Who Leaders Are and What Leaders Do

Sidebar: Leaders' Use of Pronouns

2012-02-23T04:31:00.001-05:00

Have you ever met a leader (or a staff officer) who uses exclusive, personal pronouns (I, me, and my) to describe the capabilites or accomplishments of his or her organization? In the recent past, when the emphasis of leadership practice revolved around the leader as the central element, this used to be a verbal power play, to imply that the speaker was a strong leader, who had a high degre of strength, authority, and power. In today's day and age, where I feel like leadership practice is migrating toward those ideas consistent with collective, democratic, distributed, and team leadership theory, personal, exclusive pronouns may be becoming inappropriate.

I think pronouns, specifically personal and posessive pronouns, matter in a leader's language. Allow me to propose a few guidelines for leaders' use of pronouns, as a means of articulating my point:

1. If you are referring to your organization's capabilities, use of inclusive, collective pronouns (like we and our) are appropriate. In these situations, use of exclusive, personal pronouns (like I, me, and my) may give the impression that you are an egocentric leader, who possibly takes credit for all of the organization's abilities and accomplishments, and is therefore inappropriate.

"We can build ten widgets in three days." versus "I can build ten widgets in three days."

2. If you are referring to your organization's accomplishments and positive performance, collective, third person pronouns (such as them and they - referring to your subordinates) are appropriate.

This language communicates that you are a leader of humility, who recognizes that the organization succeeds because of its members, not because of its leader. In contrast, use of exclusive, personal pronouns again suggest egocentrism, and again are inappropriate.

"The mission got accomplished because of their hard work and effort." versus "I got the mission done."

When supervisors congratulate me for successful operations, I enjoy responding by saying, "Well Sir/Ma'am, our organization is blessed with talented, hard working Soldiers" or, in a lighter mood, "Sir/Ma'am, our success is entirely the Soldiers' fault; they are the ones to blame for this mission accomplishment."

3. When exclusive, personal pronouns are appropriate: if you are speaking about accountability and responsibility in a negative context (such as after a failure or mistake), the use of exclusive, personal pronouns are appropriate. This demonstrates a couple of important ideas in leadership:

First, as the organization's leader, I am ultimately responsible for everything that the organization does or does not do.

Second, if we screwed up and an ass-chewing is in order, I as the organization's leader will take it. I may turn around and do some ass-chewing of my own with my subordinates, but no one outside my organization will chew my people's asses. To allow senior leaders to pass by me and directly reprimand my subordinates would be a failure of me to provide 'top cover' for my people, and would surely and instantly disolve any trust or loyalty that my Soldiers felt for me. I had a leader do this very thing (he got out of the way while his boss chewed our ass) when I was a Captain, and from that event forward, I did despised his ass, with a passion that burns bright in its beautiful hatred to this day.

If we screwed up or failed: it's my fault; I am responsible for my organization's performance.

To summarize the above points #2 and #3: if your organization screws up, it's your (the leader's) fault; if your organization does good, it's their (the organization's members) 'fault'.

Remember, words mean stuff. Think about what pronouns you, as a leader, use, and what they suggest about your leadership style and philosophy.

Finally, to read more about this idea that pronouns have meaning, I suggest you take a look at Jim Collins' essay, 'Level 5 Leadership.' This is an exceptional essay. I found it in the second edition of 'The Jossey Bass Reader on Educational Leadership.'

Case Study: An Officer Looks Ahead to Command

2012-02-21T04:14:00.001-05:00

A fellow officer, and a very dear friend of mine, recently wrote and asked me to write a blog. Here is what he wrote (brackets denote my additions or sanitization):

"What do you do when you first take Command or PCS [permanant change of station] to a different position/situation? Thinking about it, reading leadership manuals/books, etc.... taking Command seems overwhelming up front. I know I can handle it once I get out there and I have 6 months to develop a plan of action that will probably change the second I arrive at the unit. Furthermore, I know that there will be hard work and decisions ahead of me. However, talking with others about what they did when they first arrived, reading other's situations, etc.... will be helpful. I did talk with [respected senior officer] Thursday and he gave me a lot of great ideas and background to the unit and its current Commander. I intend on talking to others [within our larger Command] to find out what their perspective is of the unit I am going to. I just thought I would send the idea to you as maybe one of your sidebars or major topics. Other than FM 6-22 and your blog, are there any other websites or books that you would recommend on the subject?"

I have constructed my (initial) response below.  This is my first pass at the above query; and I reserve the right to expound on this response in one or more subsequent posts.

My response consists of our parts: before, immediate actions, ongoing actions, and required reading.

Taking Command: Before

1. Learn as much about the unit as possible. Talk to as many people as you can, not just your predecessor. Speak to the Battalion Staff, the ASF Supervisor and staff, and the Contractor (if applicable). Ask your predecessor for permission to speak to key Company personnel (1SG, SP, XO, PL, ASO, et cetera). Ask for AARs, training schedules, BUB slides, Command and Staff slides. Ask to listen in on teleconferences (BUB and C/S). Ask to be put on the cc line of all periodic reports (1352, 503R, RRR, ITRS 67b, et cetera). Begin constructing the information narrative about the organization that you will soon lead.

2. Rest up. Build up your long-term sleep bank, with 7+ hours per night. Take a long vacation prior to taking Command. Make deposits in to the family account by maximizing time with them in the months leading up to Command.

3. Develop your instructional ability. As you have heard me echo several hundred times: there are strong parallels between teaching, human resource management, and leading. At this point in my Command, at least 50% of what I do is coach, teach, and mentor. You must develop your ability to lead, by way of teaching.

4. Spend use/lose leave, +30 days. You should be taking Command right at the start of a new fiscal year. Do not take Command with more than 45 days of leave, or you will put yourself in tight spot.

5. Accomplish a full change of command inventory. Touch every major end item. Ask about shortage annexes. Don't sign for property that you don't touch. Finally, prior to signing the property book(s), have all of your equipment sub-hand receipted out to your subordinates.

New in Command: Immediate Actions to Accomplish

1. Get to know every single one of your people. And again: leadership = teaching and human resource management. The Army is people. Get to know every single one of them, in detail. Here are some lines of questions to start with:

Where are they, at their current station in life? Where do they want to go?

What is their family situation? How does this affect their work?

What are their short or near-term goals? What are their long-term career goals? How can you help them reach these goals?

What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses? How can you help them improve their weaknesses?

What are their career developmental needs (O/W/NCO ES, MOSQ, ASI/SQI, track, civil college, et cetera)?

What are their hobbies and interests? Can any of these be leveraged to improve the organization?

2. Get a handle on the programs that matter:

- Equal Opportunity and Cultural ~~Awareness~~ Fluency. This one will be of particular importance for you, because of the rich Hispanic and Latino diversity in your area. You need to learn about the Hispanic and Latino culture (food, language, values, traditions, emphasis on family) in your area. Honestly, I would take advantage of the Army's contract with Rosetta Stone, and begin learning Spanish. Also, you should start with the Command Climate Survey. See my 18 November 2011 post on Equal Opportunity.

- Aviation Safety, Standardization, and Flight Operations. Ask for an ARMS inspection or a Site Assistance visit immediately. Conduct an accident prevention survey at your first BA; annonymously ask the question: who is going to have the next accident, and why?  Publish your safety philosophy immediately; spend time and thought on this important document. Empower your SP(s), IPs, SI(s), FIs, and ASO(s), but remember that you are the ATP Commander; Standardization, Safety, and Flight Operations are the Commander's programs (think about my personal messages regarding 1) IFR with GPS, and 2) flight into moderate icing). Study and rehearse the pre-accident plan within 30 days of taking Command. Take a look at my posts on 13 and 13 November 2011 about Safety.

3.  Eat the slowest zebra. Find the deadbeat of the group, the one who gets paid but does not do his fair amount of work, the one of which others are resentful for his poor work ethic and sub-standard contribution, and eat him in the town square at high noon. See my 12 December 2011 post on this.

Throughout Command: Actions

1. Take care of yourself. Remember, I went into the hospital for a week in August, then struggled for another month to get back to 100%, because among other reasons, I worked myself into the ground. Learn from my mistake: we need at least 6 hours of sleep each night, we need to eat a healthy diet, we need to watch our caffiene intake, we need at least one full day off every ten, et cetera.

2. Actively manage yours and others downtime. In conjunction with the above point, you must ACTIVELY manage downtime.

First, if you leave blank space on the training calendar, it will ultimatley get filled up. Designate mandatory 'family readiness' time (I like Friday starting at lunch time, because nothing gets done on Friday afternoon anyway), and put it on the calendar. Then, fifteen minutes before family readiness is supposed to happen, walk through your area and kick people out of their offices. Threaten to call spouses, if you have to.

Second, watch people's work schedules. In our line of work, one can find oneself working twelve or more days straight. Prevent this through active management. At ten days, unless you are conducting real-world operations (like DCRF) or major training (like Polk or VR), bite the bullet and give that subordinate a solid 48 hours off.

Third, develop and enforce mechanisms that force people to not work when they are not at work. One of our associates recently had a work-stress-related emotional/psychological event, and I was baffled, because I thought I was actively managing his down time, and giving him ample time off work. Perhaps I was, but he was leaving work, to go home and do more work at home in the evenings. I have since fixed that s**t, but it points out a new reality in our world: the ultra-connectivity and ultra-compressed time-decision cycle afforded by the Internet have blurred the lines between work and home. Take away people's OWA access, and don't let them take their government laptops home, if necessary.

For more on this issue, check out this commentary.

3. Communicate with higher and lower. I average two to three phone calls each week to The Boss, and at least one summary / situation report (SITREP) email. Additionally, I speak to the CSM at least weekly, and any time there is a significant Soldier issue. Further, I speak to each primary staff member outside of meetings, on average, about once every seven or so business days.

In addition to communicating up, you must consciously, deliberately, and regularly communicate down. This occurs through email, weekly or bi-weekly training meetings, and - probably most importantly - face to face discussions. If you work eight hours in one day (yeah, right), at least four should be visiting and talking with Soldiers.

4. Collaborate. Don't try to solve all of your problems yourself. Call the Battalion Staff and ask for help. Seek out mentorship and guidance from senior mentors (The Boss, CSM, prior supervisors that you trust and respect, leaders in your faith, et cetera). Ask subordinates if they have seen such a problem before, and if so, how was it solved? Call fellow Company Commanders and see if they have or have had the same issue.

Command (and Life): Prepatory Reading

Below is a list of some of my favorite books, which I see as required reading for Command and life, especially if you see parallels between teaching, human resource management, and leadership. In no particular order:

- Learning in Adulthood, by Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner.

- Leadership, by Northouse.

- The Adult Learner, by Knowles, Holton, and Swanson.

- How to Detect Media Bias & Propaganda, by Paul and Elder.

- Critical Thinking, by Paul and Elder.

- How to Argue and Win Every Time, by Spence.

- Cognitive Psychology, by Sternberg.

- A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, by Anderson and Krathwohl.

- Army Leadership (FM 6-22), by the Army.

- The Operations Process (FM 5-0, March 2010), by the Army. You should apply significant emphasis on Chapter 3 and Appendicies B and C.

Last, But Not Least

Don't stress, for at least two reasons:

First of all, your time is at least five months away; you could get hit by a bus next week. If you want to worry about something, ~~worry~~ act about right now; what are you doing today, right now, to improve yourself, your life, the lives of our Soldiers, the strength of our organization, and the well-being of your family? Five months will be here in five months; worrying today, about five months from now, accomplishes nothing. Further, worrying, at any point, does not accomplish anything; action does.

Second, you are ready to Command, take my word for it. I am absolutely certain that you are ready to do this job, otherwise I would not have fought so hard, to incur that self-inflicted flagellation of losing you to school, then Command. You are a far better officer than I was at that point in my career, and I would not want to have to compete with you as a peer today.

Finally, get through PCS, then enjoy leave/vacation and school. Don't you dare break your leg (or any other part of your body) playing in that ridiculous, idiotic frisbee football business, or I'll come down there and that won't be the only injury you sustain. Right before you take that guidon, remember what really matters: mission, Soldiers (and families), and the organization. Let these values guide your actions, and you will be fine. Call if you need to.

Sidebar: More Thoughts on the Negative Side of Transformational Leadership

2012-02-19T09:21:00.000-05:00

In my January 30 post, I outlined the positive and negative arguments for and against transactional and transformational leadership theory. Additionally, I pointed out that popular leadership culture often portrays transactionalism, which I argue is a legitimate, useful, and omnipresent condition, as a tool of lesser effectiveness and moral value than the new, inspiring tactic of transformational leadership.

While I thought I did a decent job of explaining this idea, I was recently triggered by a related event at work, and feel compelled to expound and correlate some of my points of that post. Specifically, in a meeting with many fellow Army leaders, I heard one senior leader make mention of our ability to 'surge,' as the primary means to overcome our conditions of chronic under-manning and under-resourcing, in order to get the mission accomplished. This, in many ways, is that negative side of transformational leadership of which I speak.

To review: transformational leadership directly contrasts the notion of transactionalism (quid pro quo). In its place, transformational leadership theory suggests that leaders can and should be charismatic and inspiring, and motivate employees to go above and beyond what is expected of them in order to exceed expectations and provide an outstanding level of service and results.

I like the above idea, with an important caveat: such inspiration and motivation of subordinates to go above and beyond what they are reasonably expected to do to accomplish the mission should only be employed during periods where an unplanned or unforeseen decisive point (threat or opportunity) has emerged. Employment of transformational methods at other times can easily and quickly turn exploitative.

This is the main idea behind the title of this post: if transformational methods are intended to be employed on a regular basis, leaders are essentially asking subordinate leaders and team members to give more performance and results than those subordinates are being compensated for; this can be described in no other way than as unfair and exploitative.

You would probably be surprised how often this exploitative practice happens. Example #1: industrial engineers in large corporations understand that if you under-man and under-resource a department, you will get a more efficient department that works harder in an attempt to compensate for its manning and resource shortfalls. In a similar but unrelated condition, example #2: aspiring department leaders, eager to climb the promotion ladder, will overwork their staffs, in order to provide higher production and better results than other departments. These are both examples where transformational leadership theory is being misused in an exploitative way.

Back to the event that set me off (which is example #3): 'surge' is an Army term that, more often than not, means we will work harder and longer to make up for manning, planning, and resource shortages, which should have and could have been addressed prior to execution. If we are aware of a resource, planning, or manning shortage, instead of expecting to 'surge' as the primary plan, why don't we fix those identified shortages, instead of planning to just grind our people into the ground?

Additionally, if Plan A is to surge, what happens if an unanticipated decisive point (threat or opportunity) emerges? If we are already surging, we can't surge to protect against a threat or seize an emerging opportunity; we have no reserve, no safety net.

Summary

Transformational tactics are flawed and exploitative when they are planned and employed as the primary method of conducting operations. In the same vein, we are displaying weak, flawed leadership when our Plan A is to 'surge', or when we accept 'surge' operations as a steady state or routine condition.

Leaders, be loyal to your subordinates: get the required resources, get the necessary manning, and do the proper planning. Steady state and known decisive events should be well planned, well manned, and well resourced, and will therefore be sustainable. In this condition, when unanticipated threats or opportunities arise, a limited and surgical use of transformational tactics can then be employed in a way that is both fair to your subordinates, and effective in mission accomplishment.

Sidebar: The Pirate Ship Theory of Leadership

2012-02-11T04:22:00.005-05:00

During my time in Command, I have experienced a few issues of discipline, misconduct, or gross inability of subordinates to perform their duties to a satisfactory level.

They are unpleasant, but these issues must be dealt with. Failure to do so hurts the organization, allows the offender to go through life unpunished (and often unaware), and creates a high level of resentment and disgruntlement in those who are doing it right.

In this context, I see the dynamic in our organization as metaphorically similar to the dynamic that would have been found on a pirate ship. In this vein, I present the pirate ship theory of leadership:

The Pirate Ship Theory of Leadership

The pirate theory of leadership states that organizations are like pirate ships: they have a leader (the captain), a crew (the subordinates or employees), a mission, and a combination of written and unwritten rules, (the pirates' code) that vary in importance from flexible to absolute.

The captain serves as the leader, and is empowered by the crew. If he fails to perform his duties to the crew's satisfaction, they replace him through mutiny.

The crew members join the crew, to participate in the pirate-pirate ship transaction: crew members trade time, effort, and loyalty for treasure. Additionally, though not an explicit part of the primary transaction, crew members also receive direction and discipline from the captain. The join for treasure, but need direction and discipline.

On the pirate ship, the mission is to capture settlements or other ships, for the purposes of taking all of their treasure.

