when they do, if they slip into your system and get embedded deeply enough, it will be very hard to root them out.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#121 Trust, Respect and Leaps of Faith
Trust and faith have become big words in my life lately. Trust in something or someone without knowledge of their intent or the outcome in advance. Trust that you are able to correctly view what is happening around you, and faith that no matter the outcome you will be fine wherever you end up. In even greater measure, the faithful understanding that wherever that point may be, you always possess the strength and ability, that if that place isn't correct for you, that you can continue moving forward until you reach another place that feels more true. The idea of a journey that has no fixed endpoint, but is only the journey. Sometimes it's the walking that matters, not where you get to. In order to take the first step, you have to trust that it is a step worth taking and have faith that no matter what the outcome, you will not be standing still where you're at. Holding on to your vision and then moving inexorably towards it.
Respect is another word that has come up a lot in these past weeks. Do you respect yourself? Who else do you respect? Why or why not? These are important questions. Do you have enough respect for your own views, your own narrative, your own dreams, and values, that you can singlehandedly walk alone believing only in them and their power as your guides?
As I continue to strip away a lot of old layers of debris that have been built up over the years of my life, these two words have constantly come up along the way. Over and over they have shown up. Who do you trust? Who do you respect? Why? Why not? In some very fundamental ways, I have found that often, at the core, there exists a lack of those two key things that are at the heart of many other surface viewpoints. A lot of the views I hold and the way that I interact in my world are formed by the answers to those questions. Even more basic is the understanding of where my own limits of them are. Where my self-trust, and self-respect bump up against my outside identity. It has been very difficult at times to see those limits - especially after 22 years in the Army, where, by all accounts, I have never seen their limitations before.
Sometimes, leadership requires a complete leap of faith. The leader, and it doesn't matter at what level, has to decide something. And while they gather all the information they can and try to make the most informed decision possible, when it comes down to it, they simply have to choose. To decide. And once the choice is made, there is a recognition that from that point forward, chains of events are put in motion that cannot be reversed. Once you leap, you cannot turn back. The wheels of change have already been put in motion. And it's not only in professional or operational terms either. Many times these decisions are much more basic than that. An alcoholic decides to get sober, a person decides to make a change in their life, a family decides to move in a new direction. Choices such as these are very basic and very common, but all require trust, respect and the ability to take the leap. These things are also all forms of leadership. Sometimes you lead yourself and sometimes you lead others, but they are examples of leadership nonetheless. Leaps of faith show up all the time if we are willing to look for them. They happen everyday, in big ways and small. And yet they often go completely overlooked. And it's too bad that they do, because once a leap of faith is taken, if it is done with the right amount of self-trust and self-respect, the outcome becomes a lot less scary. Just think of how many people could live happier, healthier and more productive lives if they possessed enough self-respect to see themselves clearly, and enough self-trust to enable them to make the leaps of faith that would generate more fulfilling lives.
The truth is that for the leaps of faith to be taken, self-trust and self respect will end up being baseline requirements. Ultimately, you cannot take the leap if you do not have enough respect for yourself to trust your own judgement in the face of anything else. The doubt sown by a lack of self-trust and a lack of self-respect becomes a binding chain that prohibits you from making the leap at all. You end up stuck wherever you are. Unable to break free from your present reality long enough to see any other possibility.
If you've read this far and stopped to ask yourself, "What the hell is he talking about? And what the hell does it have to do with military leadership?", the answer is quite simple. It has everything in the world to do with leadership. It is where leadership begins. You will not be able to lead anyone else anywhere without these understandings. Having gone down this road a piece, I can safely promise you that.
As an Army, we run around promoting people and slapping rank on them and call them a leader. We send them to schools and on graduation day we send them out with some rousing speech about being the next generation of outstanding leaders for the organization. We graduate them from ROTC and West Point and turn the lives of Soldiers over to them. And we do this with a development system that is designed for the masses. It is designed to build very good managers but not always good leaders.
Leadership begins with each of us. My journey right now is a personal one. I am working on leading myself and my family to a better place, a healthier place, towards achieving a vision for what our life will be like. But it's really not all that far away from a young sergeant or a young platoon leader taking over a squad or platoon. The same requirements exist in all three places. I must have a vision for myself. I work with my wife to create a vision for our family. The sergeant or lieutenant has a vision for their platoon. The vision is the constant. You have to know where you want to go. Sometimes, it might even be enough to know that you are not where you want to be. Either way, leading - yourself, your family, your platoon, your corporation, requires a vision.
In my case, I came about this by becoming aware of where I did not want to be. And in Army terms that would be the idea of coming into an organization and not liking what you see. That awareness is the beginning of developing your vision. I found myself in a place where a lot of what I thought to be true was not, and where a lot of the ways of operating that had served me so well in the past, were no longer working. I was working from the awareness that something wasn't quite right. Organizationally, this happens every time we have a change of command or change of responsibility. Something that wasn't broken or wasn't a priority yesterday is suddenly in a thousand pieces, or is the latest top thing to be fixed.
But how do you get to vision development? How does it happen and what are its' requirements? I think first and foremost, the leader has to have an overarching respect for themselves and then a trust in their own judgement. They have to value the way in which they see their world. They have to value their abilitites and their limitations. They have to value that they were given the rsponsibilitity of command because of who they are. And that they cannot be replicated exactly in anyone else. That is the very first requirement of successful leadership in any endeavor. A belief that you can make yourself, or your family, or your organization, better. Self-respect is the crucial first step. Without it, you cannot lead anything. You might have the title, but someone else will actually be pulling the strings. And if you look hard enough, you'll be able to see the puppet master clearly. He or she will be the true leader. As soon as self-respect is gained, self-trust is an almost automatic by-product. You begin to trust your own judgment, your own choices, your own decisions. It is not necessary that they be done in consultation with anyone else. They are yours. And self-trust is one of the most powerful leadership attributes anyone can possess. Self-trust and it's attendant behaviors are almost magnetic in their effect on those who follow. And once self-respect and self-trust are inherent understandings, the development of the vision and a narrative to achieve it becomes a lot easier to articulate.
All leaders will face a situation one day that will require them to make a leap of faith. To decide. To choose. Sometimes the choice will be rather clear cut and sometimes it will seem to be the choice between two bad options. No matter what though, they will have to decide. How they do that will call to the forefront every thing they are. And in order to make that choice, that leap, that decision, self-trust, and self-respect will have to be dealt with first. If I respect and value myself enough to know the importance of being in a particular place at a particular time, and then trust myself that the decision I make is the best that I know how, and have a vision for what the end-state is, then the leap of faith is not really that hard. The Army asks leaders to have a vision for their organization all the time. You can read them everywhere. What it doesn't do is ask people, Soldiers, young leaders to have a vision for themselves. Who am I? What do I value? What are my non-negotiables? Maybe we should.
Every day as I continue to learn I am taking a new leaps of faith. Some were easy and some were very difficult. But walking off that cliff is nowhere near as scary now as it once was. Nowhere near as binding. And that opens up realms of possibility that I never knew existed before. Without self-respect and without self-trust, those leaps would be impossible to make.
I am leading myself now, designing a vision for myself and for my family. Ultimately though, I will lead my organization in the same manner. The question for you is do you possess enough self-respect and self-trust to be able to make the leap when you have to?
A final thought: In the book, "Leadership: The Warrior's Art" written and edited by Christopher Kolenda, there is a section written by Douglas E. Lute. In it he states the following about successful leaders:
"From this followers perspective, the single characteristic that most distinguishes effective leaders is that they are genuine: they know who they are."
If you know who you are, possess self-respect and self-trust, the leaps of faith are not that scary. And even more importantly, those you lead will gain an abiding faith in your vision.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Respect is another word that has come up a lot in these past weeks. Do you respect yourself? Who else do you respect? Why or why not? These are important questions. Do you have enough respect for your own views, your own narrative, your own dreams, and values, that you can singlehandedly walk alone believing only in them and their power as your guides?
As I continue to strip away a lot of old layers of debris that have been built up over the years of my life, these two words have constantly come up along the way. Over and over they have shown up. Who do you trust? Who do you respect? Why? Why not? In some very fundamental ways, I have found that often, at the core, there exists a lack of those two key things that are at the heart of many other surface viewpoints. A lot of the views I hold and the way that I interact in my world are formed by the answers to those questions. Even more basic is the understanding of where my own limits of them are. Where my self-trust, and self-respect bump up against my outside identity. It has been very difficult at times to see those limits - especially after 22 years in the Army, where, by all accounts, I have never seen their limitations before.
Sometimes, leadership requires a complete leap of faith. The leader, and it doesn't matter at what level, has to decide something. And while they gather all the information they can and try to make the most informed decision possible, when it comes down to it, they simply have to choose. To decide. And once the choice is made, there is a recognition that from that point forward, chains of events are put in motion that cannot be reversed. Once you leap, you cannot turn back. The wheels of change have already been put in motion. And it's not only in professional or operational terms either. Many times these decisions are much more basic than that. An alcoholic decides to get sober, a person decides to make a change in their life, a family decides to move in a new direction. Choices such as these are very basic and very common, but all require trust, respect and the ability to take the leap. These things are also all forms of leadership. Sometimes you lead yourself and sometimes you lead others, but they are examples of leadership nonetheless. Leaps of faith show up all the time if we are willing to look for them. They happen everyday, in big ways and small. And yet they often go completely overlooked. And it's too bad that they do, because once a leap of faith is taken, if it is done with the right amount of self-trust and self-respect, the outcome becomes a lot less scary. Just think of how many people could live happier, healthier and more productive lives if they possessed enough self-respect to see themselves clearly, and enough self-trust to enable them to make the leaps of faith that would generate more fulfilling lives.
The truth is that for the leaps of faith to be taken, self-trust and self respect will end up being baseline requirements. Ultimately, you cannot take the leap if you do not have enough respect for yourself to trust your own judgement in the face of anything else. The doubt sown by a lack of self-trust and a lack of self-respect becomes a binding chain that prohibits you from making the leap at all. You end up stuck wherever you are. Unable to break free from your present reality long enough to see any other possibility.
If you've read this far and stopped to ask yourself, "What the hell is he talking about? And what the hell does it have to do with military leadership?", the answer is quite simple. It has everything in the world to do with leadership. It is where leadership begins. You will not be able to lead anyone else anywhere without these understandings. Having gone down this road a piece, I can safely promise you that.
As an Army, we run around promoting people and slapping rank on them and call them a leader. We send them to schools and on graduation day we send them out with some rousing speech about being the next generation of outstanding leaders for the organization. We graduate them from ROTC and West Point and turn the lives of Soldiers over to them. And we do this with a development system that is designed for the masses. It is designed to build very good managers but not always good leaders.
Leadership begins with each of us. My journey right now is a personal one. I am working on leading myself and my family to a better place, a healthier place, towards achieving a vision for what our life will be like. But it's really not all that far away from a young sergeant or a young platoon leader taking over a squad or platoon. The same requirements exist in all three places. I must have a vision for myself. I work with my wife to create a vision for our family. The sergeant or lieutenant has a vision for their platoon. The vision is the constant. You have to know where you want to go. Sometimes, it might even be enough to know that you are not where you want to be. Either way, leading - yourself, your family, your platoon, your corporation, requires a vision.
In my case, I came about this by becoming aware of where I did not want to be. And in Army terms that would be the idea of coming into an organization and not liking what you see. That awareness is the beginning of developing your vision. I found myself in a place where a lot of what I thought to be true was not, and where a lot of the ways of operating that had served me so well in the past, were no longer working. I was working from the awareness that something wasn't quite right. Organizationally, this happens every time we have a change of command or change of responsibility. Something that wasn't broken or wasn't a priority yesterday is suddenly in a thousand pieces, or is the latest top thing to be fixed.
But how do you get to vision development? How does it happen and what are its' requirements? I think first and foremost, the leader has to have an overarching respect for themselves and then a trust in their own judgement. They have to value the way in which they see their world. They have to value their abilitites and their limitations. They have to value that they were given the rsponsibilitity of command because of who they are. And that they cannot be replicated exactly in anyone else. That is the very first requirement of successful leadership in any endeavor. A belief that you can make yourself, or your family, or your organization, better. Self-respect is the crucial first step. Without it, you cannot lead anything. You might have the title, but someone else will actually be pulling the strings. And if you look hard enough, you'll be able to see the puppet master clearly. He or she will be the true leader. As soon as self-respect is gained, self-trust is an almost automatic by-product. You begin to trust your own judgment, your own choices, your own decisions. It is not necessary that they be done in consultation with anyone else. They are yours. And self-trust is one of the most powerful leadership attributes anyone can possess. Self-trust and it's attendant behaviors are almost magnetic in their effect on those who follow. And once self-respect and self-trust are inherent understandings, the development of the vision and a narrative to achieve it becomes a lot easier to articulate.
All leaders will face a situation one day that will require them to make a leap of faith. To decide. To choose. Sometimes the choice will be rather clear cut and sometimes it will seem to be the choice between two bad options. No matter what though, they will have to decide. How they do that will call to the forefront every thing they are. And in order to make that choice, that leap, that decision, self-trust, and self-respect will have to be dealt with first. If I respect and value myself enough to know the importance of being in a particular place at a particular time, and then trust myself that the decision I make is the best that I know how, and have a vision for what the end-state is, then the leap of faith is not really that hard. The Army asks leaders to have a vision for their organization all the time. You can read them everywhere. What it doesn't do is ask people, Soldiers, young leaders to have a vision for themselves. Who am I? What do I value? What are my non-negotiables? Maybe we should.
Every day as I continue to learn I am taking a new leaps of faith. Some were easy and some were very difficult. But walking off that cliff is nowhere near as scary now as it once was. Nowhere near as binding. And that opens up realms of possibility that I never knew existed before. Without self-respect and without self-trust, those leaps would be impossible to make.
I am leading myself now, designing a vision for myself and for my family. Ultimately though, I will lead my organization in the same manner. The question for you is do you possess enough self-respect and self-trust to be able to make the leap when you have to?