As mentioned, the rules vary from flexible to absolute. When absolute rules are broken or violated, the capatin must act swiftly and firmly, to maintain order and discipline on the ship.

Here's the important point: the captain gets to remain the captain until: 1) he retires, 2) he gets killed in action, or 3) he is relieved by the crew through mutiny. With regard to relief through mutiny, there were (and still are) two major errors that a captain can make that would invite mutiny: 1) failure to perform his duties as the captain (find treasure, keep the crew happy, evade the pursuing navies, et cetera), and 2) fail to maintain order and discipline on the ship, by allowing broken rules and poor performance to go unpunished.

A tolerated infraction invites others. Poor job performance that is accepted invites more poor job performance. You see, by tolerating misconduct, discipline issues, and poor job performance, you are accepting it, tacitly condoning it, and inviting and guaranteeing more of its occurence.

Ultimately, the pirate ship theory of leadership suggests that we as leaders must: 1) perform our duties competently, and 2) swiftly and firmly deal with matters of misconduct, in order to maintain order and discipline.

The crew is watching. If I don't handle discipline, misconduct, and job performance issues quickly and firmly, I invite mutiny.

Sidebar: Don't Accept the First 'No'

2012-02-09T04:12:00.003-05:00

When working with outside entities to get s**t done, I often find myself being told that what I want is not possible, or that it can't be done. Essentially, I am frequently told 'no'.

- Can you waive or remove this bulls**t fee from my bill? No.
- Can we make a special exception, and get this employee access to that computer program that would help him do his job more easily? No.
- Can I send this Soldier to an expensive, high-demand professional development school? No.

In the average day, I would estimate that I am told 'no' (something can't be done, or an action or effort is not possible) at least ten times. If I were to accept each and every one of these 'no's, myself, our organization, our people, and the mission would be much less further along than we are now.

To deal with all of these 'no's, I take a lesson from the sales industry: refuse to accept them. Specifically, I don't accept the first 'no'. In the vast majority of instances, the first 'no' is nothing more than a reactionary rebuff, intended to repel the insincere, the weak of heart or character, and the suckers and fools not smart enough to understand the first 'no' for what it is.

I loathe the first 'no', and am actually insulted by it. Apparently, those telling me 'no' do not understand the level of resolve that I carry into pretty much each and every engagement; if it's important enough to work an issue or action, I'm going to work it with fanatical resolve, and I see the first 'no' as nothing more than a speed bump on the road to success.

Do Not Accept the First 'No'

Do not accept the first 'no'. When I am told that first 'no', I respond with one or more of the following tactics:

1. Prove it to me. Perhaps I like and respect you (perhaps I don't), but if you tell me something cannot be done, that it is impossible to do, I am going to ask for evidince or proof of this impossiblity.

- 'The regulation states that that's not authorized.' Show me the regulation, page, paragraph, and sentence, please. When they can't produce evidence supporing their first 'no', you can deduce (and possibly imply or declare) them lazy, incompetent, and to some degree dishonest, then maneuver through or around them in getting what you want.

Side note: so as to avoid being overtly confrontational, I will usually temper the beginning of the above engagement by saying something like 'can you show me in the regulation, for my own learning and development?'. That way, if they do take you to school and produce evidence (this happens one time in 50), you have an out.

2. Do you have the authority to tell me 'no'? Gate keepers, minions, staffers, admin assistants, et cetera will frequently try to make decisions that are above their authority level. Many people let them get away with it. When this occurs, go for the jugular: 'do you have the authority to make that decision? What if your boss found out that you were making his decisions for him, without his knowledge?' 'No' quickly turns into 'yes'.

3. Let me talk to your supervisor. This works with credit card companies, cell phone companies, and the like. Additionally, this works in most echeloned organizations, as members of these organizations do not prefer escalation of conflict; it makes subordinate echelons look bad, and it gets more costly the further it gets escalated. If I pressure your supervisor, perhaps he or she will overturn your 'no', and give me the 'yes' that I want.

4. Get rid of the intermediary. It's easier for them to say 'no', if the decision maker and the messenger are two different people. That way, the decision maker doesn't have to have the stones to tell you to your face, and the messenger is just the messenger. In this case, get rid of the middle man, and speak directly with the decision maker.

- 'The person who does that said "no", it's not possible.' Let me speak with them directly, or let them tell me 'no' to my face.

5. Become irate. As a last resort, become irate and have a tantrum. I turn red, get a crazy look on my face, and work myself into a sermon-like tantrum where I vocally (but still in an articulate, intelligent way) express the disconnect between my position and the fact that I am being told 'no'. For extra effect, I will cry and/or foam at the mouth. In extreme cases, I will feign the inablity to continue speaking. Hopefully, people would rather just give you what you want, than deal with your crazy ass.

Sometimes this last resort works, sometimes it doesn't. In either case, it sets the stage for future interactions to go more quickly and smoothly (don't fool with that crazy man; tell him 'yes' and get him out of here).

As I said before, the first 'no' is nothing more than a reactionary rebuff, intended to repel the insincere, the weak of heart or character, and the suckers and fools not smart enough to understand the first 'no' for what it is. If you are serious about and take pride in yourself, the mission, the organization, and your people, you cannot afford to accept the first 'no'.

Sidebar: The Four Phases of Group Dynamics

2012-02-07T04:15:00.002-05:00

Recently, we have experienced an increased number of interpersonal conflicts in our newly-forming organization. Interpersonal conflict is going to occur every time you get two or more people together for any length of time; for human beings (and many other animals) conflict is one of the most efficient and effective types of interpersonal activity.

In each of these occurrences, I survey the conflict, to ensure that there is not a serious or underlying problem. If I think there is, I will give that conflict and problem special attention.

If, as is usually the case, the conflict is more the result of two or more people expressing and establishing themselves within the group, me or one of my subordinate leaders will deal with the issue as much as we should or have to.

Additionally, in an effort to help people realize that the conflict is normal and healthy, and to help preserve morale (conflict adversely affects morale in most people), I will take some time to describe the four phases of group dynamics.

The Four Phases of Group Dynamics

Back in the 1960's, an American psychologist by the name of Tuckman wrote an article, which articulated group dynamics (or team building) into four stages: form, storm, norm, perform.

1. Form. The group forms. This is similar to how you behave on a first date. People are overly polite and courteous, decidedly upbeat and positive, and subtly artificial in order to make a good first impression. Members of the group are observing, assessing, and judging others (similar to the butt sniffing that dogs do when they first meet).

2. Storm. Real work begins, the pleasantries wear off, and group members begin to grate on each other. Issues arise, tempers occasionally flare, and conflict emerges or erupts (to some degree, this is where my organization is presently). Examples of such conflict could include:

- Your gum smacking while I'm doing my spreadsheet drives me crazy.
- Your consistently being fifteen minutes late bothers me.
- The way you do XYZ is different that I have always seen it done, and that bothers me.
- The 73 minutes you spend each day bulls**ting at the water cooler bothers me.

3. Norm. Norming is where group members work through conflict, and establish written and unwritten rules for behavior and procedure (norms). Continuing with our above examples:

- No gum smacking in the office cubicle area.
- At your desk, on time. Three late offenses equals one day of leave without pay.
- A standard procedure for how we do XYZ gets developed and trained.
- We hang a bell by the water cooler. When Larry has been there more than five minutes, somebody rings the bell as a reminder for Larry to get his ass back to work.

4. Perform. Once conflict is resolved through the establishment of norms, the performance of the group should improve. This is the performing stage.

Tuckman talked about the phases of storm-norm-perform as being cyclical, and later added a fifth stage (adjourn) for groups with a specified event/date/point of dissolution.

So when normal, healthy conflict occurs, I recommend that leaders take a minute to describe the four phases of group dynamics, and discuss the organization's place within that construct. This can help people understand that 1) their conflict is part of a larger dynamic, and 2) conflict is a normal and healthy part of team building. Additionally, by understanding that norming is supposed to come after storming, conflicting individuals may more quickly and easily make the transition from fighting to working together, which results in this growth and development process occurring more quickly.

Sidebar: The Prevalance of Transactionalism

2012-02-05T04:20:00.002-05:00

Recently, in a post comparing transactional and transformational leadership, I made the following statement:

"Since its introduction, and through its contrast with transactionalism, transformational leadership theory has cast a negative connotation on transactionalism. Not only is this unfair, I would argue, but it is wildly unrealistic; though transactionalism (and quid pro quo) is espoused as shallow and petty, I would submit that it permeates every aspect of our lives, to include work. More on this in a later post."

Here is that later post.

Transactionalism is Everywhere

Transactionalism is everywhere, in every aspect of our lives. I believe that it could successfully be argued that all relationships exist solely to facilitate transactions. Consider the presence of transactionalism in your life, in the following areas:

1. Any and every financial transaction. Buying a soda, paying your rent, driving your car - participating in any way in our economy is obviously a transaction. When you spend money to buy things (goods and services) that improve the quality of your life, this is an example of positive transactionalism.

2. Any and every relationship. Transactions occur in every relationship you have. For example:

- Parents. Parents trade time, money, and effort for love, companionship, life in accordance with societal norms (self-actualization), and placation of the evolutionary craving for procreation and sustainment of the species. Children, although entered into the transaction without their explicit agreement, trade time and effort for love, affection, protection, basic life needs (food, clothing, shelter), education, acceptance, and approval.

- Spouse / Significant Other. While the specifics of each relationship can vary wildly, generally speaking, partners trade some combination of time, effort, money, physical intimacy, love, self-actualization, and companionship for some combination of the same.

- Friendships. Again, the specific details of each relationship can vary significantly, but friends usually trade some combination of time, effort, money, support, advice, companionship, self-actualization, and love for some combination of the same.

3. Job. Employees trade time and effort for money, benefits (health insurance, parking spot, et cetera), status, career, and self-actualization. Employers trade money for effort, performance, and results.

4. College Education. Students trade time, effort, and money for education, educational credentials, self-actualization, and the prospect of a better job and life. The college trades time, effort, education, and educational credentials for money, which enables the organization to continue to exist, and to pursue its organizational interests (education, research, community development, et cetera).

5. So-called 'selfless' acts and activities. What about acts of selflessness? I would argue that selflessness is actually self-actualization. When you do something 'selfless' (make a charitable donation, place the well-being of your subordinates before your own, et cetera), you receive on your side of the transaction that self-affirmation and self-actualization of living up to your values, and being the person that you want to be. You trade the selfless act for self-actualization.

Transactionalism as the Nature of Things

Thinking about the above points, I hope it is obvious that transactionalism is present in abundance in every facet of our lives, and I am here to adamantly state that this is not a bad thing. On the contrary, transactionalism is a healthy, effective method of interaction. Further, egocentrism, which I would argue is a driving force for transactional behavior, is engrained in our genetic programming, so we probably can't get away from transactionalism even if we wanted to.

Transactionalism and egocentrism are the nature of human behavior, and when controlled and moderated, can be very productive and positive forces.

As a Leader, Use Transactionalism to Your Advantage

As a leader, I try to employ the best of a number of leadership methods, including transactionalism. Can transactionalism be used to inspire loyalty and outstanding subordinate performance? In my experience, I have found the answer to be a resounding yes. Considering the following three steps:

1. Determine people's goals and dreams. Take an interest in your people. Find out what their longer-term goals and dreams are. As a side note, I think my description of this first step sounds not at all like transactionalism, but more like transformationalism (connecting with people).

2. Identify and explain where their goals and dreams align with the organization's objectives. How can we meet both the organization's and subordinate's needs? By finding those areas where our interests and needs align. This is setting up two birds for one stone.

3. Make a fair deal. If you can identify common needs, make a fair deal using transactional methods. If you can't identify common needs, employ other methods of leadership, or perhaps that subordinate should look to other organizations for opportunities more closely aligned with his or her personal needs.

Using this method, I have enjoyed very positive results. If the subordinate lives up to the agreement, I get the level of performance and results that I negotiated for, and the satisfaction of brokering and realizing a fair deal. If the subordinate fails to perform as agreed, I have a deal to refer back to during performance counseling, and ultimately, if necessary, disciplinary and separation actions.

Sidebar: Due Diligence as the Next Best Thing to Results

2012-02-03T04:20:00.001-05:00

My values are mission, organization, and people. I place great value in getting the mission done. I place great value in growing and developing the organization. And I place great value in taking care of our people.

Among other ways, I believe that leaders absolutely must keep the faith and trust of the organization's members, if they are to achieve and honor the mission, the organization, and the people. One of the ways I keep the faith and trust of my people is by doing the following:

1. First, you need to know your people. Effective leaders ask about and know their subordinates' personal and professional goals and dreams.

2. Second, you need to help your people reach their goals and dreams. This means identifying opportunities where your subordinate's goals and dreams align with organizational needs and objectives, then killing two birds with one stone.

For example, several of my aviators seek to professionally grow and develop within the discipline of aviation. At the same time, my assessment of our organization is that we are short, and need to grow or recruit some maintenance test pilots. I survey my aviators who desire growth, to determine if and with whom the maintenance test pilot track appeals. Once we have identified those aviators interested, I go out and fight for training seats and money. Those aviators selected get professional growth and development, and the organization gets more maintenance test pilots, which it needs. Two birds with one stone.

Done right, this is helping people change their lives for the better. This is listening, identifying opportunities, rolling up your sleeves and working for your people, and - most importantly - getting results.

I can't express how important it is to work for your people, and in so doing maintain their faith and trust. These actions: 1) demonstrate that you care about your people (actions speak louder than words), 2) lend to a healthy and positive organizational climate, and 3) inspire a high degree of morale and loyalty.

Due Diligence as Second Place to Results

Sometimes, though, no matter how hard he or she tries, there are situations and occasions where those desired results, that help subordinates meet their personal and professional goals, may be beyond the leader's ability to achieve.

In these instances, when a personnel developmental action or situation appears to be complex or have a low likelihood of succeeding, leaders can take one of two perspectives: 1) don't try because the likelihood of success is remote, and the amount of effort invested will be great; or 2) try like hell, despite the low likelihood of success, realizing that the effort and due diligence of trying will inspire faith and trust from that subordinate.

With your good people, I strongly recommend that you commit your best effort to get these personnel developmental actions and situations to work. I have two reasons for this strong recommendation.

First, the due diligence - the strong and honest attempt to get the action completed - shows that the leader cares, and that he or she has made his or her best effort. When not successful, this due diligence is the next best thing to results; while it doesn't achieve the goal, it still preserves and inspires the faith and trust from your subordinates. 'At least he tried' is much more palatable than 'I know it was a long shot, but he doesn't care enough to even try'.

Second, sometimes you will be successful in getting these actions to go. You are guaranteed to not hit 100 percent of the shots you don't take. On the contrary, even with long shot, complex personnel actions, you are sure to be successful once in a while, maybe more often. If you can achieve success with any degree of regularity, you will soon start to look like a miracle worker: 1) people marvel at the consistency with which you make difficult or complex personnel actions occur, and 2) you quickly cement your reputation as the leader who doesn't give a s**t about the odds, who regardless is going to fight (and sometimes win) for his or her people.

Remember, results is what we want with any and every endeavor or effort. In personnel actions, when we can't achieve results, the due diligence of trying our best is the next best thing.

Sidebar: The Three Leaders

2012-02-01T04:15:00.001-05:00

We are all three leaders: the leader that we aspire to be, the leader that we think we are, and the leader that our subordinates see us as.

I say three leaders, but this idea is infinitely more multi-faceted. Different groups of subordinates may see different leaders when they look at you (different skill sets, genders, ethnicities, salary/hourly, et cetera). Similarly, peers, associates, and supervisors may see a different leader. Persons outside the organization, including customers, will see yet another leader. And so forth.

However, for the sake of keeping this idea simple, I will stick with three: who you want to be, who you are, and who others see you as.

What Leader Do You Want To Be?

I am becoming less-frequently surprised each time I discover that leaders I speak with do not have a clear understanding or vision of what leader they want to be. As a closely related observation, I find that people in American society, in general, don’t have a vision of who they are trying to be. This puzzles me, because without such a conception - an aim point - how can one’s personal and professional growth not be described as rudderless drifting and haphazard evolution? This seems like a pretty big oversight, with such an important issue as your life and self-concept.

This is much the same in leadership. How can you develop and lead in an effective way, if you have no idea of what that effective way is?

So, we must first determine what leader we want to be. This likely involves discussion, contemplation, and reflection. It will likely include a desire to imitate the strong and effective leadership you have personally experienced in the past, as well as the desire to not repeat that negative or toxic leadership that you have suffered. You may be well served to think about this issue using role models and leadership models, and I would suggest that the end result is your vision of you as a leader, as described through your own leadership philosophy.

If you have done it right, the leader you want to be is just short of achievable on your best days; this is an ideal that we may never be able to reach, but should always be striving for.

Finally, to sum this point up: part of knowing where you are is knowing where you want to go.

What Leader Do You Think You Are?

As just previously mentioned, part of knowing where you are is knowing where you want to go. The other part is knowing where you actually are.

One of the Army’s previous iterations of leadership theory centered around the concept of ‘be, know, and do.’ Within this iteration of its theory, one of the primary leader actions was to ‘know self and seek self improvement.’ In recent years, this early notion of knowing self has mushroomed into the important leadership dimension of self-awareness.

Self-awareness is the broad and all-encompassing term, which suggests that a leader be intimately familiar with his/her strengths, weaknesses, methods of operation, assumptions, preferences, leadership style, demeanor, bad habits, et cetera.

The various tools and methods of self-assessment will help us determine who we think we are as a leader. These can include any number and type of self-assessment activities, such as: 1) technical assessments (reading comprehension, skill at a particular task, et cetera); 2) personality assessments (psychological assessment, Kolb’s learning style inventory, Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, et cetera); 3) expert-assisted assessments (discussion with a counselor, coach, mentor, spouse, et cetera); or 4) self-assessment (reflection, contemplation, meditation, prayer, et cetera).

If you accomplish the above two steps, you have an idea of where you want to go, and where you are as a leader; this is the ‘know self’ part of the Army’s ‘know self and seek self improvement’. At this point, there is a very important point which requires mentioning: you should develop and implement a self development plan, which should be designed to move you from your current position, to where you want to be as a leader; this is the ‘seek self improvement’ part.

What Leader Do Others See?

In addition to knowing self and seeking self-improvement, we must also consider how others see us. This is done for a number of reasons, including the following two:

1. Subordinate satisfaction matters. From the ‘leadership as a service and subordinates as the customer’ perspective, we need and should want to know about our the level of customer service we are providing. In a similar vein, from the ‘servant leadership’ perspective, the result of our service (leadership) to others (subordinates) should include a degree of satisfaction. Happy, satisfied, well-led subordinates translates into productive, effective subordinates.

2. Our attempts at self-assessment are usually skewed, sometimes badly. During self-assessment, overly-critical leaders are too hard on themselves. Similarly, weak leaders that lack the personal courage or integrity to be honest with themselves can develop a self-assessment that is wildly inaccurate and distorted. Similarly, leaders that are overly focused on certain aspects of their organization or practice may fail to observe or assess gaps in other parts of their abilities as a leader (I could easily see this happening to me). Gaining insight to how others see us ultimately validates our self-assessment, or shows us that our self-perceptions are skewed and in need of calibration.

So how do we determine what leader others see in us? You ask them, plain and simple. Many are itching for this opportunity to tell you something (you have bad breath, you send out 238 emails every day, I hate your TPS report, et cetera). Push your tender ego aside and think about it: if your subordinates have such feelings, don’t you want to know about them, so you can address them?

There are two ways to do gain insight into what leader your subordinates see: directly and anonymously.

1. Directly. During routine counseling, or when the tone and content of regular conversation is appropriate, I will straight up ask subordinates the following questions:

“Where am I failing you as a leader? How can I support you better?”

“What are my greatest weaknesses, as your supervisor? Do I have any leadership strengths that are worthy of note?”

“What is the best part about working with me? What is the most difficult, challenging, or trying part?”

Side note: would asking your subordinates these questions make you uncomfortable? Do you think they are inappropriate? If your answer is yes, then I would suggest you have some relationship building to do.

2. Anonymously. Through an intermediary, you can use survey tools to allow subordinates to make anonymous observations. These survey tools can be established instruments (such as the Army’s Equal Opportunity program command climate survey, or the Army’s Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback tool), or you can develop your own custom instrument, if you have specific questions or specific issues you want to know about.

If you make your own questionnaire, I suggest you make it a Likert-scale survey (rate 1 to 5), or enable responses to be provided electronically, so as to guarantee and ensure anonymity. If anonymity is evident and guaranteed, subordinates will provide much more honest feedback. Additionally, you always want the last question to be something like, ‘what other comments or input, on these or any other issues, would you like to provide?’. This allows your subordinates the opportunity to express themselves to their fullest desire. Finally, these questionnaires can be difficult to develop, so I usually get some help from someone who has experience with survey development.

Another very important point: once you get subordinate feedback, do not dismiss it. Whether you agree with and integrate it, or disagree with and reject it, you must at least acknowledge its existence and value. If nothing else, this will provide the subordinate acknowledgement, recognition (even if anonymous), and perhaps some degree closure (‘he may not agree, but at least he heard me’) for his or her voice and contribution. Whether we agree with it or not, subordinate input is important and of value, and subordinates should know that we feel that way.

One final point: this process is not a ‘one and done’ type of thing. Instead, it is an iterative process; periodic assessments must be conducted to: 1) refine our idea of who we want to be as leaders; 2) update our understanding of who we are; and 3) gain fresh insight on what leader others see when they look at us.

Ultimately, there is great insight in realizing that we are three (or more) leaders, and attempting to understand each one. Additionally, once we realize and understand, our efforts should focus on bringing the three leaders closer together, so that who we think we are closely resembles who we want to be, and is consistent with how others see us as leaders.

Sidebar: Considerations of Transactional and Transformational Leadership

2012-01-30T06:10:00.001-05:00

In this day and age, if you take a college course on leadership theory, you are sure to study the idea of 'transformational' leadership.

Transformational leadership theory emerged in the later part of the last century (1978) by a researcher named Burns. It was later championed by another researcher named Bass, and has taken hold as a dominant theory within the discipline of leadership.

Transformational Leadership in a Nut Shell

Transformational leadership is affected by visionary, highly charismatic leaders. These leaders engage and create a personal connection with subordinates, inspiring them to: 1) understand and believe in the importance and meaning of the organization and its mission, 2) transcend the traditional mechanics of employer-employee relations (work for pay), and 3) elevate work performance to an optimum level. The result is very highly motivated subordinates, inspired and behaving selflessly, exceeding the level of effort and performance that could reasonably be expected from persons in their positions and pay grades.

Burns further described transformational leadership, by contrasting it with 'transactional' leadership. Transactional leadership, as described by Burns, is the shallow, meaningless exchange between leader and subordinate (quid pro quo), where the leader provides compensation (pay, benefits, et cetera), and the subordinate provides service (work).

Since this theory was introduced, it has been a major idea in the domain of leadership. I have seen it in every leadership course I have taken or taught in the last five years.

Strengths of Transformational Leadership Theory

Transformational leadership theory has many positive aspects, including the following four:

1. Transformational leadership theory adds to our consideration of leader characteristics. As we work to understand what characteristics comprise effective leadership (who leaders are), many clues can be found in transformational leadership theory. The transformational leader is charismatic, people aware (has the ability to make connections with others), articulate and eloquent, charming, and visionary.

2. Transformational leadership theory suggests greater meaning in work. Work can (and should be) more meaningful to an employee than just a pay check; it can be a team, a mission, and a future that that employee believes in and aspires to.

3. Transformational theory acknowledges the capability of organizational exceptionalism. When extraordinary circumstances warrant, the team can pull together, transcend the conventional boundaries of employeeism, subordinate personal interests, and rise to excellence and mission accomplishment.

A Critique of Transformational Leadership

While the theory of transformational leadership clearly has several positive aspects, I would argue that it brings with it some negative aspects, which must be considered.

1. Transactionalism is now a bad thing. Since its introduction, and through its contrast with transactionalism, transformational leadership theory has cast a negative connotation on transactionalism. Not only is this unfair, I would argue, but it is wildly unrealistic; though transactionalism (and quid pro quo) is espoused as shallow and petty, I would submit that it permeates every aspect of our lives, to include work. More on this in a later post.

2. Transformational methods can (and have been) used in an inappropriate manner. Charismatic, charming, articulate and eloquent sociopaths (like dictators and cult leaders) have employed many methods shared by transformational leadership (subordination of personal interests, collective unification around a vision, et cetera) to manipulate weak people and achieve personal gain.

3. Transformational methods can be unfair. Similarly to my second point, a charming leader can get employees to work above and beyond what they are being compensated for. While this is marvelous when done at critical points in an organization's operations, it becomes unfair when it morphs into the expected norm for day-to-day operations. It becomes downright exploitative when senior leaders cut resources and/or work force, counting on transformational leadership techniques (and extended subordinate effort that exceeds compensation) to account for the difference.

Transformationalism: The Opposing Perspective

In conjunction with the above critique, allow me to offer an opposing perspective regarding transformational leadership:

Transformational leadership, except when employed in only the rarest of circumstances at decisive points in an organization's operations, is an exploitative method, and takes advantage of employees. Instead of routinely and constantly pushing employees to go beyond the boundaries of their job description and compensation (frequently to compensate for deliberate and intentional resource and personnel shortages), leaders should properly resource subordinates, hire more employees, and/or compensate existing employees better.

Transactionalism: The Opposing Perspective

Similarly to the above paragraph, here is what I think is a fair opposing perspective for transactionalism:

If negotiations and agreements are done fairly and properly, transactional leadership means a fair deal. A transactional framework is inherent in the employer-employee relationship: the employer provides resources, direction, and compensation; in return, the employee provides effort, service, and results. If leaders consistently and routinely deal fairly with subordinates, and don't consistently take advantage of them through transformational methods, those employees will appreciate the fair dealing, and will still rise to the occasion in those rare and obvious instances that the situation is critical, and extra effort is required.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we should think about these theories, from both supporting and opposing sides. Leaders with intellectual capacity and self-confidence can ask tough questions like 'are transformational practices exploitative?' and 'why is transactionalism espoused to be a bad thing?'.

In this instance, I don't think it is unreasonable to arrive at a conclusion that goes in contrast to the theory: transformationalism carries with it some considerable negative aspects, and transactionalism does have some significant strengths worthy of note.

Ultimately, I don't think any side is right or wrong on this issue. The important point is that we are exploring the issue, and thinking and talking about it. When dealing with theory, this is, I think, the true measure of success.

Sidebar: Thank You for Your Service

2012-01-28T07:47:00.002-05:00

I was recently in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina on military business, and found myself and my First Sergeant eating dinner at a local restaurant. 1SG and I had just finished some work, and had more work to do, so we were still in our Army uniforms. Throughout the meal, several people stopped to say thank you.

When in uniform, I am often thanked. I respond by saying 'thank you' in return, but most people that I say this to do not understand my meaning. I very much mean to thank them, just as they are thanking me, and here's why:

My military service is my effort to protect, sustain, perpetuate, and actualize our freedom and our American way of life. It is my way to participate productively in American society. There are many other ways to practice and realize freedom and America, and it takes more than Soldiers to construct the fabric of society through these actions. Those people that thank me are practicing freedom and contributing to society in their own way. Perhaps they are police officers, fire fighters, small business owners, or employees of large corporations. There are many other ways to participate productively in American society, and all are, in my opinion, equally as honorable.

So, perhaps you are an artist or a musician, an accountant or a manager. Perhaps you are a home maker and mother. Perhaps you are a spiritual or religious figure. Perhaps you are in sales. If you are, in any way, a positive contributor to and practitioner of freedom and the best of American society, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Sidebar: Leadership as Customer Service

2012-01-26T05:40:00.000-05:00

Consider, for a moment, the possibility that leadership can be thought about in many different ways, and from multiple perspectives.

One such perspective: leaders mentor, train, resource, empower, trust, and support subordinates. This idea has been labeled 'servant leadership'. Consistent with this perspective, then, your subordinates can be thought of as customers: we as leaders provide the service of leadership, and our subordinates are customers, patrons of that service.

Continuing this line of logic: if we (leaders) are the providers of a service (leadership) to customers (subordinates), then providing outstanding customer service should be among our top goals.

Leadership as Serving, Providing Outstanding Customer Service to Subordinates

If you employ this perspective - that your subordinates are the customers of the service you provide - will the approach you take to your work change from how you are doing it now? I would suggest that your actions may become more empowering and more supportive, which will yield a positive response from those competent subordinates with whom you can apply this approach (less competent subordinates may require a more direct style of leadership).

So ask yourself: how is the customer service that you are providing to your subordinates? Remember, if we don't take care of the customer, someone else will.

Good talent will go elsewhere where it is valued and nurtured, if the leadership here is lacking.

Sidebar: If You Have to Go to Rank, You Have Already Failed

2012-01-24T06:39:00.002-05:00

I recently received a complaint from a senior officer, who is the leader of a neighboring organization. This organization, is similar to ours, but it and mine are not related, in terms of command, control, or authority, for several echelons up. Our only real mandates to operate in cooperation are: 1) professional respect and courtesy, and 2) a true caring and fondness of Soldiers, regardless of organization or chain.

As mentioned, this officer recently sent me an email, complaining that my organization’s aviation activities that were conducted in a shared and common space were unsafe. His complaint was strongly worded, unilateral, and demanding, in a way that was overbearing and that the authority of the position he occupies could not enforce.

When dealing with conflict, I employ a five phase graduated strategy, in an attempt at de-escalation: avoid, prevent, spoil, engage (and win), and reconcile. Earlier phases in this strategy are preferable, and you should only transition to the later strategies if you are forced to. I believe that you should always strive to contain conflict to its lowest level. In this vein, I personally went over to this officer’s area, to hopefully work thorough these issues and prevent conflict before it emerged.

Upon finding this officer, I attempted to speak with him about his complaint. Before I could even begin to construct and present my perspective (which I intended to do before I suggested we look for mutually acceptable solutions), he interrupted me and began to talk down at me, saying something to the tune of, “blah blah blah blah, MAJOR (extra inflection, volume, and emphasis), blah blah blah blah...” When senior officers address you by your rank in this manner, it is intended to: 1) overtly remind you that they are a senior officer (as if I somehow forgot); 2) suggest that their perspective on the issue at hand is the right perspective, by virture of their senior rank; and 3) that no discussion or intellectual interaction on the matter will be entertained or tolerated. We call this tactic to short-circuit healthy interaction 'pulling rank'.

Instead of talking through the issue and potentially finding an agreeable solution, this senior officer intended and attempted to intimidate and bully me into accepting his perspective, without discussion or debate, by pulling rank. It was at this point that I politely thanked him for his time and excused myself.

If You Have to Go to Rank, You Have Already Lost

If you have to go to rank, you have already lost. I cannot remember a time when I have seen someone pull rank, and it came out anything other than negative. The senior officer pulling rank may win that particular engagement (in the case above, he did not; I later sent him an email saying that our activities were legal, safe, and necessary, and that his complaint was thin and feeble), but by pulling rank, the senior officer has offended and belittled those with whom he displayed this behavior.

This offense and belittlement cuts deep, and has many dimensions. First, one who pulls rank is overtly pointing out the differences in class, rank, pay, and status between themselves and the subordinate team members; this is well-enough known without those in the privileged class pointing it out to subordinates. Second, through this action, a senior officer who pulls rank is telling those subordinates that he does not care to hear or consider their opinion; effective leaders know that not listening to others’ opinions and input is a recipe for disgruntlement and resentment. Third, and perhaps most important, this behavior demonstrates weak leadership; senior officers who attempt to pull rank frequently do so because they are insecure in their position on the issue at hand, or as a leader in general.

Perhaps this third point is the most relevant to my situation described above. This senior officer could have taken the time to listen to and consider my perspective, talked the issue through, and led us to a mutually acceptable solution. In so doing, he could have increased the good will between our organizations, and provided me a little bit of mentorship (mentorship of juniors, in my opinion, is one of a senior officer’s most important duties).

Instead, though, the senior officer cut me off, tried to pull rank, and ended up fostering negative feelings and resentment. Now, with my boo-boo lip and butt-hurtedness, my feelings are hurt; I will be damned if I adjust or compromise, in an attempt to placate his complaint. On the contrary, we will continue our legal and safe operations as we have been conducting them, and will likely be less amicable and receptive to future interactions or engagements.

Again, if you have to go to rank, you have already lost. And this officer went straight for it, without trying any other leadership tools first. What a shame.

What to Do, Instead of Pulling Rank

If you are a senior officer being confronted by a junior officer, I suggest you consider not pulling rank. Instead, listen to that junior. Acknowledge his or her positions and perspectives. Work to find as agreeable a solution as possible. Then, thank them for coming to you and expressing your concerns. Ask them about the rest of their work, if they have any other issues, or if they are struggling in any other area. Again, senior officers should seek opportunities to mentor juniors; it makes our organization and society stronger.

By doing this, instead of pulling rank, you keep resentments down to a minimum, and you turn a potentially contentious situation into a mentorship and development opportunity. More importantly, though, you show that junior officer how to treat junior officers in a respectful and inclusive way when they become a senior.