A final thought: In the book, "Leadership: The Warrior's Art" written and edited by Christopher Kolenda, there is a section written by Douglas E. Lute. In it he states the following about successful leaders:
"From this followers perspective, the single characteristic that most distinguishes effective leaders is that they are genuine: they know who they are."
If you know who you are, possess self-respect and self-trust, the leaps of faith are not that scary. And even more importantly, those you lead will gain an abiding faith in your vision.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#120 Leading by Standing Still
Have you ever felt like everyone around you wasn't hearing you? Co-workers, your spouse, Soldiers, your children? That they were so busy moving that they didn't understand what it was that was that you were really trying to tell them? That what you were saying and what they were hearing were worlds apart even though the words were said clearly? We've all been there. Conversations and exchanges like these happen every day and only lead to confusion and frustration throughout our families and any organization.
More importantly though, do you think you have ever been the person who did that to others? Are you the type who is always chasing something so hard and so fast that you never stop long enough to hear what others might be saying? You keep moving from one place to the other, scampering here and there, trying to capture whatever is being dangled as the important brass ring for the moment? It's something worth considering. I was like that for a long long time. Someone would tell me what they thought was important and almost without consideration, I would move towards it. I kept running from one thing to the next, always following the flavor of the moment. My happiness and sense of self worth was being determined not by me, but by others outside of me. The Army is an easy place for that to happen. As you grow up in the environment it becomes easy to get sucked into the game. Almost the entire structure and order is designed to support that way of acting and thinking. Ultimately though it is a trap. It is interesting - and I've mentioned this before - that the only folks in the Army that really do any critical thinking about the Army seem to be those at the very top. Ever wonder why that is? I do. A lot. It seems counter intuitive to me that each of us isn't spending any time considering our world and why it unfolds the way it does. But the Army, and many huge organizations, all seem to have systems in place that encourage movement and ring chasing and perpetual motion. There isn't a lot of respect for the contemplation and hard thought that leadership requires. Just keep moving....follow the maze.
Even more dangerous than all of the above though, is asking whether or not you are running so fast that you cannot hear yourself? Have you ever thought about just standing still and answering your own questions first? Just stop. Just stand there. Just listen to yourself for a moment so you can figure out what it is that truly matters to you. What you want, what you don't, what is critical to you and what is not? And why? Why is one thing chosen over another? Why do you lead or act the way you do? Are you being authentic and true to yourself or only chasing the latest brass ring?
Think about this. Who are the people who have most affected you in your life? Who are the people who have become mentors and lifelong friends? Who are those people you most admire? What are their common characteristics? My guess is that you will find them all to be supremely sure of that which they know and that which they don't. They will be comfortable standing still. They do not chase brass rings or follow the latest trend just because it is new. They have a considered opinion. They do not deny you yours, but theirs will almost always be more complete. Have you ever asked them how they got there? How they formed that idea, opinion, or thought? Once you boil it down, their answer will likely be that they stopped and thought about it for a minute. They stopped and listened to themselves. They heard what their brain and heart were trying to tell them. They developed a true self-awareness and then used that to quietly navigate their world. They do not fly all over the place. They stand still and let others come to them.
Leadership in the Army is defined principally by action. By doing something. By moving about. By effecting change or influencing the plan by being critically involved at the perfect moment. Almost every iconic hero we have was a man of action. Inactivity is perceived as a flaw in many organizations. Why don't we have any heroes who were men of contemplation? Why aren't the quiet, contemplative, people in our history books and larger than life stories? By setting up action as the only valued solution, we have affected the behavior of the entire organization.
And leadership does eventually require an action of some sort. But before you can do that, before you can put yourself in motion, before you can influence anyone else, you have to listen to yourself. You have to know what you are leading, why you are leading it, and what the intended result of your leadership is. That can only be done after you have given plenty of consideration to what it is that you understand to be true about you and how it plays out in your leader actions.
Taking the time to stand still is critical to leader development. It is only through thoroughly examining yourself and what you know to be real and true about you that you can find the unequivocal truths about you. Standing still allows you to find your authenticity and your authentic self is what people will follow. People want leaders who have strong sense of where they stand, who are actively involved in their world in a calm and purposeful manner. Who know who they are and what they want.
Over the course of the last 8 weeks or so, as my own journey has progressed, I have discovered a lot about my authentic self. Things that I thought were important have become less so. Things that I believed to be true before have shown themselves to be false. Things that seemed disconnected have shown their connectedness. It has been a very instructive journey. I no longer find myself chasing so many things at once hoping to find something that wasn't really there to begin with. I find myself a lot more calm during a storm because I know that I will be fine no matter the outcome. I now speak a lot more definitively than before about what I want and need in my life. All of these things provide me with something else that is critical to my leadership. They provide me peace. They provide me the clarity to see what is truly important. They provide me the ability to hear others clearly because I am not as focused on my own running and scampering about. They provide others a chance to find me, not always run after me. I can hear them and their needs more clearly because I am standing still. We are both not running all over the place. Me chasing something and them chasing me. I am learning to see those things that truly matter and ensure that they are always present in my life. I state them clearly after having determined that they are, in fact, something I value or need or want or feel.
A friend of mine sent me this quote today and it has a lot to do with keeping perspective and knowing what is important versus what isn't:
"When we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of the reality." Henry David Thoreau
Think about that in your day to day life. A boss is jumping up and down about something. Your spouse is critical of something you did or didn't do. Your Soldiers come to you with a crisis of their own. Are those your crises? Do you have to get spun up over them? Are they moving you off of your truth? Do they affect where you stand? Or do they present a place for you to stand still? For you to focus on what is truly at the heart of the issue. By knowing and feeling sure of your own authenticity, the situation is not being seen through any artificial filters put in place by your own running for the brass ring. You are standing still on solid ground. There is one less person clamoring and hollering and expending energy to sew confusion and doubt.
The most respected leader is the one who has taken stock of themselves clearly, and who knows exactly who they are and why. They know what they do well and don't do well. They cannot be moved by the judgement of other people. They have a clear understanding and confidence that no matter the outcome of the current crisis, they have the ability to overcome any challenge, to thrive in any environment, and to be calm in the midst of change.
The Army spends very little time on conversations like these. There may be a paragraph or two in a manual, or a piece in a professional magazine about the importance of self-awareness, and knowing exactly who you are, but the institution doesn't really spend much time forcing leaders to face these things in their development. Three months ago, I would have used this space today to rail against their failings and then waste energy telling them where they got it wrong. Today though, I have no time for that. Having found a place to stand, and then solidly standing there, I remain focused on what is critically important - my understanding of me and the way I lead. Ultimately, that is what will make me a leader who people seek out. I will become correctly self-aware by standing still and listening very intently to me. I will lead others by being firmly planted in my knowledge of who I am. No more running around being defined or affected by others. I am standing still. Are you?
As always your thoughts and comments are welcome.
More importantly though, do you think you have ever been the person who did that to others? Are you the type who is always chasing something so hard and so fast that you never stop long enough to hear what others might be saying? You keep moving from one place to the other, scampering here and there, trying to capture whatever is being dangled as the important brass ring for the moment? It's something worth considering. I was like that for a long long time. Someone would tell me what they thought was important and almost without consideration, I would move towards it. I kept running from one thing to the next, always following the flavor of the moment. My happiness and sense of self worth was being determined not by me, but by others outside of me. The Army is an easy place for that to happen. As you grow up in the environment it becomes easy to get sucked into the game. Almost the entire structure and order is designed to support that way of acting and thinking. Ultimately though it is a trap. It is interesting - and I've mentioned this before - that the only folks in the Army that really do any critical thinking about the Army seem to be those at the very top. Ever wonder why that is? I do. A lot. It seems counter intuitive to me that each of us isn't spending any time considering our world and why it unfolds the way it does. But the Army, and many huge organizations, all seem to have systems in place that encourage movement and ring chasing and perpetual motion. There isn't a lot of respect for the contemplation and hard thought that leadership requires. Just keep moving....follow the maze.
Even more dangerous than all of the above though, is asking whether or not you are running so fast that you cannot hear yourself? Have you ever thought about just standing still and answering your own questions first? Just stop. Just stand there. Just listen to yourself for a moment so you can figure out what it is that truly matters to you. What you want, what you don't, what is critical to you and what is not? And why? Why is one thing chosen over another? Why do you lead or act the way you do? Are you being authentic and true to yourself or only chasing the latest brass ring?
Think about this. Who are the people who have most affected you in your life? Who are the people who have become mentors and lifelong friends? Who are those people you most admire? What are their common characteristics? My guess is that you will find them all to be supremely sure of that which they know and that which they don't. They will be comfortable standing still. They do not chase brass rings or follow the latest trend just because it is new. They have a considered opinion. They do not deny you yours, but theirs will almost always be more complete. Have you ever asked them how they got there? How they formed that idea, opinion, or thought? Once you boil it down, their answer will likely be that they stopped and thought about it for a minute. They stopped and listened to themselves. They heard what their brain and heart were trying to tell them. They developed a true self-awareness and then used that to quietly navigate their world. They do not fly all over the place. They stand still and let others come to them.
Leadership in the Army is defined principally by action. By doing something. By moving about. By effecting change or influencing the plan by being critically involved at the perfect moment. Almost every iconic hero we have was a man of action. Inactivity is perceived as a flaw in many organizations. Why don't we have any heroes who were men of contemplation? Why aren't the quiet, contemplative, people in our history books and larger than life stories? By setting up action as the only valued solution, we have affected the behavior of the entire organization.
And leadership does eventually require an action of some sort. But before you can do that, before you can put yourself in motion, before you can influence anyone else, you have to listen to yourself. You have to know what you are leading, why you are leading it, and what the intended result of your leadership is. That can only be done after you have given plenty of consideration to what it is that you understand to be true about you and how it plays out in your leader actions.
Taking the time to stand still is critical to leader development. It is only through thoroughly examining yourself and what you know to be real and true about you that you can find the unequivocal truths about you. Standing still allows you to find your authenticity and your authentic self is what people will follow. People want leaders who have strong sense of where they stand, who are actively involved in their world in a calm and purposeful manner. Who know who they are and what they want.
Over the course of the last 8 weeks or so, as my own journey has progressed, I have discovered a lot about my authentic self. Things that I thought were important have become less so. Things that I believed to be true before have shown themselves to be false. Things that seemed disconnected have shown their connectedness. It has been a very instructive journey. I no longer find myself chasing so many things at once hoping to find something that wasn't really there to begin with. I find myself a lot more calm during a storm because I know that I will be fine no matter the outcome. I now speak a lot more definitively than before about what I want and need in my life. All of these things provide me with something else that is critical to my leadership. They provide me peace. They provide me the clarity to see what is truly important. They provide me the ability to hear others clearly because I am not as focused on my own running and scampering about. They provide others a chance to find me, not always run after me. I can hear them and their needs more clearly because I am standing still. We are both not running all over the place. Me chasing something and them chasing me. I am learning to see those things that truly matter and ensure that they are always present in my life. I state them clearly after having determined that they are, in fact, something I value or need or want or feel.
A friend of mine sent me this quote today and it has a lot to do with keeping perspective and knowing what is important versus what isn't:
"When we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of the reality." Henry David Thoreau
Think about that in your day to day life. A boss is jumping up and down about something. Your spouse is critical of something you did or didn't do. Your Soldiers come to you with a crisis of their own. Are those your crises? Do you have to get spun up over them? Are they moving you off of your truth? Do they affect where you stand? Or do they present a place for you to stand still? For you to focus on what is truly at the heart of the issue. By knowing and feeling sure of your own authenticity, the situation is not being seen through any artificial filters put in place by your own running for the brass ring. You are standing still on solid ground. There is one less person clamoring and hollering and expending energy to sew confusion and doubt.
The most respected leader is the one who has taken stock of themselves clearly, and who knows exactly who they are and why. They know what they do well and don't do well. They cannot be moved by the judgement of other people. They have a clear understanding and confidence that no matter the outcome of the current crisis, they have the ability to overcome any challenge, to thrive in any environment, and to be calm in the midst of change.
The Army spends very little time on conversations like these. There may be a paragraph or two in a manual, or a piece in a professional magazine about the importance of self-awareness, and knowing exactly who you are, but the institution doesn't really spend much time forcing leaders to face these things in their development. Three months ago, I would have used this space today to rail against their failings and then waste energy telling them where they got it wrong. Today though, I have no time for that. Having found a place to stand, and then solidly standing there, I remain focused on what is critically important - my understanding of me and the way I lead. Ultimately, that is what will make me a leader who people seek out. I will become correctly self-aware by standing still and listening very intently to me. I will lead others by being firmly planted in my knowledge of who I am. No more running around being defined or affected by others. I am standing still. Are you?
As always your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#119 Of Dirt Roads and Thank You's
Earlier this week, my father sent me a link to an article in The American Scholar. It is the text of a speech given by William Deresiewicz to West Point Cadets entitled "Solitude and Leadership" It. has been nominated as one of the top 100 important articles of the year. You can find the link here:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
As I read it, I knew I had seen it before but couldn't quite put my finger on when or where. This morning, I went back and looked through my previous postings and found it. It is post #68, "Alone with Yourself" written almost a year ago. You can find the link to that post below:
http://fensthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/06/68-alone-with-yourself.html
As I re-read both the article and #68, what occurred to me was how far my journey has really taken me. It truly has been worth the time.
Last weeks post "Failure and Redemption" was the hardest one I have ever written. It was both incredibly painful to finally be able to see my failings clearly, and incredibly liberating to finally be able to put that down and no longer feel the crushing weight of it on my shoulders all the time. I have certainly been surprised by many of the responses I've gotten throughout the week. People have thanked me for taking this journey, or asked me to lunch to further talk and clarify my thoughts, or said "I'm glad." No one has come out and attacked me or thrown anything in my face or written a nasty email or anything like that. Most folks have been happy for me. I am grateful for everyone's support. Last week as I was writing it, I told a friend of mine that I was frightened, terrified of the outcome once I posted it. She asked me a simple question. "What's the worst that can happen?" I was terrified that I would wake up the next day to an inbox full of hatred and vitriol and attack. None of that happened. Another unfounded fear formed by an irrational thought process that had been paralyzing me for so long. Another layer stripped away.
Back to the article....
In post #68, I wrote about Deresiewicz's addressing things like bureaucracies, and the nature of military service and how we live in a 21st century world. I also quoted at length about a scandal he mentioned that was going to make a young leader have to take a stand on one side of an issue or another. All very much aimed at the institution and the structure of the Army. All railing against the corporate mindset that permeates so much of our lives.
Here is what struck me today:
"That is the first half of the lecture: the idea that true leadership means being able to think for yourself and act on your convictions. But how do you learn to do that? How do you learn to think?"
"Thinking for yourself means finding yourself, finding your own reality."
Deresiewicz goes on to say that Facebooking and Tweeting and sending one-line messages and status updates are all things that actually interfere with learning, and thinking, and introspection and the development of a true understanding of who you are. They interfere with the development of your own narrative:
"Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it. Not learning other people’s ideas, or memorizing a body of information, however much those may sometimes be useful. Developing your own ideas. In short, thinking for yourself. You simply cannot do that in bursts of 20 seconds at a time, constantly interrupted by Facebook messages or Twitter tweets, or fiddling with your iPod, or watching something on YouTube."
But here's the point of today's post. Introspection does not have to be done in isolation. In fact, the opposite is true. Introspection is probably best done with someone else. Not 400 people that you label a 'Friend' on Facebook, but one someone else, maybe two, who meet a very special criteria:
"Introspection means talking to yourself, and one of the best ways of talking to yourself is by talking to another person. One other person you can trust, one other person to whom you can unfold your soul. One other person you feel safe enough with to allow you to acknowledge things—to acknowledge things to yourself—that you otherwise can’t. Doubts you aren’t supposed to have, questions you aren’t supposed to ask. Feelings or opinions that would get you laughed at by the group or reprimanded by the authorities."
I cannot tell you how important, how personally impactful that quote was to me. I cannot explain the depth of its meaning to you. Except to say this. I don't get to last weeks post without finding that person. I don't get to a more clear understanding of who I truly am without finding that person. I don't get the chance to study my soul without fear of judgement without that person. I don't begin finding my narrative without that person. I don't get to put down a lot of my fears without someone I can really talk to. Someone I can walk down a dirt road with slowly. Someone who accepts me as I am, but challenges me to be better. Someone who makes me think, and asks me troubling questions, and pushes me to understand connections I have not seen before. Do you have someone like that in your life? It is not a small or inconsequential thing believe me. I spent years running around building a perfect model of who and what I thought my world required. I suspect that many others do too. Finding someone who would walk down the dirt roads with me has undone so much of that and led me to a much clearer understanding of myself. An understanding that will allow me to face crucible moments head on. An understanding that will ultimately make me a stronger person and a better leader. A more complete soul with an authentic narrative born of the deep and critical excavation of yourself that can only be done with someone you trust implicitly.
If you want to lead anything, a club, a platoon, an office, anything, at some point you will have to make your own choices, and your own decisions irrespective of anyone or anything else. You will have to develop your own narrative and know what is true for you. You will have to have taken stock of your values and your priorities. You will have to have looked in the mirror and studied the fears and failings and warts and scars. You will have to have been willing to determine where you stand. If you haven't done those things, in solitude and with introspection and determination, then you cannot be an authentic leader. You can only be a character in a play. I know that now. Much of that journey you may be able to take by yourself, although very few can actually do it. For most of us, it will take someone else who can show us our truer selves. Finding that person may be the most critical leader development decision you ever make.
Leadership can be a lonely business and many of us get frightened by the fear of failure and judgment or wrapped up in the trappings and status. Both have had equal impact on my life and how I lead. If I could offer any of you who read this one piece of advice today, it would be this: Go find that person who you can share the quiet, the troubling, the confusing and the darker places of your soul with. Someone who will help you develop your own true narrative. Take the time to think deeply. To inspect your world. To become someone who can stand alone when it's required. When the crucible moments happen, that person will be the one who guides you through it.
Thank you, KM. You have allowed me the opportunity to heal, learn and grow. My narrative is becoming my own. I am grateful for your taking the time to help me see it. I am grateful beyond measure for your friendship.
A year ago, I was busy railing against all of the things that I thought were wrong about how we teach leader development in the Army. Finding anything to buttress an argument that supported my vision of how it should be done. A year later the same article I used then has come full circle. The same source, but seen from a completely different perspective. The solitude has been worth it. I have been walking down dirt roads for awhile. I'm just glad now that I have someone to accompany me on my travels.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
As I read it, I knew I had seen it before but couldn't quite put my finger on when or where. This morning, I went back and looked through my previous postings and found it. It is post #68, "Alone with Yourself" written almost a year ago. You can find the link to that post below:
http://fensthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/06/68-alone-with-yourself.html
As I re-read both the article and #68, what occurred to me was how far my journey has really taken me. It truly has been worth the time.
Last weeks post "Failure and Redemption" was the hardest one I have ever written. It was both incredibly painful to finally be able to see my failings clearly, and incredibly liberating to finally be able to put that down and no longer feel the crushing weight of it on my shoulders all the time. I have certainly been surprised by many of the responses I've gotten throughout the week. People have thanked me for taking this journey, or asked me to lunch to further talk and clarify my thoughts, or said "I'm glad." No one has come out and attacked me or thrown anything in my face or written a nasty email or anything like that. Most folks have been happy for me. I am grateful for everyone's support. Last week as I was writing it, I told a friend of mine that I was frightened, terrified of the outcome once I posted it. She asked me a simple question. "What's the worst that can happen?" I was terrified that I would wake up the next day to an inbox full of hatred and vitriol and attack. None of that happened. Another unfounded fear formed by an irrational thought process that had been paralyzing me for so long. Another layer stripped away.
Back to the article....
In post #68, I wrote about Deresiewicz's addressing things like bureaucracies, and the nature of military service and how we live in a 21st century world. I also quoted at length about a scandal he mentioned that was going to make a young leader have to take a stand on one side of an issue or another. All very much aimed at the institution and the structure of the Army. All railing against the corporate mindset that permeates so much of our lives.
Here is what struck me today:
"That is the first half of the lecture: the idea that true leadership means being able to think for yourself and act on your convictions. But how do you learn to do that? How do you learn to think?"
"Thinking for yourself means finding yourself, finding your own reality."
Deresiewicz goes on to say that Facebooking and Tweeting and sending one-line messages and status updates are all things that actually interfere with learning, and thinking, and introspection and the development of a true understanding of who you are. They interfere with the development of your own narrative:
"Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it. Not learning other people’s ideas, or memorizing a body of information, however much those may sometimes be useful. Developing your own ideas. In short, thinking for yourself. You simply cannot do that in bursts of 20 seconds at a time, constantly interrupted by Facebook messages or Twitter tweets, or fiddling with your iPod, or watching something on YouTube."
But here's the point of today's post. Introspection does not have to be done in isolation. In fact, the opposite is true. Introspection is probably best done with someone else. Not 400 people that you label a 'Friend' on Facebook, but one someone else, maybe two, who meet a very special criteria:
"Introspection means talking to yourself, and one of the best ways of talking to yourself is by talking to another person. One other person you can trust, one other person to whom you can unfold your soul. One other person you feel safe enough with to allow you to acknowledge things—to acknowledge things to yourself—that you otherwise can’t. Doubts you aren’t supposed to have, questions you aren’t supposed to ask. Feelings or opinions that would get you laughed at by the group or reprimanded by the authorities."
I cannot tell you how important, how personally impactful that quote was to me. I cannot explain the depth of its meaning to you. Except to say this. I don't get to last weeks post without finding that person. I don't get to a more clear understanding of who I truly am without finding that person. I don't get the chance to study my soul without fear of judgement without that person. I don't begin finding my narrative without that person. I don't get to put down a lot of my fears without someone I can really talk to. Someone I can walk down a dirt road with slowly. Someone who accepts me as I am, but challenges me to be better. Someone who makes me think, and asks me troubling questions, and pushes me to understand connections I have not seen before. Do you have someone like that in your life? It is not a small or inconsequential thing believe me. I spent years running around building a perfect model of who and what I thought my world required. I suspect that many others do too. Finding someone who would walk down the dirt roads with me has undone so much of that and led me to a much clearer understanding of myself. An understanding that will allow me to face crucible moments head on. An understanding that will ultimately make me a stronger person and a better leader. A more complete soul with an authentic narrative born of the deep and critical excavation of yourself that can only be done with someone you trust implicitly.
If you want to lead anything, a club, a platoon, an office, anything, at some point you will have to make your own choices, and your own decisions irrespective of anyone or anything else. You will have to develop your own narrative and know what is true for you. You will have to have taken stock of your values and your priorities. You will have to have looked in the mirror and studied the fears and failings and warts and scars. You will have to have been willing to determine where you stand. If you haven't done those things, in solitude and with introspection and determination, then you cannot be an authentic leader. You can only be a character in a play. I know that now. Much of that journey you may be able to take by yourself, although very few can actually do it. For most of us, it will take someone else who can show us our truer selves. Finding that person may be the most critical leader development decision you ever make.
Leadership can be a lonely business and many of us get frightened by the fear of failure and judgment or wrapped up in the trappings and status. Both have had equal impact on my life and how I lead. If I could offer any of you who read this one piece of advice today, it would be this: Go find that person who you can share the quiet, the troubling, the confusing and the darker places of your soul with. Someone who will help you develop your own true narrative. Take the time to think deeply. To inspect your world. To become someone who can stand alone when it's required. When the crucible moments happen, that person will be the one who guides you through it.
Thank you, KM. You have allowed me the opportunity to heal, learn and grow. My narrative is becoming my own. I am grateful for your taking the time to help me see it. I am grateful beyond measure for your friendship.
A year ago, I was busy railing against all of the things that I thought were wrong about how we teach leader development in the Army. Finding anything to buttress an argument that supported my vision of how it should be done. A year later the same article I used then has come full circle. The same source, but seen from a completely different perspective. The solitude has been worth it. I have been walking down dirt roads for awhile. I'm just glad now that I have someone to accompany me on my travels.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#118 Failure and Redemption
This post will be different from any other I've written in the last two years. There will be no links to news stories, nor quotes to draw from nor manuals to reference. This one has been building for awhile now. It will be hard to write and parts will be painful. But it is mine and it will be true. It will be as close as I ever come to diary writing. Its' point though is not to bare my soul to elicit any emotion from you. Its' point is to put down some things and show you how easily I got seduced by my successes and limited by my failings and trapped by my own baggage. It is important to think about. It is a very real feeling for me and one I have struggled to understand for a long time. Hopefully, my journey will give you some insight into your own. Make you reflect on what is real and true for you. Those are the parts of you that people will follow. Where will you stand your ground? What is your bedrock?
To lead people you have to have a purity of purpose. You need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt why you are making the decisions and choices you make. There cannot be any artifice or falseness to your narrative. It must be your truth, as you know it, as clear and concise and authentic as you can be. You have to have examined yourself and understood what you serve for. Not just the institutional things, but the very personal things. What need is filled by your service? What hole does your service fill in your life? Why are you making the choices you make? Are they really yours, or are they an attempt to cover yourself up to the outside world? Are you seeing yourself clearly, or defrauding yourself with a carefully constructed picture of perfection and control? A beautifully painted mask that hides any faults. A picture of something that isn't really there?
Failure is hard to take. It is hard to hear someone label you a failure. It is hard to see the failure honestly. We mostly spend time trying to prevent failure rather than ensure success. And when we do fail, most of us - certainly me - run around telling anyone who will listen why we didn't fail. How it wasn't our fault. How we got screwed somehow along the way. How others are to blame. And we tell that story over and over and over until it becomes as true as anything we know. As true as the color of our eyes or swirls in our fingerprints. As true as our DNA.
22 months and 117 blog posts have led me to this point:
I failed to lead my platoon correctly in 2006.
There. It is on the page and when I hit send, I will not be able to take it back. It will be there forever.
It deserves to be seen. Not for you, but more for me. But it is a hard reality to face. And I want to be clear. This is not a mea culpa designed to elicit anything from you. I am not falling on my sword here for redemption or absolution or sympathy or empathy or anything. I am not and will not accept it. I am telling my truth because I want to show others what happened and why. This is the manner by which my personal absolution is made real. Today is not for you. Today is for me.
I failed to lead my platoon because I was not, and could not at the time, be authentic. I didn't know how to be. I had not done the hard work of staring at myself and seeing me accurately. I was not self-aware. I had not staked out my own territory and defined myself only for myself. I was only a reflection of what I thought others wanted me to be. I had created a person who could cover up my fears and weaknesses and inadequacies and for many years, he held up well. He garnered me success and accolades and awards and respect and admiration. But, in a crucible moment he failed. I played a role using a set script that did not meet the requirements I faced. And when he failed, I failed as well. I relied on something that was not what was needed at the moment and I was not clear enough to recognize that.
As Winston Churchill once said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do your best. You must do what is necessary."
I managed that platoon expertly. I took the very best care of those Soldiers I knew how. I did everything I could to ensure their well-being. I gave every ounce of myself to getting them back to the States in a way that would allow them to carry on with their lives. I used every bit of my resources to protect and defend them and to help them navigate something that none of us had any experience with. I did all that extremely well. I know that. I am sure of that. I believe in that. I will stand my ground on that. I could not have done any more and I believe that many of them are better off today because of my efforts.
I did not create and could not have stopped what happened to 1st platoon. Soldiers made choices long before my arrival. In their hearts and souls they lost their way. Got sucked into a vortex of fear and evil and darkness. A pit so deep that you cannot see the bottom. I do not know why. But, I could not have known that. I could feel it, but not see it's depth. I did not then, and do not now, have the capacity to look into another man's soul and read his intention. No one does. That is the sole purview of whatever higher power you believe in. I am not responsible for those crimes and I never have been. Those souls who committed those crimes are responsible for them. Only they know why and how they slid into that dark place. I know that to be true and will stand my ground on that firmly. It is possible that the greatest leader ever could not have stopped that chain of events. The rest of us were along for the ride. For too many years I bought into someone else's narrative I had to carry this burden forever and suffer it's weight. I had to wrap myself up in it and wear it like my own scarlet letter. The truth is, it was never mine to bear in the first place.