Sidebar: Three Ideas for Team Building

2012-01-22T05:42:00.003-05:00

A colleague of mine, who currently leads a heterogeneoous group with multiple skill sets, recently revealed that she was having difficulty bringing the group together and getting them to gel into a team. She explained that cliques had formed within the group, with clear divisions by skill sets, and there was at least some lack of understanding and professional respect between these cliques.

My initial inclination, and ultimately the advice I proposed to her, was to attempt to bring the group together through team building events and activities. While there are many ways to attempt team building, for her situation I suggested three techniques: food, skill set showcasing, and laughter.

Food Builds Teams

One way to attempt team building in any organization is to eat; one of the most basic (and perhaps one of the most effective) forms of bring people together is to share a meal. You could throw a pot luck lunch, where each faculty member brings their special dish. Those that are culinarily challenged can contribute by bringing sodas, plates, condiments, ice, et cetera.

Or, for some increased interaction, turn it into a competition: build heterogeneous teams with one person from each skill set, and ask each team to collaborate, develop, and produce their best recepie (one team is assigned appetizer, one salad, two entree, one dessert, et cetera). During and toward the end of the meal, the group can debate, discuss, and vote on which dish was the best. In concluding remarks the leader can publicly congratulate the winning team (which is composed of all skill sets), and thank everyone for their contribution. Done well, this event results in good food, an easy discussion topic (the food, other recepies considered, et cetera), and increased interaction between the different skill sets at a more individual level.

Understand and Respect Other Skill Sets

In my colleague's situation, perhaps another technique of team building is to allow her various skill sets to showcase their practitioner skills.

For example, I am in charge of an air ambulance Company (a helicopter MEDEVAC unit). We primarily have three groups of people: pilots, mechanics, and medics. One of my team building events include asking medics and pilots to help the mechanics with a major maintenance activity (replacing an engine, or putting a rotor blade back on, for example). The medics and pilots don't do any technical work, but they do help as much as they can. During the procedure, they get a front row seat on the mechanics performing difficult, important work of a highly technical nature. This allows my mechanics to showcase their skills in front of their pilot and medic brothers and sisters, and creates a level of awareness and professional respect for the hard work that mechanics do.

Laughter as a Team Building Tool

Finally, an effective form of team building is to get everyone together and make them laugh at themselves and others. We have air guitar contests, where Soldiers pick their music, grab brooms or tennis rackets, and play the air guitar to their selected songs. At the end, we vote on the best air guitar champion, but through the whole event, everyone is laughing and joking together.

Another way that is very easy is to have a running contest for the funniest/coolest internet video (that is within good taste). At regular meetings, before we begin, we will show a couple of recent submissions, to get everybody laughing and loosened up a little before the meeting. This can be the difference between a bunch of grouches sitting around a table that don't want to work together, and a group of folks who have some endorphins flowing in the brain, and might be a little more open to working together.

There are many other ways to build teams, and it is ultimately up to the leader to find and employ an effective method. The above three techniques have worked well for me, and I hope that they work for my colleague if she chooses to attempt them.

Sidebar: Building a Shared Vision

2012-01-20T06:24:00.000-05:00

I am currently working to earn my PhD in Education. This term, I am taking an online course on Educational Leadership. Recently, on the discussion board, we were discussing some of the basic principles of leadership, as they were presented in the week’s readings. Among the principles presented was the notion of a shared vision.

Here is part of what I wrote in my initial post:

“Personally, I feel very strongly about the value of building a shared vision. As I attempt to describe effective leader actions in my personal leadership philosophy and model, I see effective leaders first understanding the situation, then developing and communicating the vision. Simply, leaders figure out what is going on, what needs to be done, then explain it to others in a convincing and compelling manner.”

There are about 25 learners in the course, and most are sharp as a tack. I mean I have to bring my A-game when I hit the discussion board, or these brilliant individuals will hand me my ass.

One such sharp learner responded to my post that contained the above excerpt. She expressed concern that, as written, my concept of a shared vision could be perceived as a unilateral construction, developed by the leader in isolation, then sold to or forced upon the organization.

Of course, I was boo-boo lip and butt-hurt for about five minutes, because someone didn’t completely love and laud my masterful writing (sarcasm). But once I got over my initial pouting, I realized that my associate was right: the above excerpt does seem unilateral, does not accurately represent my idea of a shared vision, and I can do better.

So, in an attempt to develop and clarify my ideas about shared vision, I composed the below excerpt (which I have since modified slightly), and responded to her:

The Leader as the Architect of a Shared Vision

“I can see how you could read my explanation and perceive that my idea of shared vision is a unilateral, hard sell act of salesmanship. Please believe me that this is not what I meant or what I do.

As you suggest (and I failed to articulate), shared vision demands collaboration and negotiation. Like the rest of my leadership philosophy, I do this through our three espoused ideals: mission, organization, and people.

Before I accept a mission for our organization, I absolutely must present it to my team; explain the benefits, rewards, and risks; work through their questions, feedback, and concerns; consider their recommendations; and obtain their commitment toward its accomplishment.

Similarly, it is the team members who tell me how to develop the organization. Many of the people that I lead have a level of technical skill that far surpasses my knowledge in their domain (aircraft mechanics, medics, test pilots, logistics experts, IT managers, human resource experts, et cetera). I am completely dependent on their input and recommendations for organizational development in their respective domains.

Finally, in addition to accomplishing our assigned mission and developing our organization, a team member growth and development strategy is an absolute requirement, in my opinion, for any organization's vision of the future. Obviously, this requires collaboration and agreement from each individual. I develop my subordinates in this manner as follows: 1) help them think about and develop their long-term career goals, 2) determine where their long-term career goals align with our organization's training and capability requirements, and 3) meet both individual and organizational goals by training the individual in a skill that moves them toward their long-term goals, which is also a capability that our organization needs.

All of the above (mission, organization, people) are pieces of the WHAT of what our organization does. As the leader, it is then my job to take all of these pieces, and synthesize them into a clear vision and strategy for others to follow. This assemblage is the HOW of what our organization does.

Ultimately, I see the leader as the architect and advocate of the organization's shared vision. But that shared vision has to be a mosaic of collaborated and agreed upon actions, which are centered on accomplishing the mission, developing the organization, and growing and developing the team members.”

One other thought: once the organization’s leader has designed and delivered the shared vision, he/she must then immediately turn to the next two important tasks: procuring resources and protecting the organization and team members (through conflict management, the waging of a positive information campaign, distracter management, et cetera).

I have a great deal of gratitude and appreciation when an intelligent associate takes the time to take my ideas, run them through the wringer, and give them back to me for improvement. Thanks very much to D. C., for challenging me to get better.

Sidebar: When to Cease Operations

2012-01-18T04:27:00.002-05:00

I recently wrote about tactical patience, as a technique that effective leaders employ to delay the commencement of operations until the best possible conditions are present. Essentially, that post is about when to start operations. When discussing this issue of when to start with people, I am very rarely asked what I think would be the next intuitive question: when to cease operations. To be honest, until this realization, I had never consciously and deliberately thought about this question myself; like others, I guess I had assumed that we would just continue until the mission was accomplished.

But after more thinking, I realized that there are conditions, other than mission accomplishment, which would support the cessation of operations. Here are some of those conditions:

When to Cease Operations

1. When objectives are met. Mission accomplished? Then stop expending resources and accepting risk; cease operations, consolidate gains, and transition to the next operation.

2. When you have reached the point of diminishing returns. If you are still making progress, but that progress is coming at an ever increasing expense of resources and time, you may have arrived at the point of diminishing returns. This is the point within the return on investment calculation, where the desired return exceeds the price (in terms of resources, time, effort, et cetera) that you are willing to pay. Once you are at or beyond the point of diminishing returns, it is probably smart to cease operations, go looking for your desired results in a less expensive venue, or wait for conditions to change to a more favorable cost.

3. When you have expended your resources. If you have expended your resources, and there are no creative work arounds available, then you are essentially forced to cease operations. Do not attempt to delude yourself; acknowledge the situation, so you can more quickly transition to procuring additional resources or executing other operations.

4. When the risk/reward calculation turns sour. The amount of risk (accidental or political) present can increase during an operation. If the conditions in which you are operating change for the worse, so as to increase the amount of risk beyond an acceptable level, then it makes sense to cease operations. As leaders, we must constantly be assessing risk (especially risk of accident or injury), know what excessively elevated risk looks like, and have the stones to step up and make the call to stop work.

5. When a much better opportunity presents itself. If a much better opportunity comes along, it may make very good sense to cease operations in your current activity and move on to the better one. As a simple example: if you are working a deal that will net you one dollar, and you are presented a deal that will net you five dollars, wouldn’t it probably make sense to quit working on the one, so that you could take advantage of the five?

6. When failure is imminent. If you are absolutely sure that you are going to fail, there may be sense in ceasing operations. Early cessation of operations instead of outright failure may make post-operation activities (withdrawal, consolidation, transition to other operations, et cetera) easier. Additionally, cessation in lieu of failure may enable the conservation or manpower, resources, and funding, which may enable success in adjacent or future efforts. Further, cessation in lieu of failure can help with political damage control: ‘we didn’t fail, the situation turned South, so I made the call to withdraw.’

Sidebar: The Case for Questionable Character

2012-01-16T15:08:00.001-05:00

Perhaps this is a semantic tail-chase, but I feel compelled to write about having character.

Recently, intending and attempting to pay another a compliment, an associate of mine said something to the fact of: 'that individual is a person of character'. While I understood what my associate meant, this comment caused me to begin an internal discussion and debate on the idea and importance of character. Ultimately, I arrived at the pondering of two questions:

1. Doesn't everybody have character of some sort, be it honorable, questionable, dishonorable, et cetera?

2. Is it necessarily a bad thing to have questionable character?

Types of Character

Again, this may be semantic, but the word 'character' can be defined as: the reputation, or more specifically the moral and ethical quality of an individual. Thus, our character can be flavored and described by its type (noun modified by adjective). The two basics are honorable and dishonorable:

1. Honorable character. Values integrity above all else; will not consider courses of action that involve a violation of integrity. Under no circumstances does this individual lie, cheat, steal, or behave in any other underhanded way.

2. Dishonorable character. Cares little about integrity; routinely defers to courses of action that violate integrity. Will lie, cheat, steal, break rules and laws, and commit other violations of integrity with little or no concern for consequences or feelings of regret.

Here is a third type of character, for your consideration:

3. Questionable character. Values integrity, but not above espoused values (mission, people, and organization). In critically important or dire situations, will lie, cheat, steal, or behave in an otherwise underhanded manner to accomplish the mission, take care of subordinates, or advance the organization. Adapts character to fit the situation, and the character of this person must therefore be questioned each time he/she is engaged.

The Case for Questionable Character

It is obvious why we would not want contestant #2 (dishonorable character) in our organization; he/she can't be trusted, and ultimately cares about and for nothing (except maybe self, in the most selfish sense).

Looking at contestant #1 (honorable character), at least at face value, this individual's advantages are readily apparent. More on this individual in a minute.

What about our contestant of questionable character? Isn't there obvious advantage to having team members like this - who, when it counts, will stop at nothing to observe and actualize the ideals of mission, people, and organization - around? Further, wouldn't this individual's fierce loyalty to subordinates and the organization inspire a strong and fiercely loyal organizational climate?

Back to contestant #1 (honorable character): assuming you can get beyond your initial revulsion and at least intellectually consider (if not warm up to) the benefits of questionable character; can honorable character's strengths not be seen as incredible weaknesses, when viewed in contrast of questionable character's enhanced situational adaptability and potentially greater effectiveness?

Imagine these two in a direct competition; who immediately has a huge advantage: honorable character, who will only go so far to win, or questionable character, who will stop at nothing to achieve victory? What if this direct competition was of incredible importance: a critical mission, well-being of subordinates, or the organization's very survival - things that you would fight with a high degree of ferocity and resolve for? Seen in this way (that is, when compared to mission, people, and organization), how important is honorable character really?

Results + Don't Get Carried Away = Questionable Character is OK

But as I suggested at the beginning of this rant, this entire line of thinking may be less ideological, and more semantic.

For example, on a grandly historical scale, when the behaviors of questionable character were successfully conducted by the winning side, history had a way of ignoring the ugly details, or reframing the story in a more positive and honorable light (and in contrast, behaviors of questionable character that were conducted unsuccessfully or by the losing side were shaped to further discredit or dishonor the loser).

At a more tactical level, I have stated before (and seen several times over, with my own two eyes) that all but the worst transgressions are forgiven for leaders who produce results. This is perhaps a symptom or indicator that leaders of questionable character are alive, well, and in practice today. What's more: as long as their actions of questionable character are not too egregious, and they continue to produce results, their transgressions are ignored or reinterpreted into acceptable, honorable behavior.

It is because the above argument is so compelling, that I have decided not to include 'honor', 'values', or 'character' as a primary characteristic (or even a subordinate dimension) in my leadership model. While I, as a leader in the Army and in life feel personally compelled to behave in accordance with a sense of right and wrong that generally matches that of the best of American society, I believe that effective leadership can be (and frequently is) conducted without these qualities present.

It is important to understand and acknowledge, though: in many ways, when we attempt to live by a set of values (or a code of ethics, moral principles, whatever you want to call it), we are defining a set of parameters in which we force ourselves to operate; this means that at the same time we are also defining a set of parameters outside of which we will not operate. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have espoused values that we try to live by; I'm saying that it is important to acknowledge that when we do, we are putting ourselves in a box, and restricting access to potential options and solutions.

Sidebar: Tactical Patience

2012-01-12T04:44:00.000-05:00

When discussing effective leadership, much emphasis is placed on the ideas of acting decisively, and not hesitating when the moment of action is at hand. This is clearly a characteristic of an effective leader: to be able to act decisively and with resolve when the time is right. And obviously, decisive action is most appropriate and effective at the most opportune time, when the situation and conditions are most favorable for low risk, and high likelihood of mission accomplishment.

Sometimes, especially when excitement and anticipation within the organization are high, it can be difficult to wait for the most ideal and opportune circumstances to develop. This is especially true during developing or evolving situations, where no opportunity may develop into an acceptable or satisfactory opportunity, before evolving into an ideal opportunity (or the best opportunity possible in that situation).

It is in these situations that leaders may unknowingly commence execution and engagement prematurely, when circumstances and conditions are perhaps acceptable, but not as ideal or opportune as they were going to get.

To counter this natural tendency to ‘jump the gun’, effective leaders are aware of and employ the concept of tactical patience.

Tactical Patience Defined

Tactical patience is that characteristic that allows effective leaders to understand and wait for ideal or the best possible conditions, prior to commencing the execution of operations. There are two key points here:

1. Understand what the best possible conditions look like. Through preparation and visualization of the operation, leaders come to understand how events will unfold, as well as where best conditions are likely to be found, when they will likely occur, and what they are likely to look like.

2. Wait for the best possible conditions. Leaders have the personal discipline and patience, as well as effective control of their subordinate elements, to wait for the ideal or best possible conditions to develop. This discipline and control is enhanced through: 1) communication with subordinate elements; 2) the development of firm, tangible triggers for commencement that will hold at the first signs of acceptable or satisfactory opportunity; and 3) effective control of emotions (excitement, anticipation, et cetera).

Quick definition: by using the word 'trigger' in the above sentence, I mean an event, criteria, or condition, whose occurrence triggers an action. For example, if we will not stop for fuel until we are below a quarter of a tank of gas; then falling below a quarter of a tank is the trigger to stop for gas.

Bird-In-Hand Bias

This idea of waiting until ideal circumstances seems obvious; why are we talking about it? Because we all suffer from 'Bird-In-Hand Bias'. As my title suggests, this cognitive bias relates strongly to the cliche (a bird in hand is worth two in the bush), as well as the psychological studies that have been done on risk tolerance and loss aversion. If an acceptable or satisfactory opportunity currently exists, our mind is more occupied with the potential loss of the existing opportunity, than it is with the consideration of better opportunities in the future.

Be aware of the 'Bird-In-Hand' Bias: our desire to not lose the acceptable or satisfactory opportunity that we presently have, may overshadow our consideration and patience to wait for a better opportunity to develop.

Tactical Patience and Preparation

One last point about tactical patience: the ideal or best possible conditions that we are waiting for may not always occur as a result of some external development (competitor or customer action, change in the situation, et cetera); sometimes the ideal or best possible conditions can be created through internal development, such as planning, preparation, rehearsal, and training.