And yet I did fail. What they needed was a leader. An authentic voice. Someone they could place their faith in. Someone who could pull them back from the edge. Someone in whom they could trust. And I did not provide those things. I could not provide those things in the measure that they required. Not because I didn't possess them, I did. But because I had already split myself in two and didn't give them all of me. The true measure of leadership they required. I wasn't listening to my true voice. I was playing a role. I was playing a part. I was not authentically me. A portion of me - and not a small one - was looking out and trying to make sure that they didn't see any cracks. Working from a position of fear. Trying to hide a weakness. And they knew it. They could sense it. And in running around doing all of that, I didn't provide the one thing they needed. A true leader to guide them. I had the title, but the straw man was stuffed. I had the accolades and badges and honorifics but they didn't mean much in that crucible moment.
Again, I am not saying this to fall on my sword, I promise you. As I look at my life I am becoming aware of places where I have not been true to myself. Some are in the Army and some very important ones are outside of it. I am seeing things now that I could not have seen then. And that is the true meaning becoming self-aware. That you always keep looking. Keep staring. Keep trying to understand who and what you are. And why. To learn to listen only to the voice inside you and believe completely in that voice. That narrative. That person. And what I know today is this: The man I am today is infinitely stronger than the man I was then. And the man I am today is infinitely more aware than the man I was then. And the man I am today is much more complete than the man I was then. I am finding my authenticity. And that search will allow me to be a far better leader than I ever could have been then. When I gain that measure of self-awareness and can balance it with a fair measure of self-scrutiny then I will be able to lead Soldiers again without fear. Each day brings me one step closer.
Today is a cause for me to celebrate. I can put down the mantel of sufferer. I know where I succeeded and can identify where I failed. I can say that I failed and face it head on. I no longer have to fear judgment from others. I know what I did and I know what I didn't do. I am longer prey to anyone else. And that makes me already a better leader than before. I have faced a fear, seen it's potential, and know that I can step past it. And that is self-awareness. The hard part that we all have to do.
We will all face a crucible moment sometime in our lives. In that moment, all that you will have to rely on is yourself. That is not the moment to figure out that you don't know who you really are.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
To lead people you have to have a purity of purpose. You need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt why you are making the decisions and choices you make. There cannot be any artifice or falseness to your narrative. It must be your truth, as you know it, as clear and concise and authentic as you can be. You have to have examined yourself and understood what you serve for. Not just the institutional things, but the very personal things. What need is filled by your service? What hole does your service fill in your life? Why are you making the choices you make? Are they really yours, or are they an attempt to cover yourself up to the outside world? Are you seeing yourself clearly, or defrauding yourself with a carefully constructed picture of perfection and control? A beautifully painted mask that hides any faults. A picture of something that isn't really there?
Failure is hard to take. It is hard to hear someone label you a failure. It is hard to see the failure honestly. We mostly spend time trying to prevent failure rather than ensure success. And when we do fail, most of us - certainly me - run around telling anyone who will listen why we didn't fail. How it wasn't our fault. How we got screwed somehow along the way. How others are to blame. And we tell that story over and over and over until it becomes as true as anything we know. As true as the color of our eyes or swirls in our fingerprints. As true as our DNA.
22 months and 117 blog posts have led me to this point:
I failed to lead my platoon correctly in 2006.
There. It is on the page and when I hit send, I will not be able to take it back. It will be there forever.
It deserves to be seen. Not for you, but more for me. But it is a hard reality to face. And I want to be clear. This is not a mea culpa designed to elicit anything from you. I am not falling on my sword here for redemption or absolution or sympathy or empathy or anything. I am not and will not accept it. I am telling my truth because I want to show others what happened and why. This is the manner by which my personal absolution is made real. Today is not for you. Today is for me.
I failed to lead my platoon because I was not, and could not at the time, be authentic. I didn't know how to be. I had not done the hard work of staring at myself and seeing me accurately. I was not self-aware. I had not staked out my own territory and defined myself only for myself. I was only a reflection of what I thought others wanted me to be. I had created a person who could cover up my fears and weaknesses and inadequacies and for many years, he held up well. He garnered me success and accolades and awards and respect and admiration. But, in a crucible moment he failed. I played a role using a set script that did not meet the requirements I faced. And when he failed, I failed as well. I relied on something that was not what was needed at the moment and I was not clear enough to recognize that.
As Winston Churchill once said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do your best. You must do what is necessary."
I managed that platoon expertly. I took the very best care of those Soldiers I knew how. I did everything I could to ensure their well-being. I gave every ounce of myself to getting them back to the States in a way that would allow them to carry on with their lives. I used every bit of my resources to protect and defend them and to help them navigate something that none of us had any experience with. I did all that extremely well. I know that. I am sure of that. I believe in that. I will stand my ground on that. I could not have done any more and I believe that many of them are better off today because of my efforts.
I did not create and could not have stopped what happened to 1st platoon. Soldiers made choices long before my arrival. In their hearts and souls they lost their way. Got sucked into a vortex of fear and evil and darkness. A pit so deep that you cannot see the bottom. I do not know why. But, I could not have known that. I could feel it, but not see it's depth. I did not then, and do not now, have the capacity to look into another man's soul and read his intention. No one does. That is the sole purview of whatever higher power you believe in. I am not responsible for those crimes and I never have been. Those souls who committed those crimes are responsible for them. Only they know why and how they slid into that dark place. I know that to be true and will stand my ground on that firmly. It is possible that the greatest leader ever could not have stopped that chain of events. The rest of us were along for the ride. For too many years I bought into someone else's narrative I had to carry this burden forever and suffer it's weight. I had to wrap myself up in it and wear it like my own scarlet letter. The truth is, it was never mine to bear in the first place.
And yet I did fail. What they needed was a leader. An authentic voice. Someone they could place their faith in. Someone who could pull them back from the edge. Someone in whom they could trust. And I did not provide those things. I could not provide those things in the measure that they required. Not because I didn't possess them, I did. But because I had already split myself in two and didn't give them all of me. The true measure of leadership they required. I wasn't listening to my true voice. I was playing a role. I was playing a part. I was not authentically me. A portion of me - and not a small one - was looking out and trying to make sure that they didn't see any cracks. Working from a position of fear. Trying to hide a weakness. And they knew it. They could sense it. And in running around doing all of that, I didn't provide the one thing they needed. A true leader to guide them. I had the title, but the straw man was stuffed. I had the accolades and badges and honorifics but they didn't mean much in that crucible moment.
Again, I am not saying this to fall on my sword, I promise you. As I look at my life I am becoming aware of places where I have not been true to myself. Some are in the Army and some very important ones are outside of it. I am seeing things now that I could not have seen then. And that is the true meaning becoming self-aware. That you always keep looking. Keep staring. Keep trying to understand who and what you are. And why. To learn to listen only to the voice inside you and believe completely in that voice. That narrative. That person. And what I know today is this: The man I am today is infinitely stronger than the man I was then. And the man I am today is infinitely more aware than the man I was then. And the man I am today is much more complete than the man I was then. I am finding my authenticity. And that search will allow me to be a far better leader than I ever could have been then. When I gain that measure of self-awareness and can balance it with a fair measure of self-scrutiny then I will be able to lead Soldiers again without fear. Each day brings me one step closer.
Today is a cause for me to celebrate. I can put down the mantel of sufferer. I know where I succeeded and can identify where I failed. I can say that I failed and face it head on. I no longer have to fear judgment from others. I know what I did and I know what I didn't do. I am longer prey to anyone else. And that makes me already a better leader than before. I have faced a fear, seen it's potential, and know that I can step past it. And that is self-awareness. The hard part that we all have to do.
We will all face a crucible moment sometime in our lives. In that moment, all that you will have to rely on is yourself. That is not the moment to figure out that you don't know who you really are.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#117 Authenticity and Showmanship
I received an email yesterday from a deployed Company Commander who asked the following question in reference to Post #106 "The Three of You":
"My only question that may cause more writing is, what happens when one of the three of "You" dominates? How do you balance or should you balance? Sometimes leadership involves acting like you know what you are doing, even when you don't have clue. I do believe some of this acting is for the benefit of the group you are leading. Leadership is often times "showmanship" until you can catch up on the learning curve."
And then this morning I received a comment on #116 from JD that caught my eye as well. I'll include the exchange here as well.
I had written:
"I think one of the interesting parts of this whole line of discussion has to do with how little of it has anything to do with the Army. Becoming properly oriented and self-aware has become the study of my entire life - not just my time in the Army. I think this is a critical area for leader development - recognizing that who you are as an Army leader will have a lot more to do with who and what your formative experiences have created in you, and a lot less of what the Army may or may not have taught you. My orientation to the world is derived from the totality of my life, its' successes, failures, joys, sorrows, hurts, losses etc. Those form me, they form the narrative that is me. I then take that narrative and bring it to the Army. I conform the Army value system and ethic into my orientation, not the other way around."
JD replied with this:
Fen..I love what you just wrote!...really nicely written and thought out....mind if I cut and paste it?!....looks to me like "content and curriculum" for teaching and practicing self-awareness. And you are right, it has nothing to do with the Army...but if leaders in the Army know it and practice it, they will be better leaders....and will serve our Soldiers much better."
Last night I was thinking over the showmanship piece with a friend of mine and she asked me what my thoughts were. I told her that I thought that a lot of times this showmanship equaled the public 'You' that I had spoken of in #106. The persona developed to instill confidence in others and live up to the expectations of the organization. The persona that you take on that you think meets the expectations of senior, peers, and subordinates. The person you become once you get immersed into the organizational culture so much that you cannot exactly remember who you are.
My friend didn't necessarily agree that the showmanship portion of a leader equaled a second persona. Her point was that people ultimately follow someone else because they believe strongly in their narrative. They believe in their authenticity. The have faith in their message. Sometimes though, in order to move or motivate people it's necessary to 'go big'. It's not a false representation of you, it's just giving them the parts of your authenticity that they need to hear in a way they need to hear it.
Those things that are truly me have very little to do with my time in the Army. Those formative experiences both inside and outside of the profession are the parts of me that are most true, most real and most authentic. They all have helped create the person I am as a leader.
And that got me thinking about authenticity. It's not a word we often use to describe people, but maybe it ought to be. Have I been an authentic leader? Have you? If we find a way to get Soldiers and leaders to discover and build upon their authentic selves, to draw upon the totality of their lives, to focus on those things that are core components of who they are, we might end up with a lot better leaders and a lot less need for the creation of a second persona designed only for outside consumption. It's a question of people following you, or following a caricature of you. Have you ever thought about that?
As I continue to discover the parts of my authenticity - those things that make me uniquely me, the question of showmanship becomes less and less important. If the truths of my character, motivations, desires, successes, failures, trials and tribulations are something that I no longer fear or try to hide away, then the public 'You' begins to melt away. I do not need that actor as much as I once did. He doesn't serve to enhance my ability to lead. In fact, he detracts from it. He makes my narrative less clear to those who are looking to me for leadership. He hides me from them instead of inspiring them with my authenticity. My true self. Who I am in the dark, alone where no one else can see. That person is the one who moves someone to believe and follow me, not some store-bought creation that I think is what they want. How much of your leadership is influenced by giving people what you think they want?
My commander friend wanted to know how to inspire people or provide them a clear answer when possibly he didn't have one himself. Is there value to acting a part until more information becomes available to advance the mission, or meet an objective? Prior to last night, I would have wholeheartedly said there was. Sometimes you give them an answer that you really don't have and you cover it up with a false-confidence and bravado and hope they do not see through it. If it begins them moving, then that is enough.
This morning however, I'm not so sure. I don't think you have to try to convince anyone of anything that you do not believe yourself. By doing that you end up taking your eye off the mission and placing it on them, worrying that they might find out that you don't know what the correct answer is. I think what must be done is that you have to discover your own authenticity. That is what they are actually investing their faith in anyway. That you know who and what you are and are not hiding that reality from those you lead. That it is OK to say you don't know when you don't, or that you don't have the answer sitting at your fingertips. Or that you are unsure. Those things may be all the case, and the authentic answer may be, "I don't know what the outcome will be right now, but I know that we have to get this done and that together we will do it. Here is what we are going to do right now. As the situation unfolds, we might have to make adjustments and changes, but ultimately we will get to our objective. We will accomplish our mission."
My friend's question about what happens when one part 'dominates' you, is equally important. That's what happens when you start to believe your own bullshit. You start to place more emphasis on keeping the created 'You' alive than you do on seeing the problem at hand. I think a lot of Army leaders fall into that trap and it is certainly one that dictated a large portion of the middle of my career. The further you fall into that trap, the further away you end up from your authentic self.
The question of personal authenticity is actually a critical component in leader development. Will you become a ringmaster in the three-ring circus of your life trying to keep private and personal and outside versions of yourself away from those you lead, or will you take the time do really discover your authenticity and then rest assured that people follow you because they know you are real? Which will dominate you? The creation, or your true self? While it might seem a strange question to some of you right now, I promise that it is not. Sooner or later you will run into yourself somewhere and it will be interesting to see if you are comfortable with that person or have you become a stranger over the years who lost sight of who you really are and why?
Authenticity is the truest sense and understanding of ourselves. We ought to spend most of our time in leader development looking exactly at that. The more we are authentic, the more we seek out and understand and care for our true selves, the more we can set aside the showman and the circus master. He doesn't do anything but confuse those we lead. Ultimately if my Soldiers have faith in my authenticity they will follow me. If they think I am only acting to cover a flaw they will not. The mission - and their lives - may hang in that balance.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
"My only question that may cause more writing is, what happens when one of the three of "You" dominates? How do you balance or should you balance? Sometimes leadership involves acting like you know what you are doing, even when you don't have clue. I do believe some of this acting is for the benefit of the group you are leading. Leadership is often times "showmanship" until you can catch up on the learning curve."