The lesson here is that it is usually not prudent to transition immediately (or as quickly as possible) into execution mode upon receiving a mission, like we are so inclined to do. Efficiency and effectiveness are almost certainly to be gained through proper preparation. Remember, Lincoln said, “If I had six hours to cut down a tree, I would spend the first five sharpening the axe.” Take your time and go to the tree with a sharp instrument, instead of hurrying there with a dull hatchet.

Sidebar: The Warrior Ethos: Values plus Resolve

2012-01-10T06:29:00.000-05:00

As presented in my leadership philosophy and model, as well as in the main body of this text, I have identified the characteristics of values and resolve as two important subordinate characteristics of effective leadership.

Frequently, I see how these characteristics can combine or interact to enable and facilitate effective leadership.

In this vein, it seems intuitive and natural to me that we could apply a high degree of resolve to our espoused values (which for organizational leaders I submit are mission, people, and organization). The Army has done this, and produced a value statement called The Warrior Ethos. The Warrior Ethos is a set of concise statements that convey the sense of values and resolve that a Soldier should have:

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

This is a very powerful statement, which I think allows us to match our values - mission, people, and organization - to a high degree of commitment and resolve. Consider the below paragraphs, as an example of how The Warrior Ethos exemplifies the pairing of values and resolve:

1. I will always place the mission first. Mission accomplishment is of prime import, above all else; it is why we get out of bed in the morning. Nothing gets in the way of getting the mission done; excuses, distracters, lack of resources, poor weather, loss of internet connectivity... none of these will prevent me from getting the job done.

2. I will never accept defeat. You have no idea how far I am prepared to go to win. I see every task, every mission, every assignment, every email, every telephone conversation as a battle which I intend to win, decisively. Victory, success, winning, mission accomplishment... these are the sea in which I intend to swim.

3. I will never quit. Death is the only thing that might have a chance at stopping me. I am fanatically committed - without regard to sleep, leisure time, personal comfort, even personal well-being; and will stop at nothing to feast on the bones of mission accomplishment.

4. I will never leave a fallen comrade. This may literally be a fellow Soldier that has been wounded or isolated in a combat situation - I’m going back to get him or her.

Or, this may be a subordinate who has become overwhelmed by life’s challenges and is in a bad psychological state - I’m going to personally make sure this person gets the help they need, and I will stay with them until we get them to help.

Or, this may be a subordinate who is struggling to master the performance of their assigned technical tasks at work. If I have mastery of these tasks, I will stay late to train him or her; if I don't, I will direct my expert trainers to engage and succeed.

Regardless of the literalness or figurativeness of the term ‘fallen comrade,’ I will not leave you behind. The organization is made up of individuals; we are a team, and you are a very important part of that team, and we are all going to succeed together, even if I have to drag your ass to success.

Front Matter: My Leadership Model Explained

2012-01-08T07:01:00.000-05:00

The first volume of the text on my leadership philosophy and model, in which I discuss the characteristics of effective leaders and organizations - Who Leaders Are - is approaching some level of completeness. In conjunction with this milestone, I have begun to compose and assemble the requisite front and back matter, including a piece in the front that briefly discusses the over-arching logic of the model. Here it is, for your consideration:

My Leadership Model Explained

Please refer to my leadership model. My leadership model contains and reflects my philosophy on effective leadership. A brief description of the model's over-arching logic:

1. Leaders operate within a definable situation consisting of many variables (such as time, resources, politics, and climate).

2. Effective leaders and effective leadership can be described by a combination of two frameworks: characteristics (Who Leaders Are) and behaviors (What Leaders Do).

In my experience, the most effective leaders were smart, driven, honorable, and had a sense of presence about them that could not be ignored. Therefore, I have identified intellectual capacity, character, command presence, and drive as the primary characteristics of effective leadership in my philosophy and my model. Within each of these primary characteristics, I have identified and will describe several subordinate characteristics of effective leadership.

Similarly, I believe that effective leaders routinely perform thirteen clearly definable tasks (as depicted in my model);  this fidelity in describing What Leaders Do goes in direct contrast to the vague and nebulous descriptions of leader actions and behaviors offered in most theory. By being clear and specific about what leaders do, we are then able move toward concise, formulaic, replicable descriptions of these tasks, actions, and behaviors, and thereby make effective leadership less mysterious and more achievable by aspiring leaders.

3. Each of these two frameworks informs the other: Who Leaders Are informs what they do; What Leaders Do reflects who they are.

Key Points of My Leadership Model

Now that I have presented a brief explanation of my leadership model, I would like to accentuate three key points about it:

1. Structure. The structure of my model consists to two interacting frameworks:  a characteristic-based framework (Who Leaders Are) and a behavior-based framework (What Leaders Do).

2. Content. The content within these frameworks consists of those characteristics and behaviors that, after extensive experience, study, and contemplation, I have identified as being comprehensively descriptive of effective leadership.

3. Situationality. The situation will (and should) inform the leader's practice.  As the situation changes, I support the notion that leaders demonstrate tailorability, flexibility, and relativity in both characteristic and behavior, to accomplish the mission, and grow and develop the individuals and organization within the specific situation in which they find themselves.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 10 of 10: Fanatical Resolve for Mission, Organization, and People)

2012-01-06T07:23:00.012-05:00

At this point in the text, I hope you are beginning to understand how important the ideals of mission accomplishment, and the development and improvement of both individuals and the organization are in my leadership philosophy.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Fanatical Resolve for Mission, Organization, and People

There are and will always be a multitude of issues, programs, tasks, details, events, situations, et cetera that vary in importance from negligible to very important, and which require a leader's time and attention. In the last sentence, I use the word 'require', but perhaps I should have used 'consume' or 'overwhelm', as the myriad of issues can literally consume and overwhelm a leader.

For example, as I write this paragraph, I have more than 1,000 unread emails in my work email inbox. The work is never going to go away.

I have found that the vast majority of these sort of issues end up as background noise, which if we let them, can distract us from what really matters.

So, what really matters? I submit that the three following ideals are what should really matter to a leader:

Mission Accomplishment

Organizational Growth and Development

Subordinate Growth and Development

Mission, Organization, and People. If you allow these ideals to inform your behavior, you will very likely enjoy a rich and meaningful existence as a leader.

So, why am I talking about these most important ideals in this section that is supposed to be about resolve? More on that in a minute; first, allow me to present my definition of the word 'resolve'.

Resolve Defined: the arrival at ultimate decision, and the resulting overwhelming will to fanatically pursue, support, and defend a set of ideals, decision, or course of action, without regard to any potential second-order effects or consequences.

To get back to the question posed earlier in this post: the reason I am writing about mission accomplishment and organizational and individual growth and development in conjunction with resolve, is because these ideals are really the only things in my leadership practice that have evoked such a strong determination.

Practicing leadership in today's day and age requires great flexibility and adaptability. Leaders must be fluid, dynamic, and able to adjust and shift to meet any combination of situation, resources, information, and time. But short of the aforementioned ideals does this ultimate flexibility cease. With regard to mission, organization, and people, leaders who are worth a s**t are rigidly inflexible; they are fierce and vicious in their commitment to these ideals to a point well beyond question or doubt.

Mission, Organization, and People. You have no idea how committed I am, or how far I am prepared to go. This is resolve.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 9 of 10: Resilience)

2012-01-04T05:01:00.000-05:00

To be resilient means to maintain the desire to move forward, despite adversity, stress, setback, or catastrophe.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Resilience

Resilient means appropriately optimistic. When fostering organizational resilience, effective leaders highlight positive aspects and good news, and downplay negative aspects or bad news. This is the same sort of optimism that survival experts say can be the difference between life and capitulation in a survival situation.

Resilient also means tough. Resilient leaders are tough: they can handle the chronic, gnawing stress of the day in and day out grind; they can handle the acute stress of the big event; and they can survive, recover from, and move beyond disaster.

Resilient also means to be able to bounce back, like a rubber band. After a grueling day, resilient leaders have the ability to regenerate, and arrive to work the next morning rested, refreshed, and ready for more intense action. Similarly, resilient leaders and organizations prepare for, react to, mitigate, and recover from adverse events as quickly as possible, through planning, preparation, and training.

Development and Embodiment of Resilience

So this idea of being resilient (tough, optimistic, and able to bounce back) sounds good. How do we develop and embody this characteristic in ourselves and our organizations?

My answer is preparation, practice, and good execution.

First, we need to articulate clearly those conditions that would require a resilient posture and response. Next, once we have identified those conditions to which we should respond with resilience, we can identify and develop appropriate responses. Once those responses are developed, they should be implemented, through practice and, when necessary, effective execution.

Here are the three general conditions that I can see requiring resilience, as well as some possible resilient interventions:

Condition #1: Chronic Stress. Chronic stress is the gnawing, ever-present, long-term pressures associated with day-in day-out and long-term commitment to a challenging enterprise.

The two resilient interventions to address chronic stress are: 1) eliminate or mitigate stressors, and 2) implement an effective stress management program.

If possible, sources of chronic stress are eliminated or mitigated. For example, not having an important and useful piece of equipment can increase task difficulty and length, and can be a source of chronic stress; the solution here is to supply the organization with the piece of equipment. Another example: a particular process or policy is unhelpful, more difficult than it has to be, or outdated; the solution here is to revise, streamline, and update the process and policy. One more example: a particular employee is hard to deal with (negative, control freak, incompetent, melodramatic, whatever); potential solutions here include performance counseling, rehabilitative transfer, or walking papers.

While elimination and mitigation can be very effective, they are not always possible. No matter how hard you try to create an environment with an appropriate stress level, some unwanted chronic stress will likely remain; in many ways, it is inherent in the conduct of operations. In these circumstances, effective stress management is the answer.

Effective stress management is the implementation of those interventions designed to reduce chronic stress. This can be done at the individual or organizational level.

At the individual level, stress management can include such things as: exercise, meditation, proper sleep and diet, avoidance of caffeine or stimulants, journaling, guided imagery, spending time with pets and family, hobbies and recreation, and so on.

At the organizational level, stress management can include such things as: predictability in schedule, activities, events, and pay; assumption of a reasonable work load; and proper resourcing. Additionally, the occasional conduct of an organizational 'de-stressing' event can be helpful. Examples of such an event include attendance at a professional development retreat, an organizational recreational event (bowling, paintball, go-cart racing), or an organizational social event (dining event, party, celebration).

Condition #2: Acute Stress. Acute stress is the intense, short-term pressure associated with an important, frightening, emotional, or highly visible event.

The best resilient intervention to address acute stress is preparation. Visualize and anticipate those events that will or may occur that could cause acute stress, then prepare and practice for them. If/when these acutely stressful events actually do occur, preparation and practice will pay off in effective handling of the event. This will develop and inspire confidence, which in turn will reduce the stress associated with future occurrences of this and similar events; it's a positive feedback loop.

Condition #3: Catastrophe, Disaster, or Major Adverse Event. This is when something really bad happens. Examples of this condition can include: 1) an accident with major damage and/or fatalities, 2) unannounced project cancellation and associated layoffs or reassignments, or 3) the revealing or emergence of major legal or financial problems.

Resilient interventions that best address catastrophe, disaster, or a major adverse event include: 1) prevention, 2) effective reaction, and 3) closure.

Obviously, prevention is primarily intended to keep the catastrophic event from occurring at all. However, even if the catastrophic event does occur, efforts toward prevention can still have a resilience-instilling effect. The fact that efforts were made to prevent the catastrophic event from happening may lead affected people away from reconciling the event as a result of negligence or incompetence. This may make the event easier to get over: 'we tried our best, but it still happened' is much easier to get past than 'it happened because we did nothing to prevent it'.

Similarly, an effective reaction will result in this duality of effect: not only will an effective reaction to catastrophe save lives and minimize damage, but it will also instill a level of comfort and confidence in survivors, which may allow them to move on sooner and easier.

Finally, once the catastrophe concludes, the appropriate processes must be executed to provide closure. Processes leading to closure can include: investigation, assignment of responsibility, consequences and punishment, and refinement and resumption of operations. Additionally, with fatalities, closure can include memorial, grieving, internment, and more grieving.

It is also important to note that, after memorial and mourning, organizational leaders can facilitate moving forward by giving the organization something to do - a new mission. Obviously, this must be conducted in the appropriate time and with the appropriate level of sensitivity, but team members may find it easier to move forward if their time and attention is occupied with meaningful work, as opposed to being left to dwell on the catastrophe.

Adversity, stress, and setbacks occur. Occasionally, catastrophe or disaster occur. Resilient leaders and organizations understand the nature of these situations, and employ an effective resilience posture and interventions to reduce stress, deal with catastrophe, and keep the mission, themselves, and the organization moving forward.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 8 of 10: Follow-Through)

2012-01-02T05:00:00.001-05:00

Reactive people that sit in leadership positions deal with only the issues that are stare them in the face; other important issues (that could advance organizational development and mission accomplishment) are forgotten, un-actioned, neglected, or otherwise dropped. In contrast, leaders with drive are tenacious and persistent at seeing important efforts through to conclusion and fruition. They are a source of refreshing hope to superiors, because the take the ball on important issues, follow-through, and follow-up with status reports.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Follow-Through

How do we enable and ensure follow-through? Just like everything else: proper planning and resourcing. Develop and implement a 'follow-through plan'.

Consider the value and utility of the below elements, as part of an effective follow-through plan:

1. Emphasize it if it's important. If you are the leader delegating an important issue to subordinates, emphasize both its importance, as well as the importance of proper follow-through. Remember, though, that if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority; dispense emphasis judiciously and only on truly important issues.

2. Identify the project leader. If you are the delegating leader, 'pin the rose' of your important issue or project on a specific subordinate leader. Doing this gives the organization a central point of contact to 'champion' (understand, develop, and accomplish) your important issue, but it also increases the likelihood of results; subordinates who perform satisfactorily or better perform much better when they are singularly and personally accountable for an issue, project, or task.

Side note: if you delegate an important issue to a subordinate leader, and they fail to produce, you should re-train, resource, and give them another project. If they fail a second time, start sharpening the axe.

If you are a subordinate leader, it is first important to value your boss' pet project: 1) is this a training, growth, or showcase opportunity for my subordinate organization?; 2) can this project be accomplished in the current environment (resources, politics, operational tempo, et cetera); 3) will other senior leader see and recognize the value of this project, or is this my supervisor's 'pet rock'?; and 4) does this project resonate with me and my team (is this a project that we would enjoy taking)?

If your valuation leans toward it being a good project and move, volunteer to take the lead (then get it done well, and corner that market as the subject matter expert); if it looks like a half-baked lawn bomb from the good idea fairy, avoid getting the rose pinned on you.

3. Set suspenses. At every scale and echelon, this is so totally do-able. Both Google and Microsoft Outlook calendars have a reminder function; use it, and teach your subordinates how to use theirs. Suspenses can be set for anything, large or small: project milestone completions, in-progress review meetings, and even small personal reminders.

For example, my senior supervisor (my boss' boss) called me a few weeks back, and asked me to work a small issue for him. As soon as I got off the phone with him, and among other things (developed a plan, sent a contact report to my boss, et cetera), I put reminders on my calendar (initial 3 days out, and updates 30 and 90 days out) to FOLLOW-THROUGH with a status report. That way, one month from then, when I am distracted and immersed in some other project or issue, that calendar reminder will pop up right in front of my face, and I can dazzle and bewilder my senior supervisor with a periodic status report on that thing he asked me about a month ago.

4. Allocate resources. If it's important enough to follow-through with, it's important to be properly resourced; we often forget about this. As delegating leaders, our verbal emphasis carries real meaning upon the commitment of resources; conversely, our (deliberate or unintentional) failure to commit resources to a project or activity on which we have placed verbal emphasis says something as well.

As a subordinate supervisor, if find yourself as the owner of one of these shiny new projects or issues, your first move should be to respond to your supervisor's staff with a volley of resource requests, such as follows: 'in accordance with The Boss' emphasis and direction on project X, I need the following resources to accomplish my assigned tasks: (insert a gross over-estimate of people, resources, time, and money here)'.

5. Communicate progress (or lack thereof). Again, set reminders on your calendar (#3, above) to communicate periodic project progress reports to your supervisor. The time interval between these periodic reports should be appropriate for the project scope and speed, supervisor temperament, et cetera.

Further, these periodic reports should be sent whether there is progress or not; no progress is just as meaningful as progress, and your supervisor will appreciate the confidence and comfort that comes with an update (as opposed to the uncertainty and doubt that comes with being in an information black hole). It is important that in either case - no progress, part of the plan or no progress, something happened - explain the hows and whys of no progress (awaiting approval, awaiting situation maturation, busy with higher priority items, et cetera) in your initial report (or you will surely be sending a second report).

In addition to periodic updates, be sure to send event-based update anytime a significant event has occurred (good or bad - milestone, completion, incident or accident, setback, et cetera).

6. Systematize it. For important extended or recurring projects or activities - if they really are important - systemize them, by integrating their existence into the organization's operational rhythm. This would probably include: 1) including the project or issue on the organization's routine meeting agenda (for brief discussion), 2) creating a new routine meeting where the project or issue is periodically reviewed in detail, and 3) incorporating project or issue costs as regular items in the organization's budget.

If any or all of the above elements of the follow-through plan seem excessive for a particular issue or project, you must honestly ask yourself how important that issue or project really is. If you are not serious enough about the project or issue to consciously and specifically commit people, effort, and resources, then do the humane thing and kill it, lest it linger in anemic existence and take up just enough of our time to be an annoyance and distracter.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 7 of 10: Consistency)

2011-12-31T09:07:00.000-05:00

Effective leaders and effective organizations are consistent in two ways: they are consistent in thought and behavior, and they are consistent in results.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Consistency

Consistency in Thought and Behavior. Effective leaders and effective teams are consistently working and thinking toward mission, people, and organization. Very literally, with those that are truly driven every action, thought, and behavior they perform can consistently be tied back to one of these three ideals.

The mission is the reason for the organization's existence. Understandably, this ideal enjoys a commanding share of attention and effort.

Similarly, organizations are people. Taking care of the organization's people improves the organization, and ultimately enhances mission accomplishment capability. On duty, taking care of people includes professional development and education, protection and safety, and compensation and benefits. Off duty, taking care of people means enabling and encouraging them to join in the pursuit of life and those personal interests, both related and unrelated to the organization and its mission. Team members, as well as their families, are thought of and cared for, because it's the right thing to do, and it inspires tremendous loyalty toward the organization and mission.

Finally, people form an organization to accomplish the mission. The organization, like a machine, requires thought and action for its operation, maintenance, and improvement.

Mission, people, organization. In driven leaders and effective organizations, these ideals are reflected in everything we do.

Consistency in Results. As I have said before and as I will say again, it is all about results. Effective leaders and effective organizations consistently deliver results. They are the dependable, consistent performers that senior leaders go to with decisive and very lucrative operations. Get the mission accomplished every time it one is offered to you (and you accept it), and you and your team will gain the reputation for being the 'A' team.

~~Consistency of Effort.~~ This is not an effective dimension of consistency or drive, so don't pretend it is. Those people who are at work all the time and talk a good game, but don't ever seem to get anything done - they are just ineffective people who have no life; don't be this person.

Effective leaders and organizations' effort levels can vary wildly, depending on activity level, work load, et cetera. When it's time to work, they bust ass and apply sick amounts of effort. When there's nothing on the schedule or calendar, they probably don't even come into the office. Effort matters not; mission, people, organization, and results do.

All of our thoughts and behaviors are ultimately in support of mission, people, and the organization. Additionally, develop a reputation for consistency of results by accomplishing every mission, task, or assignment you accept. Don't keep score based on how much effort you are contributing, because ultimately it doesn't matter. This is consistency.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 6 of 10: Focus)

2011-12-29T05:55:00.002-05:00

Leaders with drive devote their time, attention, and resources to what matters: mission, people, and the organization. Simultaneously, they deflect and repel attempts to distract them and the organization away from mission accomplishment. Driven leaders have focus.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Focus

Instill Focus in the Organization

Like all other characteristics and traits, focus can be developed in leaders and organizations through a clearly defined and meaningful process. To develop focus, I recommend the following:

1. Determine and articulate what is important (hint: mission, people, and the organization). Leaders with focus first must determine on what to focus. If done properly, situational understanding, the developed vision, and supporting tasks and objectives are translated into an over-arching and subordinate mission statements, which inform and guide all organizational activities and efforts. In addition to the mission, individual team members and the organization as a whole are always important, and should therefore receive emphasis and focus.

2. Focus the organization through emphasis. Focus is more than paying really close attention to something; it is an emphasis that results in the commitment of money, resources, and man power, in addition to time and attention. Correspondingly, the organization cannot help but focus on events, issues, and activities that have been effectively resourced. It is an interesting symbiosis: focus results in resources, and resources result in focus.

3. Avoid fixation; be aware of the broader context. Driven leaders can focus without becoming fixated. Simultaneously with a high degree of focus on mission accomplishment, the can still remain vigilant of the always-changing local and broader context. They continuously look for indicators of a dynamic situation, which may present a set of different or new threats and opportunities, and may affect mission relevance or accomplishment. As threats and opportunities emerge, transform, and dissipate, focused but aware leaders contemplate the impacts and implications on the mission and organization, and make adjustments accordingly.

4. Expect and manage distractions and competing requirements. When requests, tasks, or requirements emerge that are unrelated to the important operation being conducted, focused leaders acknowledge and consciously table, delay, or disregard them until the mission is accomplished. These leaders keep the organization focused on the mission at hand, and do not let the distractions delay or disrupt them or the team.

5. Expect and defend against criticism. When accomplishing any important mission with any sort of visibility, critics outside your organization are sure to come out of the woodwork. While some criticism is helpful, during execution mode, it is often input submitted too late.

Additionally, much criticism is dispensed for the wrong reasons and is not helpful. Unless you are mentally prepared for them, these sideline quarterbacks, insecure jealous types, nay-sayers, skeptics, and whiners have the potential to throw you off of your game. To defend against external critics, focused leaders have built a track record of solid and consistent results, ignore unhelpful criticism, and believe in themselves.

Additionally, there is also the chance that critics will emerge from within your organization. During planning and before mission execution decisions are made, the complaints of internal critics should be heard and addressed. If, after execution decisions have been made, internal critics persist, they should be silenced through reprimand, or sequestered so as to not be able to infect the group.

Driven leaders display focus, through the commitment of time, attention, and resources to decisive operations. Simultaneously, these leaders remain vigilant and aware of the broader context. Additionally, they expect and are prepared to protect the organization and mission accomplishment from distraction or criticism.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 5 of 10: Intensity)

2011-12-28T18:00:00.001-05:00

Note: this fifth dimension of drive was initially labeled 'sense of urgency', but I have since renamed it to 'intensity'. You should understand why as you read below.

When the organization transitions to 'go mode' and begins the conduct of operations, effective leaders expect and encourage a high level of intensity. In execution, team members demonstrate this increased intensity, and its presence facilitates decisive mission accomplishment.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Intensity

The introduction of a sense of intensity into operations can enable efficient, decisive mission accomplishment, and can mitigate the effects of problems and delays.

1. Intensity creates creates positive first and second-order effects. Conducting an operation with a level of high intensity creates many positive first (and second) order effects. These can include 1) decisiveness in action and mission accomplishment; 2) a sense of urgency and rapidity (and the associated purposeful moving and reduced exposure time); and 3) efficient operation (and the associated conservation of resources).

2. Intensity counters marginal and under-committed performers. Despite leaders’ best efforts to obtain deeper commitment, some employees only come to work to earn a pay check. They don’t care about the mission, the team, or success; they just want to earn their hourly wage. These employees don’t care about production, efficiency, or cost effectiveness, and are all too happy to give up or go idle at the first sign of disruption or delay. Bringing a level of intensity to your operations can spur these marginals into action (at least superficially, for a short period of time), if more deep and existential appeals fail to resonate with them.

3. Intensity helps to mitigate the effects of delays and disruptions. Along with the development of branches, intensity in execution can mitigate delays and disruptions if when they do happen. When these delays and disruptions occur, team members and organizations who are engaged with a high degree of intensity are already in a heightened, alert mental state, and are therefore better able to rapidly transition to contingency planning and execution.

How to Create High Intensity

I can think of three ways to create high intensity, which I will describe below. I thought about including 'turn the mission brief into a pre-mission pep rally' as a fourth way, as I have seen this used effectively in the past (videos of prior helicopter missions, AC/DC's 'Thunderstruck' blaring, et cetera). While this could be an effective technique, I am concerned that it could just as easily blow up in your face, Michael Scott style. So use the pre-mission pep rally with extreme caution, if you decide to attempt it.

1. Emphasize the mission and articulate expectations. As the organization's leader, if I expect something, I should communicate that expectation to the organization. This helps them understand my intent, and it helps me manage my expectations. For those operations where I expect and want to see intensity, I should articulate and emphasize this, by: 1) emphasizing the mission, 2) providing sufficient resources, and 3) describing what I think intensity in this operation looks like.

2. Develop and present decisive events. Nothing creates intensity like an event that demands it. Events that are important in some way (the organization's primary function, highly lucrative, the more glamorous part of the job) are what we in the Army call 'decisive events'. Through their importance and significance, decisive events become focal points in an organization's operations, that receive attention, emphasis, and resources.

If your people are in the right place in life, and they truly enjoy the work they do in your organization, then when a decisive event comes along, they will rise to the occasion. For these people, this is the 'love of the game'; decisive events are what professionals live for.

3. Tie intensity (and mission accomplishment) to compensation. Rewarded behavior gets repeated: reward people for intensity and decisive victory, and they will go do it again. It really is that simple.

Temper Intensity

The employment of intensity at the proper time and place in order to achieve decisive victory can clearly be an organizational capability multiplier. However, if it is not properly managed, intensity can morph into insanity. Especially in conjunction with progress and success, organizations and team members can get caught up in the intensity of the moment, and a breakdown in rational and efficient thinking and operations can occur. Be aware of this phenomenon, and prevent or pre-empt it when you see it developing.

1. Don’t let intensity undermine good decision making. Intensity involves adrenaline, animation, and emotion; these have the ability to short-circuit sound decision making. Prevent this by differentiating operators (who engage in intense operations) from planners (who sit back; plan, re-assess, and re-evaluate; and who don't get wrapped up in the intensity and operations).

2. Don’t let a intensity undermine safety. With intensity comes adrenaline and excitement, which if unchecked has the potential to short-circuit good judgment and result in an accident or incident. As with all operations, a designated safety officer should be present and observing operations for risk and potential safety issues.

3. Somebody needs to have The Boss' leash. Leaders lead from the front, so during operations, The Boss should be in the thick of it. If he/she is an effective leader, The Boss is likely an adrenaline junkie, so he/she may very well get caught up in the moment and battle; somebody (in the Army, it is likely the second in command or the senior NCO) needs to be able to check and counter The Boss.

4. Use intensity judiciously.

Additionally, especially if for no good reason, expecting an extended period of high intensity will wear your people out. Similarly, this state of high intensity is inherently exceptional in nature; it is you, your team members, and the organization at peak performance. In contrast, if high intensity is the norm, it is not exceptional; it becomes common, and in doing so loses its inspirational value.

Approaching important operations with a level of intensity can result in a number of positive effects, and resultingly enable decisive mission accomplishment. Ultimately, intensity is another characteristic that leaders posses and instill within their subordinates and organizations, in an effort to enable and obtain peak performance and mission accomplishment.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 4 of 10: Initiative)

2011-12-28T06:00:00.001-05:00

We live in a world with not enough initiative. Most people idle until forced or directed into action. Leaders spend too much time pointing out the obvious. In contrast, effective leaders who have drive do not wait for direction or permission. These self starters get the team doing what needs to be done, before and without having to be told to.
Who Leader Are > Drive > Initiative

In most situations and organizations, the ability to exercise initiative exists in plentitude, and begins with taking the initiative to get in the know. Similarly to the way that opportunities are presented to those that work to find them, the opportunity to exercise initiative is often presented to those who show the initiative to get involved.
Consider the abundance of opportunities to exercise initiative during the routine and normal conduct of operations. For example:

1. Determine what needs to be done. By staying abreast of current events, as well as understanding the situation and vision, you should have a strong idea of what needs to be done in the immediate near-term future. Take the initiative and ensure you are informed; if you are 'out of the loop' because you didn't make the effort to get and stay connected, it's your damn fault and you're already behind.

2. Get a plan together. Once you know what needs to be done, take the initiative to figure out how to do it. Develop a plan using the appropriate Problem-Solving and Decision-Making model (discussed in Volume 2). Don't forget to arrange your resources.

3. Execute. With a plan and resources lined up, the next step is safe mission accomplishment. Especially with routine, extremely low-risk, or very lucrative events and opportunities, I expect and support my subordinates to act with initiative, and without my explicit oversight.

4. Keep The Boss informed. Have the initiative to 'push' information, instead of making your supervisor 'pull' it from you. Once you have good news of success and mission accomplishment, share it with your supervisor: 'Boss, this was the situation, here is what I determined needed to be done. We did it safely and successfully, and here is what I intend to do next'.

Again, I spend so much time giving direction, that when one of my subordinates demonstrate the initiative to tell me what they are going to do, unless they are really F'ed up or way off track, I am delighted and thrilled.

Important side note: if your boss is a control freak or some other sort of destroyer of initiative, fire their ass by quitting and going to work somewhere where your talents will be valued. Be sure to explain why you're leaving at the exit interview (after a couple of these departures, the talented subordinate won't be the one leaving). Nobody should have to work for such clown shoes.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 3 of 10: Healthy Dissatisfaction with the Current State)

2011-12-27T18:00:00.002-05:00

Effective leaders lead in a way that is overwhelmingly positive. However, they frequently and simultaneously exist in a state of healthy dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Healthy Dissatisfaction

In my experience, you will find yourself feeling a healthy satisfaction with the current state of affairs in conjunction with two conditions:

1. The 'distance' between present location and mission accomplishment. Even when we are on schedule and operations are normal, I still feel a tinge of restlessness, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in any other condition than 'mission accomplished'. Every time I accept a new mission, it is like a proton and electron that are being separated; I can function in this unnatural state, but in my consciousness there remains the constant gnawing and affinity to return to the natural state of mission accomplishment.

2. The difference between the current state of the organization (or the individuals within it), and where it has the potential to be. As a leader, I frequently find myself in the position of assessing organizations and individuals. When performing this duty, I have a natural tendency to disregard perceived (and sometimes actual) barriers and obstacles, and envision the maximum capability and potential that exists in that person or organization. Frequently, others fail or do not want to see what I see, either because the underestimate capability and potential, overstate barriers and obstacles, or just simply lack vision. Knowing that we as individuals or an organization can get there (that is, a place of further growth and development) makes being here (our current state) dissatisfying and frustrating.

Outputs spawning from this healthy dissatisfaction include: 1) identifying actionable strategies for development and growth (evaluate and change the organization), 2) describing that future place of further development and growth (develop and communicate the vision), and 3) leading (or dragging) your organization and subordinates to that place (lead others). As you can see, these actions are identified in the behavior-based framework (What Leaders Do) of my leadership model, and will be discussed at length in volume two of this manuscript.

Temper Dissatisfaction to Avoid Backlash

Like all dimensions of drive, this healthy dissatisfaction with the current state is a strength in moderation, and a weakness in abundance. It must be tempered ever so slightly, so as not to become overbearing and dysfunctional. An overzealous leader who drives the organization too hard risks, among other things (accident), backlash from subordinates who feel unappreciated or uncomfortable.

Healthy discomfort and dissatisfaction that the mission is not presently accomplished must be balanced with tactical patience. Perhaps the mission is not presently accomplished because it's not supposed to be accomplished at this point. Perhaps we are waiting for the conditions to become more favorable, so the ease and likelihood of mission accomplishment is greater. Perhaps mission accomplishment is in progress, and we are on or ahead of schedule. In such situations, I believe that it is still healthy and normal for effective leaders to feel uncomfortable and dissatisfied that the mission is not yet complete, but these feelings must be managed to avoid premature execution or 'rushing to failure'.

Similarly, discomfort and dissatisfaction that the organizational development is occurring too slowly must be tempered with the understanding of individual human nature. Despite the pretty labels we apply, individual development and growth is really nothing more than managed change. While this change is seen as a good and a positive force by leader developers and trainers, it is not viewed this way by all. To many individuals (especially those experiencing the change), this managed change is still change nonetheless, and can cause emotions like fear, uncertainty, anxiety, and anger to swell.

Take care here to not push too hard, and closely monitor organizational climate and individual temperaments (especially your grouchy and less mentally agile people). People can only change so much so fast, and if you push too hard for too long, they may dig in their heels, reject organizational change initiatives, and shut down.

Be aware of and embrace this healthy dissatisfaction, but don't over do it. Employing tactical patience, and understanding the normal resistance to organizational change will help you embody this dimension of drive as a strength instead of a weakness.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 2 of 10: Internal Motivation)

2011-12-27T06:00:00.002-05:00

Because their source of strength, energy, and motivation comes from within and is not subject to the ebbs and flows of others, internally motivated leaders are much more able to withstand adversity and criticism, and are usually more prepared to assess, lead, and accomplish the mission.

Who Leaders Are > Drive > Internal Motivation

Introverts Are Better Leaders?