And then this morning I received a comment on #116 from JD that caught my eye as well. I'll include the exchange here as well.
I had written:
"I think one of the interesting parts of this whole line of discussion has to do with how little of it has anything to do with the Army. Becoming properly oriented and self-aware has become the study of my entire life - not just my time in the Army. I think this is a critical area for leader development - recognizing that who you are as an Army leader will have a lot more to do with who and what your formative experiences have created in you, and a lot less of what the Army may or may not have taught you. My orientation to the world is derived from the totality of my life, its' successes, failures, joys, sorrows, hurts, losses etc. Those form me, they form the narrative that is me. I then take that narrative and bring it to the Army. I conform the Army value system and ethic into my orientation, not the other way around."
JD replied with this:
Fen..I love what you just wrote!...really nicely written and thought out....mind if I cut and paste it?!....looks to me like "content and curriculum" for teaching and practicing self-awareness. And you are right, it has nothing to do with the Army...but if leaders in the Army know it and practice it, they will be better leaders....and will serve our Soldiers much better."
Last night I was thinking over the showmanship piece with a friend of mine and she asked me what my thoughts were. I told her that I thought that a lot of times this showmanship equaled the public 'You' that I had spoken of in #106. The persona developed to instill confidence in others and live up to the expectations of the organization. The persona that you take on that you think meets the expectations of senior, peers, and subordinates. The person you become once you get immersed into the organizational culture so much that you cannot exactly remember who you are.
My friend didn't necessarily agree that the showmanship portion of a leader equaled a second persona. Her point was that people ultimately follow someone else because they believe strongly in their narrative. They believe in their authenticity. The have faith in their message. Sometimes though, in order to move or motivate people it's necessary to 'go big'. It's not a false representation of you, it's just giving them the parts of your authenticity that they need to hear in a way they need to hear it.
Those things that are truly me have very little to do with my time in the Army. Those formative experiences both inside and outside of the profession are the parts of me that are most true, most real and most authentic. They all have helped create the person I am as a leader.
And that got me thinking about authenticity. It's not a word we often use to describe people, but maybe it ought to be. Have I been an authentic leader? Have you? If we find a way to get Soldiers and leaders to discover and build upon their authentic selves, to draw upon the totality of their lives, to focus on those things that are core components of who they are, we might end up with a lot better leaders and a lot less need for the creation of a second persona designed only for outside consumption. It's a question of people following you, or following a caricature of you. Have you ever thought about that?
As I continue to discover the parts of my authenticity - those things that make me uniquely me, the question of showmanship becomes less and less important. If the truths of my character, motivations, desires, successes, failures, trials and tribulations are something that I no longer fear or try to hide away, then the public 'You' begins to melt away. I do not need that actor as much as I once did. He doesn't serve to enhance my ability to lead. In fact, he detracts from it. He makes my narrative less clear to those who are looking to me for leadership. He hides me from them instead of inspiring them with my authenticity. My true self. Who I am in the dark, alone where no one else can see. That person is the one who moves someone to believe and follow me, not some store-bought creation that I think is what they want. How much of your leadership is influenced by giving people what you think they want?
My commander friend wanted to know how to inspire people or provide them a clear answer when possibly he didn't have one himself. Is there value to acting a part until more information becomes available to advance the mission, or meet an objective? Prior to last night, I would have wholeheartedly said there was. Sometimes you give them an answer that you really don't have and you cover it up with a false-confidence and bravado and hope they do not see through it. If it begins them moving, then that is enough.
This morning however, I'm not so sure. I don't think you have to try to convince anyone of anything that you do not believe yourself. By doing that you end up taking your eye off the mission and placing it on them, worrying that they might find out that you don't know what the correct answer is. I think what must be done is that you have to discover your own authenticity. That is what they are actually investing their faith in anyway. That you know who and what you are and are not hiding that reality from those you lead. That it is OK to say you don't know when you don't, or that you don't have the answer sitting at your fingertips. Or that you are unsure. Those things may be all the case, and the authentic answer may be, "I don't know what the outcome will be right now, but I know that we have to get this done and that together we will do it. Here is what we are going to do right now. As the situation unfolds, we might have to make adjustments and changes, but ultimately we will get to our objective. We will accomplish our mission."
My friend's question about what happens when one part 'dominates' you, is equally important. That's what happens when you start to believe your own bullshit. You start to place more emphasis on keeping the created 'You' alive than you do on seeing the problem at hand. I think a lot of Army leaders fall into that trap and it is certainly one that dictated a large portion of the middle of my career. The further you fall into that trap, the further away you end up from your authentic self.
The question of personal authenticity is actually a critical component in leader development. Will you become a ringmaster in the three-ring circus of your life trying to keep private and personal and outside versions of yourself away from those you lead, or will you take the time do really discover your authenticity and then rest assured that people follow you because they know you are real? Which will dominate you? The creation, or your true self? While it might seem a strange question to some of you right now, I promise that it is not. Sooner or later you will run into yourself somewhere and it will be interesting to see if you are comfortable with that person or have you become a stranger over the years who lost sight of who you really are and why?
Authenticity is the truest sense and understanding of ourselves. We ought to spend most of our time in leader development looking exactly at that. The more we are authentic, the more we seek out and understand and care for our true selves, the more we can set aside the showman and the circus master. He doesn't do anything but confuse those we lead. Ultimately if my Soldiers have faith in my authenticity they will follow me. If they think I am only acting to cover a flaw they will not. The mission - and their lives - may hang in that balance.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#116 The Truth as I Know It
I have always written this blog to try and highlight some of the difficulties and complexities of human being leadership. Leadership is not easy and it cannot be learned solely learned from a textbook. While the basic framework can often times be codified, the nuance and art have to generate from within each individual. It is their own personal narrative. People will only follow you because of their faith in your character, your vision and your truth. I have most often called this your self-awareness. Something that the Army says is important, but actually spends very little time developing. Most times, I have tried to spread this message by citing a document and then adding my personal thoughts about it - testing out my ideas against yours. Trying something on for size. Seeing if I could hear a grain of truth in the words someone else wrote or clarifying mine in my own head. If my writing has had any worth whatsoever, I would hope it has been to do that for you. To provide you an opportunity to think about yourself and how you lead and the effect of your leadership on those above and below you.
I have spent a lot of time in the last few posts on some much more personal aspects of my journey toward self awareness. How I got to this point in my life, the influences that impacted and formed me - both in the Army and out - and my desire to understand them in such a way that I am ultimately made a better leader and person. While parts of my journey are very personal, I have thankfully found someone who is willing to help me do the hard work required to gain a more complete understanding of who I am. The idea of being willing to take this journey however, should be universal to every Army officer and NCO. Everyone who calls themselves a leader should want to take a hard look at themselves and their influences every now and again, to ensure that they have a clear understanding of who they are and why. To find someone who will question your baseline assumptions and not settle for easy answers. Someone who will help you test whether what you think to be true about yourself, is actually so. If we are not made to take a hard look in the mirror it becomes too easy to believe your own bullshit and, sooner or later, we will fail. Not because we want to fail, but because we lack a more informed frame of reference. I believe very strongly that the high profile firings of so many of our senior officers and NCO's in recent months is a direct reflection of a lack of properly balanced self-awareness. In many ways, while what I'm doing right now is a personal inspection, in many ways, it is also for the betterment of those I serve and the Army overall. If we can ensure that the leaders we are developing are true in their narrative, and clear in their understanding of themselves, then the leadership they provide will be more honest and that honesty inspires those both above and beneath them.
If you find this line of thinking to be a little foreign or strange or uncomfortable, consider the following: In the cover story of The Army Times dated April 25th is an interview with the new Chief of Staff, General Dempsey. Below is part of that story:
"Dempsey acknowledged that building the nation's Army is not simply a matter or supplying tanks, trucks and fully equipped Soldiers. It is also ensuring those Soldiers have and become the leaders the Army desires and the nation deserves....Dempsey said, "What you want to learn is if there is something we could have, should have, done along the way in their development." Dempsey said he would not "accept the notion that there are simply bad apples out there" and move on. Instead, he has a plan to remove the bad apples from the barrel of command."
I have mentioned this many times before. How do we determine when and how someone becomes a bad leader? And if they were 'bad apples', how did they get to be that successful in the first place? What were they presenting to the world that mislead it into believing that they possessed the desirable qualities of leadership, when the baseline behaviors were so far off track? By bad, I'm not necessarily talking about technical competence either. That is important to the overall success of a leader, but ultimately it is not the critical component in this day and age. We have too many specialized positions with highly technical requirements to demand that every leader be able to do every task that every one of their Soldiers can. It's simply impossible to expect that. What is critical however, is that leaders speak the truth to their Soldiers. Their truth. What they know and believe to be true. What they hold dear and value. What their narrative is. This component is actually more important in a technically advanced age than any other skill set development.
What is your truth? Do you know? Have you ever considered the question? I can tell you that since starting my own search, I have uncovered a lot of things that I didn't know existed before and some of them have been hard to look at. Ultimately though, they are valuable. They will make me a better leader. Why? Because once you strip away the artifice and layers of survival skills and pretense that we all walk around with to one degree or another, and find a more clear picture of yourself - your strengths, weaknesses, passions, idiosyncrasies etc, then your truth become more real. Your narrative more complete. And that is the person and leader who inspires people. Your leadership is enhanced as you become more self-aware and less worried about hiding so much of yourself from the world.
General Dempsey is challenging the leader development paradigm in the Army. He initiated the year long look at our institutional ethic - what it means to be a professional Soldier in the United States Army. He was right after a decade at war to do so. A lot has changed in the world and the Army since 9/11. If you boiled that Army-wide study down to each Army leader however, what we all need to do is take a hard, uncompromising look at ourselves and find out what it means to be a leader of truth, character and vision. Are we speaking the truth about ourselves to our subordinates? Is our narrative clear and strong? Are we hiding or embracing our selves? These are important questions to consider. They are also something very few do, and most, at some point, pay a high cost for. I certainly did. Now, however, I have been given the opportunity to look at myself from another vantage point and I am grateful for the opportunity. What the Army can do for all of it's leaders is demand that each of them spend most of their development time focusing on themselves. The understandings they gain will provide them a much greater and easier way to ensure that those they hope to lead and inspire have a clear understanding of their truth. That, after all is why we lead. To provide purpose, direction, and motivation. In times of great danger or difficulty, it will not be the technical ability of the leader who inspires the Soldier. It will the real faith the Soldier has in who the leader truly is.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
I have spent a lot of time in the last few posts on some much more personal aspects of my journey toward self awareness. How I got to this point in my life, the influences that impacted and formed me - both in the Army and out - and my desire to understand them in such a way that I am ultimately made a better leader and person. While parts of my journey are very personal, I have thankfully found someone who is willing to help me do the hard work required to gain a more complete understanding of who I am. The idea of being willing to take this journey however, should be universal to every Army officer and NCO. Everyone who calls themselves a leader should want to take a hard look at themselves and their influences every now and again, to ensure that they have a clear understanding of who they are and why. To find someone who will question your baseline assumptions and not settle for easy answers. Someone who will help you test whether what you think to be true about yourself, is actually so. If we are not made to take a hard look in the mirror it becomes too easy to believe your own bullshit and, sooner or later, we will fail. Not because we want to fail, but because we lack a more informed frame of reference. I believe very strongly that the high profile firings of so many of our senior officers and NCO's in recent months is a direct reflection of a lack of properly balanced self-awareness. In many ways, while what I'm doing right now is a personal inspection, in many ways, it is also for the betterment of those I serve and the Army overall. If we can ensure that the leaders we are developing are true in their narrative, and clear in their understanding of themselves, then the leadership they provide will be more honest and that honesty inspires those both above and beneath them.
If you find this line of thinking to be a little foreign or strange or uncomfortable, consider the following: In the cover story of The Army Times dated April 25th is an interview with the new Chief of Staff, General Dempsey. Below is part of that story:
"Dempsey acknowledged that building the nation's Army is not simply a matter or supplying tanks, trucks and fully equipped Soldiers. It is also ensuring those Soldiers have and become the leaders the Army desires and the nation deserves....Dempsey said, "What you want to learn is if there is something we could have, should have, done along the way in their development." Dempsey said he would not "accept the notion that there are simply bad apples out there" and move on. Instead, he has a plan to remove the bad apples from the barrel of command."
I have mentioned this many times before. How do we determine when and how someone becomes a bad leader? And if they were 'bad apples', how did they get to be that successful in the first place? What were they presenting to the world that mislead it into believing that they possessed the desirable qualities of leadership, when the baseline behaviors were so far off track? By bad, I'm not necessarily talking about technical competence either. That is important to the overall success of a leader, but ultimately it is not the critical component in this day and age. We have too many specialized positions with highly technical requirements to demand that every leader be able to do every task that every one of their Soldiers can. It's simply impossible to expect that. What is critical however, is that leaders speak the truth to their Soldiers. Their truth. What they know and believe to be true. What they hold dear and value. What their narrative is. This component is actually more important in a technically advanced age than any other skill set development.
What is your truth? Do you know? Have you ever considered the question? I can tell you that since starting my own search, I have uncovered a lot of things that I didn't know existed before and some of them have been hard to look at. Ultimately though, they are valuable. They will make me a better leader. Why? Because once you strip away the artifice and layers of survival skills and pretense that we all walk around with to one degree or another, and find a more clear picture of yourself - your strengths, weaknesses, passions, idiosyncrasies etc, then your truth become more real. Your narrative more complete. And that is the person and leader who inspires people. Your leadership is enhanced as you become more self-aware and less worried about hiding so much of yourself from the world.