Perhaps this issue of internal motivation is best described through a discussion of introvertism and extrovertism.

When asked whether introverts or extroverts are better leaders, you may be inclined to pick extroverts. This is obviously the intuitive answer, but I would argue the opposite.

First, let's be clear about what we mean by the terms 'extrovert' and 'introvert'. Using common meanings within today's American vernacular, an extrovert may be defined as gregarious, the life of the party, or a show-off. Similarly, an introvert could be described as a shut-in, brooder, or wall flower. These are definitions describe behavior, and are not the definitions to which I am referring.

So, with what meaning am I employing these terms then? I am referring to introvertism and extrovertism as an indicator of where one draws strength, energy, and motivation. These are the meanings used in conjuction with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality assessment tool, which is a very informative self and others-awareness tool. In conjuntion with the meanings used by the MBTI: an introvert is a person who draws their strength and motivation internally, and an extrovert is a person who draws their strength and motivation externally.

Source of strength and motivation can be unrelated to behavior. I, for example, am an introvert (my greatest sources of motivation are internally spawned), but those that know me at work may describe me as personable, animated, gregarious, and outgoing (which are the behaviors you would expect from an extrovert). I can be personable, outgoing, and charming; it does nothing for my motivation, and can actually be quite draining (but leaders must be able to connect with others, so I have made great efforts to do this well).

Here is an example that illustrates the motivations of introverts and extroverts, as well as the ability to separate one's motivation source and their behavior: introverts go to a cocktail party with a list of people to talk to, a specific agenda, and an idea of what could be considered a successful engagement; extroverts go to the same cocktail party to visit and have a good time. Further, extroverts will leave such a cocktail party on an emotional high (because their need to draw stregth and motivation from others has been met in abundance), whereas the introvert may very likely leave such a party feeling physically and emotionally drained.

So why am I arguing that introverts would make better leaders? For two reasons:

First, when the external environment turns sour (adversity, setback, criticism, et cetera), the extrovert's source of strength and motivation disappears. In contrast, such souring of the external environment may actually stoke an introvert's internal motivation, which could strengthen reslove, enable perseverence, and result in mission accomplishment.

Side note: one can play 'what if', and ask what if your operations constantly and consistently occur in an environment that is ALWAYS positive (in such an environment where an extrovert could flourish)? Would an extrovert be a better leader then? My answer would be yes, but this only occurs in fantasy land. Remember, my experience as a leader causes me to see leadership, mission accomplishment, and organizational development like platetectonics and vulcanology: conflict, creation, and destruction. Every mission in my career as a leader - every single mission - has involved conflict, adversity, or criticism of some sort; these oppositions are inherent in the progress championed by true leadership.

Second, I would argue that because introverts spend more time in close company with their source of strength, energy, and motivation, they also spend more time thinking about the mission and organization. This, I think, shows through in their initial preparedness: introverts usually have a better understanding of the situation earlier into an operation, they are usually ready with a well-defined list of goals and objectives, and they usually have a clearer vision of the future.

Leaders with drive derive their motivation internally. This internal motivation is immune to external detractors, and causes leaders to spend more time contemplating mission accomplishment and organizational development.

Front Matter: Acknowledgement of the Army Leader Requirements Model

2011-12-26T23:59:00.001-05:00

To those who are familiar with Army leadership doctrine, it is obvious that the over-arching structure, as well as some of the content of my leadership model closely resemble that of the Army Leader Requirements Model (Army Field Manual 6-22, Figure 2-2). I freely and wholeheartedly admit and acknowledge this similarity, as it was my academic and practical exposure to the Army Leader Requirements Model that served as the genesis for my own model.

I first encountered the Army Leader Requirements Model while in 2007, while serving as the Detachment Officer In Charge of a small Army ROTC Detachment. Army ROTC is fertile leader development training and proving ground, and while I was there I had the opportunity to consider the various aspects of the Army Leader Requirements model, both in academic theory as well as practical application.

I next worked with the Army Leader Requirements Model in 2009 and 2010, while I was a student at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC). The CGSC administers a rich and extensive leadership and leader development curriculum, upon which I feasted. They really do leadership education well there.

Following CGSC, my next (and current) assignment was to serve as the Commander for a newly-forming Army helicopter Company. While in this assignment, armed with my experience from ROTC and previous assignments as well as the academic knowledge from CGSC, I have been comparing (and modifying) the Army Leader Requirements Model to my personal philosophy and practice; this is how my leadership model has come into being. Very literally, my leadership model is a personal evolution of the Army Leadership Requirements Model.

Why did I have to evolve the Army Leader Requirements Model? I found the Army Leadership Requirements Model to lack several key characteristics, as well as the heartiness of behaviors that I have seen and experienced in my practice of leadership.

For example, the Army Leader Requirements Model does not address the characteristics of drive or opportunism; in my practice, these are characteristics that real leaders must understand and possess, to be effective in today's arena.

Similarly, most leadership models that I have come into contact with lack the heartiness of behaviors that I am criticizing the Army Leader Requirements Model about; they are vague and non-specific, and fail to provide meaningful, actionable direction with regard to what leaders do. As my response to this vagueness and ambiguity, I have attempted to develop as comprehensive and tangible a list as possible of what I think leaders do. In this regard, I hope that this difference in my model will enable it to transcend being an academic construct, and be able to be employed as a practitioner's tool.

Leaders Have Drive (Part 1 of 10: Introduction)

2011-12-26T10:20:00.004-05:00

Effective leaders have drive. They posess and display the tangible and intangible aspects of personality that reflect the haunting and ever-present motivation to succeed, accomplish, create, destroy, defeat, and win.

Leaders with drive are haunted by mission accomplishment and organizational development. They dream about these two objectives: succeeding in the mission and growing the organization.

Leaders with drive appear to actually be driven: they awaken before the alarm clock sounds, compelled into action. The mission is in these leaders' thoughts during breakfast, during exercise, during their commutes to and from the job site. They seem to have an endless supply of energy to work toward mission accomplishment, and do not discouraged or distracted for anything. Personal comfort means nothing to a driven leader; they would rather stand in the cold rain ensuring a task gets done properly, than sit in a warm office hoping it does.

Who Leaders Are > Drive

The characteristic of drive is described within nine dimensions, which I will briefly discuss below, and will describe further in subsequent posts. These nine dimensions of drive are: internal motivation, a healthy dissatisfaction for the current state, initiative, intensity, focus, consistency, follow-through, resilience, and a fanatical resolve for mission accomplishment.

Dimensions of Drive

Internal Motivation (Part 2).  Leaders with drive have strong introvert characteristics, in that they derive most of their strength internally. Their internal motivation is a wellspring of strength, confidence, and impetus that is immune to adversity, challenge, and difficulty.

A Healthy Dissatisfaction with the Current State (Part 3). Leaders with drive are constantly aware of and annoyed by the spread between where the organization is, and where it has the potential to be.  Similarly, they are naturally uncomfortable in any state of progress other than mission accomplished. Leaders with drive see the full potential of the organization, exist to get the mission accomplished, and are eager to progress both organization and mission from the current state toward those ends.

Initiative (Part 4).  Leaders with drive do not wait for direction or permission; they are self-starters who get the team doing what needs to be done, before or without having to be told to.

Intensity (Part 5). Effective leaders create and instill a sense of intensity into important operations, in an effort to enable peak individual and organizational performance, mitigate delays and disruptions, and to set the conditions for decisive mission accomplishment.

Focus (Part 6). Leaders with drive are always aware of the local and broader context, and are alert and vigilant for either threats or opportunities. However, the central objects of their attention are mission and organization, and do not let the politics, drama, or other static distract them or the team.

Consistency (Part 7). Only leaders who are truly driven have the ability to apply constant, steady, and relentless effort toward mission accomplishment and organizational development. Regular, routine consistency in effort - day-in and day-out, regardless of environment, opposition, or tangible progress - is demonstrative of leaders with drive.

Follow-Through (Part 8). After initial contact, effective leaders follow-up and follow-through to ensure closure. Many people are good at brainstorming, problem identification, and conjecture regarding what needs to be done; but at the conclusion of these initial sessions, once tasks and actions have been implied or directed, most go back to their cubicle and do little. In contrast, leaders with drive transition from problem identification to problem solution, stay after such efforts until finished, and follow-through to completion.

Resilience (Part 9). When missteps and setbacks do occur, leaders with drive recover quickly. They view all situations with as much optimism as appropriate. They effectively manage the stress and anxiety associated with adversity, setback, and failure. When catastrophe occurs, instead of giving up, they muster the courage and resolve to heal, regroup, and move forward.

A Fanatical Resolve for Mission Accomplishment (Part 10). Their mind is made up; the mission WILL get accomplished, period. Leaders with drive value mission accomplishment above all else, get results, and figure out how to do so while taking care of the organization and its people.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 8 of 8: Opportunistic)

2011-12-25T10:04:00.000-05:00

Intellectually capable leaders are opportunistic: the put themselves in the right place at the right time to be able to take advantages of emerging opportunities; and when profitable opportunities do present themselves, these leaders seize upon them with decisive action.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectual Capacity > Opportunistic

Opportunism is more than taking advantage of opportunities that are laid out before you. In fact, this is the easy part; most people will jump on a good deal if it falls in their lap.

Opportunistic leaders get way more than their fair share of 'good deals', because they set the conditions to get way mor than their fair share of 'good deals'. In many ways, the amount of luck and good fortune associated with opportunism is perceptually overblown, and pales in comparison to the associated amounts of preparation, coordination, and effort.

Five Steps to Opportunity

Consider the following five techniques, which opportunistic leaders employ:

1. Know what you want. You won't know what to look for if you don't know what you want. Have an idea of what your target opportunities may potentially look like. Balance this idea with enough information to go searching, but not so much that you exclude possibilities with too narrow of a search (the opportunity you find rarely looks exactly like the one you envisioned).

2. Be present. People take opportunities to people that they think or know will take advantage of them. Already, you should be building your network of associates, informants, and suppliers.

With your network established and growing, you should be advertising: let people know that you are in the market for the opportunity that you are seeking.

Once the word is on the street, you should make sure that you are reachable, by cell phone or email, 24/7. Very frequently, that person who was presented the opportunity was the first one to answer the phone.

3.  Be on the lookout. Opportunistic leaders are constantly vigilant, and scan for events or conditions that may indicate or present an opportunity. Additionally, in an effort to find a 'better deal', these leaders re-assess and re-evaluate their situation, operations, and options at regular intervals, and any time that major changes occur.

4.  Have dry powder. When opportunities do present themselves, opportunistic leaders have people and resources available to seize them. There is nothing more frustrating or heartbreaking to have a golden opportunity laid at your feet, and not have the people or resources to take advantage of it.

Should you find yourself in this position, a possible secondary course of action may be to make the golden opportunity available to another leader, in exchange for some form of compensation.

5. Don't hesitate at the moment of truth. When opportunity knocks, opportunistic leaders kick the f**king door down. If it is truly a good opportunity, it will likely have a very short timeline associated with it; dilly-dally or hesitate, and someone else is feasting on the flesh of what could have been your victory.

What it really comes down to:  opportunisic leaders get more than their fair share of opportunities, essentially because they are trying harder. Opportunistic leaders have thought about what they want, have made their desires known, and are actively looking. When an opportunity does come along, they are reachable, have the people and resources to action, and they don't hesitate to 'pull the trigger'.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 7 of 8: Critical Skepticism)

2011-12-24T14:15:00.000-05:00

Intellectually capable leaders have a healthy skepticism of situations and information. The situation is never as it is reported; there are always notable (sometimes significant) differences which may conceal a dangerous threat or windfall opportunity. Additionally, our thinking about a situation may not always be clear; emotion can override logic, or we can fall victim to one of any number of flaws in thinking. Critical skepticism allows us to check our information and thinking before we act, so as to avoid missteps.

Critical skepticism crosses through other characteristics and actions of leadership, to include situational understanding and self-awareness. Additionally, critical skepticism relates closely to the study of critical thinking; in this realm, I place strong emphasis on Paul and Elder’s discussion of the intellectual standards, elements of reasoning, and intellectual traits.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectual Capacity > Critcal Skepticism

In an effort to be critically skeptical, strong leaders will: develop information, employ metacognition, be realistic, and identify the espoused and clandestine agendas.

Develop Information

Critical skepticism involves the development of information. Intellectually capable leaders know that good or bad information can significantly impact mission accomplishment, and they therefore make considerable effort to understand and drive their information situation.

Intellectually capable leaders determine what information they have, and what information they need. They rely heavily on facts, but understand how to use assumptions until more information is obtained.

These leaders kow how to effectively describe what information they need, in what medium(s) they want that information, and when that information will or will not be relevant or important.

Once information is collected, intellectually capable leaders apply their critical skepticism; they assess and value the credibility and utility of information through consideration of such aspects as: 1) who is the source, 2) how old is the information, and 3) what is the ability to verify and corroborate the information.

Corroborate Information through Multiple Sources and Mediums

Information corroboration is an important concept, which can protect you from rumor, conjecture, feint, and deception. Corroborating information is best accomplished through triangulation, or the confirmation of information through multiple sources and mediums. Additionally, information becomes much more credible if it can be corroborated at two or more separate times.

Employ Metacognition

In conjunction with the development of information, intellectually capable leaders must employ metacognition. Metacognition can be thought of as the application of critical skepticism to your own thinking and thought processes.

1.  Am I able to think clearly right now?  Are personal influences such as amount and quality of rest, diet, environmental considerations, or other issues positively or negatively affecting my thought processes?

2. Am I thinking clearly about this issue?  Am I experiencing a topical bias, emotional response, or cognition bias in conjunction with this issue?

3. Am I employing the proper thinking process to this issue? As previously mentioned, if you can frame the issue as a problem, then you can employ the appropriate problem solving process in an effort to find the best solution.

Common Mistakes with Cognition

We will talk more about cognition when we discuss how leaders understand the situation. But for now, it is appropriate to at least mention some of the common mistakes with cognition:

1. Your thinking is skewed by emotion; you are either too angry or too greedy.

2. Your thinking is skewed by your personal opinion of the issue.

3. You like a certain course of action, so your brain gives preferential treatment to supporting information, and under-emphasizes conflicting information.

4. Your brain gives too much emphasis and value to the first information received (primacy, first impressions).

5. If your brain incorrectly identifies or recognizes a pattern, you may make a bad read, thinking it to be intuition or a 'gut feeling'.

Be Realistic

Injecting a dose of realism into planning and conducting operations is an important part of critical skepticism. Critically skeptical leaders are realistic: they expect delays and disruptions; conduct contingency planning; and expect and address problems and issues as part of routine business, without drama or hysterics.

History has proven, optimism can be disastrous. You have probably seen similar disastrousness in your work experience: that ~~leader~~ manager that is effective to a miminally satisfactory level when operations are occurring normally, but whose contingency planning and conflict (domination and) resolution plans are exclusively based in hope, and who folds like a lawn chair when the shit goes south.

In leadership, everything is never good, and if you think it's mostly good most of the time, you are not being bold enough.  In leadership - true, gritty, conflictual leadership - challenges, opportunities (and their associated work) and the threat and fear of failure, defeat, and obsolescense constantly loom; there are and will always problems and issues to be solved and worked.

Be realistic, have the courage to ask your subordinates, and be ready to help them address their issues. Don't ask your subordinates 'are there problems'? This is either naive or insulting, probably both. Instead, ask them: 'what are the problems'?

In a related vein, if a subordinate leader says that everything is good, I tend to become very alarmed, for at least the following reasons:

1. The subordinate leader lacks the intellectual capacity to see the problems and issues.

2. The subordinate leader lacks the personal courage to give his boss bad news.

3. The subordinate leader fails to see this interaction with his boss as a potential opportunity to obtain more resources and support.

Identify the Espoused and Clandestine Agendas

Operations are never conducted without an agenda. Agendas are simply the reasons or underlying motivations that people and organizations do things. Agendas can be simple and obvious, such as 1) to accoplish the mission, 2) to realize profit, or 3) to gain personal satisfaction.

Leaders should articulate organizational agendas into espousals through: 1) the issuance of task and mission statements, 2) development and implementation of organizational values, and 3) the conduct of proper planning, decision-making, and problem-solving processes. Ultimately, in a healthy, functional organization, the espoused agendas are mission accomplishment, people, and the organization.

In larger or more complex organizations, politics and accompanying secondary agendas can emerge within individuals or micro-cultures (cliques); secondary agendas may conflict with each other (inter-office rivalry), established practices (inefficiency or poor customer service), and - in extreme cases - mission accomplishment.