General Dempsey is challenging the leader development paradigm in the Army. He initiated the year long look at our institutional ethic - what it means to be a professional Soldier in the United States Army. He was right after a decade at war to do so. A lot has changed in the world and the Army since 9/11. If you boiled that Army-wide study down to each Army leader however, what we all need to do is take a hard, uncompromising look at ourselves and find out what it means to be a leader of truth, character and vision. Are we speaking the truth about ourselves to our subordinates? Is our narrative clear and strong? Are we hiding or embracing our selves? These are important questions to consider. They are also something very few do, and most, at some point, pay a high cost for. I certainly did. Now, however, I have been given the opportunity to look at myself from another vantage point and I am grateful for the opportunity. What the Army can do for all of it's leaders is demand that each of them spend most of their development time focusing on themselves. The understandings they gain will provide them a much greater and easier way to ensure that those they hope to lead and inspire have a clear understanding of their truth. That, after all is why we lead. To provide purpose, direction, and motivation. In times of great danger or difficulty, it will not be the technical ability of the leader who inspires the Soldier. It will the real faith the Soldier has in who the leader truly is.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#115 The Risk/Trust Nexus
Earlier this week, General Martin Dempsey was installed as the 37th Chief of Staff of the Army, it's top position. The next day he published a document entitled, "Thoughts on Crossing the Line of Departure" and sent it to the force. You can find the link to it here:
http://www.army.mil/-images/2011/04/11/104815/index.html
What struck me about the paper was the last paragraph.
"One other thing you need to know about me. In my 37 years, I've been deployed several times, to several different kinds of conflict. In each case, upon notification to deploy, I was able to requisition nearly everything my unit needed. What I couldn't requisition was Trust, Discipline and Fitness. These qualities have to exist in every unit, and in every Soldier of our Army all of the time. When I come to visit your organization - whether a tactical unit or part of our institutional Army - I'll want to know what you're doing to develop a climate of trust, to ensure the discipline of your Soldiers, and to increase the fitness of the Force."
What are you doing to develop a climate of trust? Interesting question. I think it will be instructive, and somewhat amusing, to watch different levels of command from the individual Soldier all the way through Divisions and Corps try to answer his question. I've got a suspicion that there will be a lot of dancing around at the podium if that one comes up during a briefing....
What does it take to develop a environment of trust? To arrive at a mutual understanding such that the leader and the led both enjoy the same feeling that they have the tools and support to carry out their assigned missions, or to address an emerging challenge? And, important to the discussion, who determines whether or not that climate truly exists?
In his book, "On Becoming a Leader", Warren Bennis had this to say about the role of a leader in developing a trusting organization:
"There are 4 ingredients that leaders have that generate and sustain trust:
1. Constancy - Whatever surprises leaders themselves may face, they don't generate any for the group. Leaders are all of a piece. They stay the course.
2. Congruity - Leaders walk their talk. In true leaders their is no gap between the theories they espouse and the life they practice.
3. Reliability - Leaders are there when it counts; they are ready to support their co-workers in the moments that matter.
4. Integrity - Leaders honor their commitments and promises."
I think these 4 simple ideas are key to developing trusting organizations across the Army. These belong to both the leader and the led equally. First, be constant. Be there. Be engaged and be proactive. See the problems, and provide a rock for your people to lean on when they lose their way. Expect the crisis to arise and prepare yourself mentally and physically for it. Learn to listen to the discordant sounds in your head that alert you to an impending change of course and then prepare your people for it. Second, congruity. Be who and what you say you are. Provide your people a faith that what they see is what they get, not a caricature of something acting in a way that does not ring true. Third, reliability is key. people need to believe that others genuinely care about them, and that that care is returned in a manner that they can recognize. Without that feedback mechanism, there is no way for either side to know, without a doubt, that the other is acting on their best behalf. If, a person half-steps in his or her personal commitment to someone then the entire trust system breaks down. Finally, Integrity - Hand in hand with reliability, integrity is people's spoken and unspoken commitment to others and the organization. If every level of the Army can actively demonstrate those 4 qualities, I believe that the entire organization will certainly be able to live up to General Dempsey's mandate that we become an institution of trust.
The missing key here though is the element of risk. A leader must have a vision for the Soldier and the organization. That vision may be markedly different from the Soldier's understanding of their present circumstance. So the two are very far apart in the beginning. The job of the leader is to close that understanding gap. The risk for the Soldier is believing in something outside of their understanding of the current environment. Things have to be done by the leader to demonstrate that their vision (narrative) is more accurate or correct for the Soldier than the Soldier's is. That Soldier is risking his/her narrative against a new one. I think it is imperative that leaders understand and respect that.
There is risk for the leader as well. If they offer a narrative that is too widely divergent from the Soldier's narrative, they risk that the Soldier cannot accept it at all and rejects it summarily. If the leader does not have a method of bridging that gap, then it won't matter if their narrative is correct. The Soldier has no way of hearing it, or seeing how to achieve it. It is incumbent upon the leader to recognize when that happens. The possibility is that the two groups remain apart and actually start to drift further than they started. This is the worst possible scenario and often leads to the toxic environments that plague a lot of units today.
So small steps are taken by both sides. The leader says, "Follow me." The led says, "OK." This is risk 1 for both. But both sides are holding out something. The leader may want to run down a particular road because they know it is best. However, they may need to let the led go down another road first for no other reason than to learn that it is not the right one. This is trust 1 from the leader. That the led will reach the end of that road and be able to recognize that they went the wrong way. The leader has to take small steps to demonstrate Bennis's four ingredients in ways that resonate with the led. This is risk 2. This has to happen because, in the beginning, it is the led's determination of whether or not the leader's vision will work, or had value that will advance the trust or stop it cold. This step is taken without knowing the outcome in advance. This is the risk/trust nexus. Where the two come together. The leader will not advance the narrative without the led buying in, and the led will not buy in unless the leader possesses something that provides them a belief that their 'buy-in' is in their best interest. This is a true test of leadership versus management. Managers - and a lot of Army 'leaders' are actually managers - impose systems to implement vision. Leaders gain the willful acceptance of their vision from subordinates. One is system driven, one is human driven. Both have a place in the Army, but they are not the same and we do a disservice to the entire organization when we mix them together.
The nexus of risk and trust is the center of the leader universe. You cannot have one without the other. And risk, how much, when and where, is the real starting point for any discussion involving trust.
So who sets this tone? Who sets the wheels of risk and trust in motion to advance a vision or narrative? Honestly, I think there is equal opportunity on both sides of the equation. I think the Army and most large institutions believe that they often control both of these in moving the narrative forward, but in reality, both the leader and the led have responsibilities in the dialogue that will not work if one side or the other owns the entire process. The leader has to have a vision to share. The led have to be willing to look for opportunity in it. The leader determines how the narrative will play out. The led have to provide feedback when they cannot see the steps. The led have to have faith in the leader's narrative. The leader has to gain that faith. The led had to be willing to risk the status quo. The leader has to value their risk.
Ultimately, the risk/trust nexus is a dance between two equal partners. Trust cannot dance by itself. Nor can risk. As the Army drives forward under General Dempsey's hand, it will be interesting to see how this dance of risk and trust plays out. Right now, the leader has set a new narrative in place. It is up to us the led, the take the leap of faith required, to take some risk that our narrative might need to be updated. With mutual respect for the leader, the led and the institution, this is possible. Without it, the Army will stagnate in it's current methods of thinking.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
http://www.army.mil/-images/2011/04/11/104815/index.html
What struck me about the paper was the last paragraph.
"One other thing you need to know about me. In my 37 years, I've been deployed several times, to several different kinds of conflict. In each case, upon notification to deploy, I was able to requisition nearly everything my unit needed. What I couldn't requisition was Trust, Discipline and Fitness. These qualities have to exist in every unit, and in every Soldier of our Army all of the time. When I come to visit your organization - whether a tactical unit or part of our institutional Army - I'll want to know what you're doing to develop a climate of trust, to ensure the discipline of your Soldiers, and to increase the fitness of the Force."
What are you doing to develop a climate of trust? Interesting question. I think it will be instructive, and somewhat amusing, to watch different levels of command from the individual Soldier all the way through Divisions and Corps try to answer his question. I've got a suspicion that there will be a lot of dancing around at the podium if that one comes up during a briefing....
What does it take to develop a environment of trust? To arrive at a mutual understanding such that the leader and the led both enjoy the same feeling that they have the tools and support to carry out their assigned missions, or to address an emerging challenge? And, important to the discussion, who determines whether or not that climate truly exists?
In his book, "On Becoming a Leader", Warren Bennis had this to say about the role of a leader in developing a trusting organization:
"There are 4 ingredients that leaders have that generate and sustain trust:
1. Constancy - Whatever surprises leaders themselves may face, they don't generate any for the group. Leaders are all of a piece. They stay the course.
2. Congruity - Leaders walk their talk. In true leaders their is no gap between the theories they espouse and the life they practice.
3. Reliability - Leaders are there when it counts; they are ready to support their co-workers in the moments that matter.
4. Integrity - Leaders honor their commitments and promises."
I think these 4 simple ideas are key to developing trusting organizations across the Army. These belong to both the leader and the led equally. First, be constant. Be there. Be engaged and be proactive. See the problems, and provide a rock for your people to lean on when they lose their way. Expect the crisis to arise and prepare yourself mentally and physically for it. Learn to listen to the discordant sounds in your head that alert you to an impending change of course and then prepare your people for it. Second, congruity. Be who and what you say you are. Provide your people a faith that what they see is what they get, not a caricature of something acting in a way that does not ring true. Third, reliability is key. people need to believe that others genuinely care about them, and that that care is returned in a manner that they can recognize. Without that feedback mechanism, there is no way for either side to know, without a doubt, that the other is acting on their best behalf. If, a person half-steps in his or her personal commitment to someone then the entire trust system breaks down. Finally, Integrity - Hand in hand with reliability, integrity is people's spoken and unspoken commitment to others and the organization. If every level of the Army can actively demonstrate those 4 qualities, I believe that the entire organization will certainly be able to live up to General Dempsey's mandate that we become an institution of trust.
The missing key here though is the element of risk. A leader must have a vision for the Soldier and the organization. That vision may be markedly different from the Soldier's understanding of their present circumstance. So the two are very far apart in the beginning. The job of the leader is to close that understanding gap. The risk for the Soldier is believing in something outside of their understanding of the current environment. Things have to be done by the leader to demonstrate that their vision (narrative) is more accurate or correct for the Soldier than the Soldier's is. That Soldier is risking his/her narrative against a new one. I think it is imperative that leaders understand and respect that.
There is risk for the leader as well. If they offer a narrative that is too widely divergent from the Soldier's narrative, they risk that the Soldier cannot accept it at all and rejects it summarily. If the leader does not have a method of bridging that gap, then it won't matter if their narrative is correct. The Soldier has no way of hearing it, or seeing how to achieve it. It is incumbent upon the leader to recognize when that happens. The possibility is that the two groups remain apart and actually start to drift further than they started. This is the worst possible scenario and often leads to the toxic environments that plague a lot of units today.
So small steps are taken by both sides. The leader says, "Follow me." The led says, "OK." This is risk 1 for both. But both sides are holding out something. The leader may want to run down a particular road because they know it is best. However, they may need to let the led go down another road first for no other reason than to learn that it is not the right one. This is trust 1 from the leader. That the led will reach the end of that road and be able to recognize that they went the wrong way. The leader has to take small steps to demonstrate Bennis's four ingredients in ways that resonate with the led. This is risk 2. This has to happen because, in the beginning, it is the led's determination of whether or not the leader's vision will work, or had value that will advance the trust or stop it cold. This step is taken without knowing the outcome in advance. This is the risk/trust nexus. Where the two come together. The leader will not advance the narrative without the led buying in, and the led will not buy in unless the leader possesses something that provides them a belief that their 'buy-in' is in their best interest. This is a true test of leadership versus management. Managers - and a lot of Army 'leaders' are actually managers - impose systems to implement vision. Leaders gain the willful acceptance of their vision from subordinates. One is system driven, one is human driven. Both have a place in the Army, but they are not the same and we do a disservice to the entire organization when we mix them together.
The nexus of risk and trust is the center of the leader universe. You cannot have one without the other. And risk, how much, when and where, is the real starting point for any discussion involving trust.
So who sets this tone? Who sets the wheels of risk and trust in motion to advance a vision or narrative? Honestly, I think there is equal opportunity on both sides of the equation. I think the Army and most large institutions believe that they often control both of these in moving the narrative forward, but in reality, both the leader and the led have responsibilities in the dialogue that will not work if one side or the other owns the entire process. The leader has to have a vision to share. The led have to be willing to look for opportunity in it. The leader determines how the narrative will play out. The led have to provide feedback when they cannot see the steps. The led have to have faith in the leader's narrative. The leader has to gain that faith. The led had to be willing to risk the status quo. The leader has to value their risk.
Ultimately, the risk/trust nexus is a dance between two equal partners. Trust cannot dance by itself. Nor can risk. As the Army drives forward under General Dempsey's hand, it will be interesting to see how this dance of risk and trust plays out. Right now, the leader has set a new narrative in place. It is up to us the led, the take the leap of faith required, to take some risk that our narrative might need to be updated. With mutual respect for the leader, the led and the institution, this is possible. Without it, the Army will stagnate in it's current methods of thinking.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#114 Learning From Hamlet
"There’s nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so."
- William Shakespeare
At various times throughout throughout my writing, I have talked about Boyd's second O in the OODA Cycle, Orientation. I have made the claim over and over that Orientation is the critical step to gaining insight into how people view their world, and that how they view their world has a direct effect on how they lead others. I have talked about it in terms of filters. We all have filters that we use to navigate our environment and those filters are particular to every one of us. Therefore, no two people can have the exact same understanding of something even if they were standing side-by-side staring at it. There are a lot of things that can happen in that filtering/orienting gap.
This has always seemed to me to be a key understanding in leadership - and one that we totally overlook in training. A leader needs to have an awareness about why they see their world the way they do, and they need to understand that others - subordinates or superiors - cannot and likely will not view it the same way. Not in the beginning at least. The job of the leader is to bring those disparate understandings together in order to accomplish the assigned mission.
The past week has been a personally challenging one for me and I have learned a lot about myself in an extremely short period of time. I am starting to become very aware of the power of the filters in my own life. And while some of this discovery is difficult, ultimately it will enhance me both personally and professionally. Some of my journey is intensely private and will not appear here because it does not belong here. There are parts however that do belong - especially with regard to how we train leaders in the Army.
A friend of mine, reacting to last weeks post, introduced me to two behavioral concepts that have direct bearing on this discussion both personally and professionally. The first is called Irrational Thinking - a set of defense mechanism filters that affect future decisions, and the second is a school of thought and therapeutic technique called Rational Emotional Behavior Therapy (REBT). Together they form a powerful set of self-awareness and leader awareness tools.
Irrational Thinking is something we all do to one degree or another and generally has it's origins in some form of fatalistic, permanent, and stationary idea about people, events, or things that affect our lives. It is a natural occurrence. Something negative happens and we form a defense against it. If this, then that. If something bad happens to me, and it is painful, then I start dropping filters in place to protect myself from its pain if/when it shows up again. Another option is found in the fear that if I do not accomplish this task to perfection then XYZ will be the outcome. And that outcome is bad, is permanent and will define me forever. There are multiple sub-categories of Irrational Thinking which I highlighted below. Personally, all that matters for this conversation is that once armed with the knowledge of Irrational Thinking's existence and beginning to see how it acts to filter my world, things started to become a lot more clear. My long struggle to come to grips with Black Hearts is largely a text book case study in Irrational Thinking.
The second concept is Rational Emotional Behavior Therapy (REBT). Leaving the therapy part alone for a minute and concentrating only on the school of thought portion consider the following from Wikipedia:
"One of the fundamental premises of REBT is that humans, in most cases, do not merely get upset by unfortunate adversities, but also by how they construct their views of reality through their language, evaluative beliefs, meanings and philosophies about the world, themselves and others. In REBT, clients usually learn and begin to apply this premise by learning the A-B-C-model of psychological disturbance and change. The A-B-C model states that it normally is not merely an A, adversity (or activating event) that contributes to disturbed and dysfunctional emotional and behavioral Cs, consequences, but also what people B, believe about the A, adversity. A, adversity can be either an external situation or a thought or other kind of internal event, and it can refer to an event in the past, present, or future."
To put it plainly, REBT accepts that every time something happens (a triggering event) it is not only the act that matters. In fact, the act is neutral until assigned a value by the individual (Hamlet's quotation above). The resulting Orientation is the outcome of the Act as effected by the Value assigned.
REBT also accepts that emotion, reason, and action are not separate boxes within us, but all are mixed together in varying degrees and that they constantly interact with each other to create new understandings of our reality and environment.
While this all might sound really complicated so far, bear with it for a moment....
I am deployed and attacked by a civilian. They might be an insurgent. But I cannot know that for sure. All I know is that they do not wear a uniform. The attack produces fear and anger. The fear and anger lead to hatred. Hatred leads to the over-generalization that all civilians are evil. The over-generalization leads to there only being one train of thought that I allow myself when viewing civilians on the battlefield (i.e.that all civilians want to do me harm). If the attack itself is the trigger, how does it directly lead to an absolute Orientation that all civilians are evil? The reality is that is doesn't. What does allow that to happen are the intermediate emotions of fear and anger that get between the act and the outcome. If we taught leaders to recognize that pattern in themselves and others, then the Orientation (how they filter the problem) changes.
Why does all this matter? Consider for a second what could happen if we taught REBT in leader development schools, not as a post deployment therapy technique (although there would are benefits to that as well), but rather as a 'how' to think method for leader development. If we could show people that the emotions that drive many of their actions are helping to predetermine and influence some outcomes, then we might be able to mitigate both negative Soldier actions, and emotional trauma that many Soldiers are face upon returning home. Conversely, their positively based emotions can be used to increase Soldier resiliency both predeployment and during it when they are confronted with the vagaries of war.
An example: Was it rational to believe in 2001 that all Iraqis would automatically greet us as liberators and harbingers of freedom? That they would patiently wait for the new life that everybody said would follow with the removal of Saddam Hussein? No. It wasn't. However, since we did not approach the situation rationally, and then placed our behavioral filters in between the action and the outcome, what happened? When the outcome was incongruent with the action, we had no way to reorient ourselves and that led to other behaviors that influenced the war significantly from 2003 - 2007.
Personally, while my introduction to REBT is new, and I don't yet have a full understanding of it in practice, it seems instinctual to me that it helps inform and flesh out the Orientation portion of the OODA cycle. As Boyd pointed out, one's Orientation to a situation is critical to success or failure. It has to be gotten right and whoever can do that fastest will get to the Act portion more quickly and begin to effect the enemy before they can react. What slows people down in OODA is having to sort through all the filters, and find a common language to work from. REBT is a method of doing that.
The largest single thought process that works against REBT however, is probably Irrational Thought. In a document I was sent, some of the ways that Irrational Thought works are as follows:
Catastrophic Thinking - Blowing negative events or feelings way out of proportion.
Black and White Thinking - Viewing everything in terms of absolutes.
Magnifying the Negative - Dwelling on the negative impacts of something and making it seem much larger than the positive.
Overgeneralizing - Assuming that something that happened at one time or in one situation will continue to happen in all places and all situations.
Personalizing - Assuming the blame for something you might have influenced but was not totally under your control.
If you take the Irrational Thoughts statements above and let them go unabated, you will eventually run into almost every Soldier and leader issue we have faced for the last decade. However, if we as an institution were to teach and apply REBT principles in the school house and in the operational force, we would then have a method of counter-acting the negative influence of Irrational Thought and focus people more completely on the common language of the mission and commander's intent.
My recognition of how Irrational Thought has effected me for the last 5 years has been profound. The introduction to REBT as a thought generating process has left me with hope that I now have a method of orienting myself correctly to any situation that might arise. While the personal process is slow and painful right now, it holds promise as both a way to recover in a post-deployment setting and as a thought mechanism we can introduce to the schoolhouses to increase leader and Soldier self-awareness.
In the decentralized world of Army operations and instant communications that we live in, the actions of one individual can often have large consequences very quickly. If we had a method of helping leaders and Soldiers to stay more correctly, more rationally, oriented I wonder if some of the more negative actions might possibly have been avoided?
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
- William Shakespeare
At various times throughout throughout my writing, I have talked about Boyd's second O in the OODA Cycle, Orientation. I have made the claim over and over that Orientation is the critical step to gaining insight into how people view their world, and that how they view their world has a direct effect on how they lead others. I have talked about it in terms of filters. We all have filters that we use to navigate our environment and those filters are particular to every one of us. Therefore, no two people can have the exact same understanding of something even if they were standing side-by-side staring at it. There are a lot of things that can happen in that filtering/orienting gap.
This has always seemed to me to be a key understanding in leadership - and one that we totally overlook in training. A leader needs to have an awareness about why they see their world the way they do, and they need to understand that others - subordinates or superiors - cannot and likely will not view it the same way. Not in the beginning at least. The job of the leader is to bring those disparate understandings together in order to accomplish the assigned mission.
The past week has been a personally challenging one for me and I have learned a lot about myself in an extremely short period of time. I am starting to become very aware of the power of the filters in my own life. And while some of this discovery is difficult, ultimately it will enhance me both personally and professionally. Some of my journey is intensely private and will not appear here because it does not belong here. There are parts however that do belong - especially with regard to how we train leaders in the Army.
A friend of mine, reacting to last weeks post, introduced me to two behavioral concepts that have direct bearing on this discussion both personally and professionally. The first is called Irrational Thinking - a set of defense mechanism filters that affect future decisions, and the second is a school of thought and therapeutic technique called Rational Emotional Behavior Therapy (REBT). Together they form a powerful set of self-awareness and leader awareness tools.
Irrational Thinking is something we all do to one degree or another and generally has it's origins in some form of fatalistic, permanent, and stationary idea about people, events, or things that affect our lives. It is a natural occurrence. Something negative happens and we form a defense against it. If this, then that. If something bad happens to me, and it is painful, then I start dropping filters in place to protect myself from its pain if/when it shows up again. Another option is found in the fear that if I do not accomplish this task to perfection then XYZ will be the outcome. And that outcome is bad, is permanent and will define me forever. There are multiple sub-categories of Irrational Thinking which I highlighted below. Personally, all that matters for this conversation is that once armed with the knowledge of Irrational Thinking's existence and beginning to see how it acts to filter my world, things started to become a lot more clear. My long struggle to come to grips with Black Hearts is largely a text book case study in Irrational Thinking.
The second concept is Rational Emotional Behavior Therapy (REBT). Leaving the therapy part alone for a minute and concentrating only on the school of thought portion consider the following from Wikipedia:
"One of the fundamental premises of REBT is that humans, in most cases, do not merely get upset by unfortunate adversities, but also by how they construct their views of reality through their language, evaluative beliefs, meanings and philosophies about the world, themselves and others. In REBT, clients usually learn and begin to apply this premise by learning the A-B-C-model of psychological disturbance and change. The A-B-C model states that it normally is not merely an A, adversity (or activating event) that contributes to disturbed and dysfunctional emotional and behavioral Cs, consequences, but also what people B, believe about the A, adversity. A, adversity can be either an external situation or a thought or other kind of internal event, and it can refer to an event in the past, present, or future."
To put it plainly, REBT accepts that every time something happens (a triggering event) it is not only the act that matters. In fact, the act is neutral until assigned a value by the individual (Hamlet's quotation above). The resulting Orientation is the outcome of the Act as effected by the Value assigned.
REBT also accepts that emotion, reason, and action are not separate boxes within us, but all are mixed together in varying degrees and that they constantly interact with each other to create new understandings of our reality and environment.
While this all might sound really complicated so far, bear with it for a moment....
I am deployed and attacked by a civilian. They might be an insurgent. But I cannot know that for sure. All I know is that they do not wear a uniform. The attack produces fear and anger. The fear and anger lead to hatred. Hatred leads to the over-generalization that all civilians are evil. The over-generalization leads to there only being one train of thought that I allow myself when viewing civilians on the battlefield (i.e.that all civilians want to do me harm). If the attack itself is the trigger, how does it directly lead to an absolute Orientation that all civilians are evil? The reality is that is doesn't. What does allow that to happen are the intermediate emotions of fear and anger that get between the act and the outcome. If we taught leaders to recognize that pattern in themselves and others, then the Orientation (how they filter the problem) changes.
Why does all this matter? Consider for a second what could happen if we taught REBT in leader development schools, not as a post deployment therapy technique (although there would are benefits to that as well), but rather as a 'how' to think method for leader development. If we could show people that the emotions that drive many of their actions are helping to predetermine and influence some outcomes, then we might be able to mitigate both negative Soldier actions, and emotional trauma that many Soldiers are face upon returning home. Conversely, their positively based emotions can be used to increase Soldier resiliency both predeployment and during it when they are confronted with the vagaries of war.
An example: Was it rational to believe in 2001 that all Iraqis would automatically greet us as liberators and harbingers of freedom? That they would patiently wait for the new life that everybody said would follow with the removal of Saddam Hussein? No. It wasn't. However, since we did not approach the situation rationally, and then placed our behavioral filters in between the action and the outcome, what happened? When the outcome was incongruent with the action, we had no way to reorient ourselves and that led to other behaviors that influenced the war significantly from 2003 - 2007.
Personally, while my introduction to REBT is new, and I don't yet have a full understanding of it in practice, it seems instinctual to me that it helps inform and flesh out the Orientation portion of the OODA cycle. As Boyd pointed out, one's Orientation to a situation is critical to success or failure. It has to be gotten right and whoever can do that fastest will get to the Act portion more quickly and begin to effect the enemy before they can react. What slows people down in OODA is having to sort through all the filters, and find a common language to work from. REBT is a method of doing that.
The largest single thought process that works against REBT however, is probably Irrational Thought. In a document I was sent, some of the ways that Irrational Thought works are as follows:
Catastrophic Thinking - Blowing negative events or feelings way out of proportion.
Black and White Thinking - Viewing everything in terms of absolutes.
Magnifying the Negative - Dwelling on the negative impacts of something and making it seem much larger than the positive.
Overgeneralizing - Assuming that something that happened at one time or in one situation will continue to happen in all places and all situations.
Personalizing - Assuming the blame for something you might have influenced but was not totally under your control.
If you take the Irrational Thoughts statements above and let them go unabated, you will eventually run into almost every Soldier and leader issue we have faced for the last decade. However, if we as an institution were to teach and apply REBT principles in the school house and in the operational force, we would then have a method of counter-acting the negative influence of Irrational Thought and focus people more completely on the common language of the mission and commander's intent.
My recognition of how Irrational Thought has effected me for the last 5 years has been profound. The introduction to REBT as a thought generating process has left me with hope that I now have a method of orienting myself correctly to any situation that might arise. While the personal process is slow and painful right now, it holds promise as both a way to recover in a post-deployment setting and as a thought mechanism we can introduce to the schoolhouses to increase leader and Soldier self-awareness.
In the decentralized world of Army operations and instant communications that we live in, the actions of one individual can often have large consequences very quickly. If we had a method of helping leaders and Soldiers to stay more correctly, more rationally, oriented I wonder if some of the more negative actions might possibly have been avoided?
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
#113 The Invincibility Myth
I was talking to a friend of mine this week and she asked me what I felt had fundamentally changed about me over the last five years since the Black Hearts events took place. She asked me to identify those things that I was absolutely sure of and those things I was not. Had my core values or beliefs changed? Had my sense of self identification changed or am I still the same person I was - in terms of values and orientation - that I was earlier in my career?
On the surface, the answer to these seems pretty simple. Of course I'm different than I was 5 years ago. Everyone is. Nobody can retain exactly the same orientation that they possessed at a different period in their life. Especially in extremely difficult circumstances such as those were. But it's really not quite that easy. If your baseline values haven't changed, and your belief in who and what you are haven't changed, and your sense of right and wrong haven't changed, then fundamentally are you different today than you were 5, 10 or 15 years ago? And if so, why? The following is part of a chat exchange we shared. I think it's very relevant to the theme of today's post.
Her: "When there is a leadership failure, it is either a failure of competence or character."
Me: "For me, one could make the argument that it could be a competence failure, but not character. I guarantee that. I'm not perfect and have done things I regret, but my character is pretty much the only thing that has survived a lot of these last years."
Her: "Complete pride, impeccable character, questionable competence?"
Me: "Fair enough."
Her: "So that's where the doubt actually is. Not swept away by the pandemonium of the crowd, but that there were some actual missteps.."
Me: "No. There was no doubt then. The doubt now is unjustified (I am aware of that, just can't stop it) because I could not have known then what I know now."
Her: "Ok. So the failure of competence can only be seen through reflection?"
Me: "Yes. You can only know what you got right or wrong once the result is known. You go into something believing that you are doing X to achieve Y. Only after you do it can you see your actions clearly."
Her: "Should you have known those things at the time? Would a group of your peers with comparable training and experience have made similar decisions?"
Me: "Probably. But the circumstances were almost so unique that there is really nothing to compare it to. That probably applies to part two of your question."
Her: "I'm just going after what parts you're absolutely sure about, and what parts feel not as solid."
Me: "I'm sure that I made right and sound tactical decisions. I'm sure that had the rape/murder not happened the rehabilitation of that platoon would have happened on my watch. I'm sure that the enemy got a vote on one occasion prompted by the actions of a few people that never allowed that chance to happen."
To me, the key part of that exchange is the statement, "There was no doubt then."
In early 2005 I was invincible. I had absolute faith in myself and my ability to be successful in the Army. I truly believed that I knew how to lead Soldiers and that my entire decision making process was correct every time, all the time. That may be arrogant, but that arrogance was honestly come by. The Army created it. It planted a seed through promotion, opportunity and schooling, nursed it through its' infancy and watched it grow into adulthood. And it kept validating it every step of the way. Graducation from this school means you are in the top 10% of all infantrymen. Getting inducted into that club places you in the top 5% of all Noncommissioned Officers. Being selected for promotion earlier than your peers means that you are more competent than they are based upon the Army's criteria for excellence. It is a reaffirming system. It is a concrete reality reflected by awards, certificates, and tangible things to hang on a wall that reflect back to you your sense of complete understanding of your world. It's what allows you to believe your own bullshit and it is very difficult to get anyone - especially yourself - to look beyond it and see if there is something more.
This invincibility myth pervades the entire Army culture and has an amazing power to shape how we think, act and behave. It helps write our doctrine, inform the way we communicate and even molds our response mechanisms. In many ways, we have become a prisoner of our own invention. We have an ethic of service characterized by complete devotion to the Army's needs (which we sell as the Nation's needs - just wondering if the Nation knows how many Power Point slides it creates each day!). Those we serve are led to believe that we have an answer for every question, a solution to every problem, and our solutions and answers will be correct every single time. We are the Army and we do not make mistakes, and we do not fail. Why? Because we have systems in place to prevent failure, we have the best leader development system the world can produce, and we are so dedicated to getting it right that we can continually work on a problem until it is solved. We will never quit. We endure. We redouble our efforts. We are Supermen. We are invincible. And you, the early promoted, well decorated, oft-awarded young man or woman, you are the best of the best. Stick with us kid and you'll go far.
It's a myth. And when the world you thought to be made of concrete turns out to be only so much smoke and mirrors, the results can be devastating. For the past 5 years, I have been slowly trying to make my way back to finding those things that I am sure of. Slowly trying to stake down what I know to be absolutely true about me, versus those things that were falsely created by my inability to properly orient to my surroundings. The price to be paid for me believing my own bullshit.
After 2006, once all labels were in place -that I was a leadership failure, responsible for getting people needlessly killed etc, a new reality started to get formed. And just like the previous one based on invincibility, this new one, built on indecision, fear, and paranoia took hold and gained its' own momentum and became a new self-definition. In fact, it is no more real than the previous model, but it's root system runs just as deep and - in many ways - is much more difficult to break hold of precisely because the invincibility model is so pervasive throughout our culture.
The Army speaks a lot about self-awareness. Everywhere you turn, you'll find people saying that good, successful leaders are self-aware. That they understand who they are. That they possess a solid moral/ethical/behavioral ethic that is unshakeable. This is the message that gets sent over and over:
You came to us with a set of values. We (the Army) molded you, trained you, rewarded you, and developed you. We have co-opted your values (mostly without you knowing it happened) and slowly replaced them with our own until you are a walking, talking example of invincibility in action. But please don't look too far beneath that paper thin veneer of invincibility we have so carefully constructed. Don't ask yourself the really hard questions about your character, your true strengths and weaknesses, your true, personally immutable, value system. Don't pay any attention to your own doubts. And please don't listen to them as warning signs. Please don't do that. Because if you do, you might find out that our carefully crafted system is a house of cards and that we need it to be that way in order to ensure that when you screw up we can easily re-label you and protect ourselves at the same time.
If we truly want to inform and influence the leader development discussion, a lot more focus will have to go into getting people to know who they are - those baseline things that cannot be surrendered at any point, for anyone, under any circumstances. While the answers to those questions will be different for each of us (another thing the institution doesn't like) ultimately, they will provide the Army with stronger leaders. People who's character and leadership style is formed not by the fake concrete of the current system, but by an unshakeable faith in their understanding of who they are. The only problem with this is that we often cannot find our true selves until a crisis unfolds. And in the middle of a crisis is not the time to discover weaknesses and cracks in the invincibility armor.
People lead and follow other people. For better or for worse. From Mother Theresa to Adolf Hitler, people follow others all along the spectrum. And what often attracts them to that person is the unshakeable sense they possess in the rightness of the cause and their ability to provide a purpose and a method to achieve it.
When we started talking, my friend said that it seemed as if I had shackled myself to the events of 2005-2006 and that I needed to put down that weight. She is correct. Although I cannot always see it clearly - nor do I possess the ability to completely disentangle myself from it right now, the failure myth is as equally powerful as the success myth. We all should be careful to become trapped by one or the other. That is exactly what happened to me. I share it with you in the sincere hope that you never have to suffer to learn that lesson. I'm not sure if that is possible since it is only in the crucible of a difficult challenge that some revelations are made clear, but I do want to try. If not to protect you from harm or tough times, then only to ensure that you have thought enough about who and what you are, that you can face them with a calm assurance that you have the tools you need to withstand them.
Slowly, I am putting the Black Hearts saga down. I can no longer only define myself by that one period. My life is a totality of many events, of which that is only one. An important one to be sure, but only one. And while that may be obvious to you, let me tell you that it came as somewhat of a surprise to me. Because of the success of my early career and the events and aftermath of that time, I have let the Army define me twice. Maybe the time has come to figure out how I define me. I'll probably need some help because the root systems are so strong, but neither the invincibility self-definition nor the failure self-definition are correct. The are both myths. I'm beginning to see that clearly now and the road ahead suddenly seems a lot more bright.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
On the surface, the answer to these seems pretty simple. Of course I'm different than I was 5 years ago. Everyone is. Nobody can retain exactly the same orientation that they possessed at a different period in their life. Especially in extremely difficult circumstances such as those were. But it's really not quite that easy. If your baseline values haven't changed, and your belief in who and what you are haven't changed, and your sense of right and wrong haven't changed, then fundamentally are you different today than you were 5, 10 or 15 years ago? And if so, why? The following is part of a chat exchange we shared. I think it's very relevant to the theme of today's post.
Her: "When there is a leadership failure, it is either a failure of competence or character."
Me: "For me, one could make the argument that it could be a competence failure, but not character. I guarantee that. I'm not perfect and have done things I regret, but my character is pretty much the only thing that has survived a lot of these last years."
Her: "Complete pride, impeccable character, questionable competence?"
Me: "Fair enough."
Her: "So that's where the doubt actually is. Not swept away by the pandemonium of the crowd, but that there were some actual missteps.."
Me: "No. There was no doubt then. The doubt now is unjustified (I am aware of that, just can't stop it) because I could not have known then what I know now."
Her: "Ok. So the failure of competence can only be seen through reflection?"
Me: "Yes. You can only know what you got right or wrong once the result is known. You go into something believing that you are doing X to achieve Y. Only after you do it can you see your actions clearly."
Her: "Should you have known those things at the time? Would a group of your peers with comparable training and experience have made similar decisions?"
Me: "Probably. But the circumstances were almost so unique that there is really nothing to compare it to. That probably applies to part two of your question."
Her: "I'm just going after what parts you're absolutely sure about, and what parts feel not as solid."
Me: "I'm sure that I made right and sound tactical decisions. I'm sure that had the rape/murder not happened the rehabilitation of that platoon would have happened on my watch. I'm sure that the enemy got a vote on one occasion prompted by the actions of a few people that never allowed that chance to happen."
To me, the key part of that exchange is the statement, "There was no doubt then."
In early 2005 I was invincible. I had absolute faith in myself and my ability to be successful in the Army. I truly believed that I knew how to lead Soldiers and that my entire decision making process was correct every time, all the time. That may be arrogant, but that arrogance was honestly come by. The Army created it. It planted a seed through promotion, opportunity and schooling, nursed it through its' infancy and watched it grow into adulthood. And it kept validating it every step of the way. Graducation from this school means you are in the top 10% of all infantrymen. Getting inducted into that club places you in the top 5% of all Noncommissioned Officers. Being selected for promotion earlier than your peers means that you are more competent than they are based upon the Army's criteria for excellence. It is a reaffirming system. It is a concrete reality reflected by awards, certificates, and tangible things to hang on a wall that reflect back to you your sense of complete understanding of your world. It's what allows you to believe your own bullshit and it is very difficult to get anyone - especially yourself - to look beyond it and see if there is something more.
This invincibility myth pervades the entire Army culture and has an amazing power to shape how we think, act and behave. It helps write our doctrine, inform the way we communicate and even molds our response mechanisms. In many ways, we have become a prisoner of our own invention. We have an ethic of service characterized by complete devotion to the Army's needs (which we sell as the Nation's needs - just wondering if the Nation knows how many Power Point slides it creates each day!). Those we serve are led to believe that we have an answer for every question, a solution to every problem, and our solutions and answers will be correct every single time. We are the Army and we do not make mistakes, and we do not fail. Why? Because we have systems in place to prevent failure, we have the best leader development system the world can produce, and we are so dedicated to getting it right that we can continually work on a problem until it is solved. We will never quit. We endure. We redouble our efforts. We are Supermen. We are invincible. And you, the early promoted, well decorated, oft-awarded young man or woman, you are the best of the best. Stick with us kid and you'll go far.
It's a myth. And when the world you thought to be made of concrete turns out to be only so much smoke and mirrors, the results can be devastating. For the past 5 years, I have been slowly trying to make my way back to finding those things that I am sure of. Slowly trying to stake down what I know to be absolutely true about me, versus those things that were falsely created by my inability to properly orient to my surroundings. The price to be paid for me believing my own bullshit.
After 2006, once all labels were in place -that I was a leadership failure, responsible for getting people needlessly killed etc, a new reality started to get formed. And just like the previous one based on invincibility, this new one, built on indecision, fear, and paranoia took hold and gained its' own momentum and became a new self-definition. In fact, it is no more real than the previous model, but it's root system runs just as deep and - in many ways - is much more difficult to break hold of precisely because the invincibility model is so pervasive throughout our culture.
The Army speaks a lot about self-awareness. Everywhere you turn, you'll find people saying that good, successful leaders are self-aware. That they understand who they are. That they possess a solid moral/ethical/behavioral ethic that is unshakeable. This is the message that gets sent over and over:
You came to us with a set of values. We (the Army) molded you, trained you, rewarded you, and developed you. We have co-opted your values (mostly without you knowing it happened) and slowly replaced them with our own until you are a walking, talking example of invincibility in action. But please don't look too far beneath that paper thin veneer of invincibility we have so carefully constructed. Don't ask yourself the really hard questions about your character, your true strengths and weaknesses, your true, personally immutable, value system. Don't pay any attention to your own doubts. And please don't listen to them as warning signs. Please don't do that. Because if you do, you might find out that our carefully crafted system is a house of cards and that we need it to be that way in order to ensure that when you screw up we can easily re-label you and protect ourselves at the same time.
If we truly want to inform and influence the leader development discussion, a lot more focus will have to go into getting people to know who they are - those baseline things that cannot be surrendered at any point, for anyone, under any circumstances. While the answers to those questions will be different for each of us (another thing the institution doesn't like) ultimately, they will provide the Army with stronger leaders. People who's character and leadership style is formed not by the fake concrete of the current system, but by an unshakeable faith in their understanding of who they are. The only problem with this is that we often cannot find our true selves until a crisis unfolds. And in the middle of a crisis is not the time to discover weaknesses and cracks in the invincibility armor.
People lead and follow other people. For better or for worse. From Mother Theresa to Adolf Hitler, people follow others all along the spectrum. And what often attracts them to that person is the unshakeable sense they possess in the rightness of the cause and their ability to provide a purpose and a method to achieve it.
When we started talking, my friend said that it seemed as if I had shackled myself to the events of 2005-2006 and that I needed to put down that weight. She is correct. Although I cannot always see it clearly - nor do I possess the ability to completely disentangle myself from it right now, the failure myth is as equally powerful as the success myth. We all should be careful to become trapped by one or the other. That is exactly what happened to me. I share it with you in the sincere hope that you never have to suffer to learn that lesson. I'm not sure if that is possible since it is only in the crucible of a difficult challenge that some revelations are made clear, but I do want to try. If not to protect you from harm or tough times, then only to ensure that you have thought enough about who and what you are, that you can face them with a calm assurance that you have the tools you need to withstand them.
Slowly, I am putting the Black Hearts saga down. I can no longer only define myself by that one period. My life is a totality of many events, of which that is only one. An important one to be sure, but only one. And while that may be obvious to you, let me tell you that it came as somewhat of a surprise to me. Because of the success of my early career and the events and aftermath of that time, I have let the Army define me twice. Maybe the time has come to figure out how I define me. I'll probably need some help because the root systems are so strong, but neither the invincibility self-definition nor the failure self-definition are correct. The are both myths. I'm beginning to see that clearly now and the road ahead suddenly seems a lot more bright.
As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)