Critically skeptical leaders assess the organization's ability to achieve and committment to espoused values. Additionally, they look beyond espousals, in an attempt to identify and address clandestine agendas within or outside the organization. It may seem surprising (sarcasm), but some people and organizations say one thing, but mean and intend to do another.

When they have the potential to adversely affect the mission, organization, or team members, leaders act to counter, mitigate, or destroy these clandestine agendas. Conversely, when it supports the mission, organization, and people, leaders facilitate others' or employ their own clandestine agendas.

Much in leadership cannot be taken at face value. Critically skeptical leaders develop and drive their information machine, in order to satisfy their information requirements. They monitor and think about their own thinking. Critically skeptical leaders are realisitc about problems, issues, and challenges. Finally, these leaders look for, understand, and - when beneficial - support and employ clandestine agendas.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 6 of 8: Creativity and Inventiveness)

2011-12-24T08:25:00.001-05:00

Effective leaders are creative and inventive; they have the unique ability to generate multiple creative and ingenious solutions to a given problem. This creativity and ingenuity is developed by understanding basic problem theory, employing a generic template to generate solution options, considering whether or not to even attempt solution, and developing solution generation skills through practice in daily life.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectual Capacity > Creativity and Ingenuity

A Little Taste of Problem Theory

For the next few moments, I ask you to suspend your personal positions on this subject, and try your best to think about my line of logic in a supportive manner:

1. Assume the perspective that every event, activity, interaction - pretty much every human effort - can be seen and articulated as a problem.

2. If all events, activities, and interactions can be seen as problems, then the satisfactory conclusion of such events, activities, and interactions can be seen as solutions to those problems.

3. Therefore, at our essence, we are are problem solvers, seekers of solution. At a minimum, we are looking for at least one acceptable solution to each problem we encounter.

4. Additionally, when seeking solution, the local and broader outcomes may be better, if we have more solutions from which to choose.

Using this line of thinking, we can then understand that creative and inventive leaders are simply those that develop and propose more feasible and acceptable solutions to each of these problems. This unique skill is also known as being able to generate or create options.

A Generic Framework for Generating Options

The basic framework of generating options to solve problems does not have to be creative. For example, consider the following list of questions, which can be used as a generic template to thinking about generating options for problem solution. Once you overlay a generic template of options like the one below, your creativity and ingenuity can shine through as you apply the details specific to your situation, and create multiple custom-built, fresh options.

1. Solve this problem with the conventional solution.
2. Solve this problem when the conventional solution is not feasible or available.
3. Solve this problem while enduring a manpower shortage.
4. Solve this problem while enduring a resource shortage.
5. Change this problem, so it becomes easier and/or less dangerous to solve.
6. Solve another's problem, in exchange for their solution of ours.
7. Wait for the problem to escalate or diminish prior to solution.
8. Inject one or more new variables into the problem, to transform it into a more solvable problem.
9. Remove one or more confounding variables from the problem, to transform it into a more solvable problem.
10. Chose not to solve the problem.

Just Because It's a Nail, Don't Assume the Roll of the Hammer

Choosing inaction, or making the conscious decision to not solve a problem, are legitimate options at the appropriate time and place. These options should be seriously considered and discussed each time a potential problem is encountered.

However, with most of the problems we face, our natural tendency is to immediately and sub-consciously bypass the consideration of and decision to adopt inaction or refusal to solve. Instead, we mindlessly accept and assume that we must solve the problem, and thereby miss the opportunity to consider the benefits and risks associated with the legitimate options of inaction and refusal to solve.

I strongly recommend that you counter this natural tendency in your leadership and your life. How do we do this? By considering the risk/reward calculation as applied to the problem under consideration. Ask yourself: how beneficial is it to the mission, the organization, and myself to solve this problem? How dangerous is it (can I break a critical piece of my equipment, can I get bogged down in this problem, et cetera)?

If there's no benefit to the mission, your team, or you, or the risk of adverse effects is high, why would you attempt to solve that problem? Just because it's a nail, doesn't mean that you have to be the hammer.

Training Creativity and Inventiveness

As previously mentioned, and in concert with the above problem theory, we encounter as many problems each day as we have events, activities, and interactions. Therefore, you have a virtually unlimited number of opportunities to train this skill, and are probably already doing it without realizing it. For example, consider the following events (problems), and their associated solutions:

Event (Problem) #1: How to cook meat in conjunction with the preparation of dinner.

Conventional Solution: conventional kitchen instruments (stove, oven, microwave, et cetera).
Creative Solution 1: bar-b-que grill.
Creative Solution 2: fire pit in the back yard.
Creative Solution 3: eat it raw (fish and beef; do not eat pork or chicken raw).
Creative Solution 4: cure it (salt, smoke, drying).
Creative Solution 5: use neighbor's conventional kitchen instruments.
Creative Solution 6: outsource the preparation of dinner (caterer, restaurant).
Creative Solution 7: prepare a meat-free dinner.
Creative Solution 8: wrap it in foil, place it on the engine block of your car with the engine running.

Event (Problem) #2: How to Get to Work

Conventional Solution: drive yourself in your car.
Creative Solution 1: bum a ride from your neighbor or co-worker.
Creative Solution 2: call a taxi.
Creative Solution 3: rent a limousine.
Creative Solution 4: ride a bike.
Creative Solution 5: jog or walk to work.
Creative Solution 6: telecommute.
Creative Solution 7: take a day of leave.

Training exercises, like the two above, can be conducted academically, in a classroom setting, or they can be trained during hands-on operations in the field.

In summary, every event, activity, and interaction in life can be understood as a problem. Therefore, to have a rich quality of life (and to achieve mission accomplishment), we must see ourselves as seekers of solutions. In this role, obviously, the more solutions we find, develop, or create, the better the outcome is likely to be.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 5 of 8: Mental Agility)

2011-12-23T11:58:00.001-05:00

Leaders with intellectual capacity are flexible - mentally agile - in dynamic and evolving environments.  These leaders do not get upset or adversely disrupted when (not if) changes occur; on the contrary, they anticipate change, instill it into their team's consciousness, and adapt rapidly.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectual Capacity > Mental Agility

Three Forms of Change

Change is the only constant in life and leadership. In my experience, change occurs in three basic forms: 1) changes to the local or immediate situation, 2) mission changes, and 3) changes to the macro-evironment.

Changes to the Local or Immediate Situation. The local or immediate situation can change without notice. This usually requires at least a hasty re-evaluation of your priorities of work, and perhaps a modification of how execution is occurring. Examples of such change could include: changes in weather; the occurrence of an accident in conjuction with operations; or the loss of a key person, a piece of equipment, or critical resources. Additionally, such changes in others' status (superior or subordinate echelons, the customer, or your competiton) should prompt at least a hasty re-evaluation of your operations and objectives.

Mission Change. Sometimes associated with re-evaluation, sometomes not, we may realize or be directed that some task or other operation than the current mission is more urgent or pressing.

Changes to the Macro-Enviornment. The broader situation may be evolving, which would require us to reevaluate our structure, our operations and practices, really everything. This type of change is occurring presently: advances in computing, telecommunications, and handheld technology are profoundly changing the way that we communicate, work, and live. Normal business hours are becoming less normal. Telecommuting is becoming less costly and more effective. Conventional media and advertising are giving way to online replacements. These are examples of macro-environmental changes.

How an Untrained or Undisciplined Team Reacts to Change

Change can be cofusing and disruptive. For those that don't expect or want change, it can be painful and frustrating. My answer to describe and address these issues lies in the understanding and correct employment of scripts and schemas.

Scripts and Schemas

Scripts and Schemas (plural for scheme) are mental programs that we sub-consciously use constantly, to help us efficiently perform those common tasks, activities, and events in our lives. Scripts and schemas are basically a loose concept or idea of what events will occur in what sequence when performing a particular event or activity. We have scripts and schemas for literally every repetitive act that we do: our morning routine, going to the grocery store, flying on the airlines, making dinner, et cetera.

As an example, here is a brief script for going to the grocery store:

1. Parking lot (enter, circle, find a spot, park).
2. Enter (walk to front door, automatic door, greeter, basket, arrive at produce).
3. Shop (produce, deli, dry aisles, frozen section, dairy, meat, et cetera).
4. Check out (line, empty basket, cashier, coupons, payment, bagger).
5. Exit (walk out, find car, depart).

Scripts and schemas are immeasurably helpful, when events transpire in accordance with the script or scheme that you are using. This is what happens most of the time; in a normal day, individuals could conceivably employ scripts and schemas throughout the entire day.

To understand how scripts and schemas are so helpful, consider this point: without scripts or schemes, we would have no idea how to perform any of the events or activities that we do in our daily life. Imagine if you had to think about, deduce, and ultimately learn how to interact in a grocery store or how to operate a car every time you did it; we would be much less advanced and much less capable as individuals, teams, and a civilization if this were so.

However, the strengths associated with scripts and schemas can also be a huge disadvantage, if events deviate or change from those expected and anticipated in accordance with the script or scheme being used. This is because we are already expecting a certain process or series events to unfold; when this does not happen, our mind struggles to reconcile the difference between what was expected and what occurred.

The inappropriate (and most common) reaction to this condition is to attempt to get back on script or scheme. The appropriate (and least common) reaction is to acknowledge that a deviation has occurred, identify the deviation and its implications, and adapt as necessary.

Untrained or undisciplined leaders and teams are either not aware of the existence and limitations of scripts and schemas, or do not have the ability or desire to consciously employ and, when appropriate, discount them. In this vein of thinking, consider the following process:

Adherence to Conventional Script or Scheme During Change

Start: operations in progress (conventional script or scheme)
1. **deviation (change)** (conflicts with script or scheme)
2.  attempt to adhere to conventional script or scheme despite the occurrence of a deviation
3. confusion develops into frustration; wasted time, effort, and resources as the team fails to re-evaluate and adapt
4. pouting, anger, further frustration, mission sidetracked
5. eventually, re-evaluation, modification, and adaptation (possibly too little, too late)
Result: mission accoplishment and timeline in jeapordy

How a Trained and Disciplined Team Can React to Change

In contrast, a trained and disciplined team still employs scripts and schemas, but their limitations are consciously recognized.

The team can employ conventional scripts and schemas, up to the point that a deviation (change) from the script or scheme occurs; once this happens, the team acknowledges: 1) that a deviation from the script or scheme has occurred, and 2) that the script or schem is no longer valid. The team then abandons that script or scheme and 'goes audible'.

In a second method, the trained and disciplined team has replaced conventional scripts and schemas with new scripts and schemas that have elements of ambiguity, change, and deviation already built into them; essentially, these teams go into an operation expecting things to change. When change happens, it's already part of the plan.

The employment of scripts and schemas in these manners can be depicted as follows:

Smooth Abandonment of Conventional Script or Scheme

Start:  operations in progress (conventional script or scheme)
1.  **deviation (change)** (conflicts with script or scheme)
2.  acknowledge deviation and abandon script or scheme (going audible)
3.  re-evaluate, modify, adapt (smooth because script or scheme has been consciously abandoned)
Result:  accomplish the mission

Employment of New Script or Scheme that Includes Ambiguity, Change, and Deviation

Start:  operations in progress (new script or scheme with ambiguity, change, and deviation)
1.  **deviation (change)** (corresponds with new script or scheme)
2.  re-evaluate, modify, adapt (smooth because expected)
Result: accomplish the mission

Ultimately, with these two methods, you are trying to minimize your and the organization’s interval (in terms of time, disruption, unnecessary expenditure of resources, and emotional wear on whip-sawed team members) from deviation occurrence to resumption of meaningful operations.

Anticipate and Expect Change

In addition to being consciously aware of scripts and schemas, you can minimize the deviation-to-resumption interval (and develop mental agility in yourself and the organization) by anticipating and expecting change.

1. Manage Expectations. Talk with the team about the possibility of and potential for changes, and how you and the organization are going to react. Defeat the conventional scripts and schemas by putting the likelihood of mission change in the forefront of your team members' minds.

2. Develop and Discuss Potential Branches. We will talk more about this when we discuss planning (What Leaders Do > Plan), but a key component to mental agility the development and discussion of branches to the plan. Branches are forethought adjustments and adaptations, which are developed based on possible or expected changes.

For example: the plan is to go bowling. If we get to the bowling alley and there are no lanes available, we will execute Branch #1 and go play miniature golf. At 4:00 PM, if everyone is having fun (either bowling or playing miniature golf), we will continue; if people are beginning to get bored with those activities, we will execute Branch #2 and go to the 4:30 PM movie.

3. Remove Emotions. Some people get very frustrated and upset with change. These hot heads waste time proceeding through the completely unnecessary cycle of:  melt down, have a temper tantrum, and get over it; one way to avoid all this drama is to don't do it.

The solution here is to communicate, expect, and demonstrate emotional intelligence. Again, talk about change, expect change, and do not let yourself or your team get rattled by it.

This is an especially important point if your higher headquarters has a history of making significant changes during planning or execution, or if they frequently assign short-notice missions and taskers. If you mentally prepare yourself and your team for this to occur, and have the discipline and emotional intelligence to control yourselves, you and your team will be less emotionally affected when change does come down, and will be able to transition to forward progress sooner.

Ultimately, mental agility means faster adaptation to change. Leaders with drive work to develop mental agility in themselves and their organizations. This is done through the conscious acknowledgement of scripts and schemas, to include their limitations. Additionally, change anticipation and expectation is developed through discussion about change, development of branches, and the removal of emotion from deviation occurrences.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 4 of 8: Good Judgment)

2011-12-22T18:33:00.001-05:00

Effective leaders who have intellectual capacity seem to consistently make rational decisions and arrive at sound conclusions; they possess and employ good judgment.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectual Capacity > Good Judgment

Considerations and Techniques for Good Judgment

Good judgment just doesn't happen; it is the result of the careful consideration and application of sensible rules, guidelines, and methods, in an effort to prevent those human flaws (like emotion and short-sightedness) from short-circuiting our thinking and behavior.

Many of the below considerations are nested in or closely related to concepts addressed in the 'What Leaders Do' framework of my leadership model (such as understand the situation and plan). There is an important point here: The 'What Leaders Do' framework is a behavior-based construct; it describes actions that leaders can take to be effective. Talking here about common sense and good judgment, in the 'Who Leaders Are' framework, we are describing a leader who demonstrates the characteristic of intuitively and routinely employing such actions, and the associated and supporting rationales, with frequency in their practice. This illustrates the reciprocal nature of my model: who we are informs what we do, and what we do reflects who we are.

When demonstrating good judgment, effective leaders employ techniques and judgment patterns like the following:

Consider the situation. Good judgment can vary dramatically, based the situation. Situational considerations will greatly influence what is and is not perceived to be sound. For example, in modern American society, the use of violence is generally deemed unacceptable and inappropriate. However, if protecting a victim from an attacker, the employment of violence may very well be tolerated, and could even be considered heroic.

Consider the politics. Similarly to situational considerations, consider the politics (especially the money flow) occurring at the time and place of assessment or decision. Yesterday's non-event could be today's crisis, if it is currently a 'hot button' issue. For example, in recent years past, cellular telephone use was considered acceptable while driving; today, it is illegal on military installations and in some counties across the country, and a move is afoot to enact a nationwide ban.

Listen to others. Consult trusted advisers, subject matter experts, and those on the line doing the job. Gain as much insight on the issue, from as many different perspectives as you can, in an attempt to understand the situation. Similarly, discuss and debate the various aspects, pros, and cons of the issues and associated possible decisions with trusted advisers. These may prevent you from misunderstanding the situation or making a flawed decision.

Employ the appropriate problem-solving and decision-making model. As we will discuss in the What Leaders Do chapter on planning, there are really three types of problem-solving and decision-making models: hasty (for simple or small problems), deliberate (for complex or developed problems), and problem definition (to determine what the problem is). Employing any of these models for other than their intended purpose can result in poor problem-solving and decision-making, waste of time, and mission failure. For example, using the deliberate model to solve a simple problem is frustrating, and usually results in an excessive waste of time. Pick the right tool for the job.

Consider the risk/return characteristics. Everything should be considered in terms of risk/reward. If you and the organization get no return for your acceptance of risk, why would you do so? Similarly, if the potential payoff is huge, your risk tolerance may be higher, and you may be more inclined to throw more effort and resources at an issue. These concepts are well understood in the world of finance and investment, but are infrequently discussed or employed in leadership.

Stabilize emotions before deciding. Making a decision angry is very dangerous. Just as dangerous, making a decision while very happy can result in a positive bias. Effective leaders calm down, and are in a balanced emotional state prior to making decisions.

Think temporally. Will time affect the issue? A difficult judgement call today, may be an easy one tomorrow, simply because the world turned and the situation changed just enough (new information, something else became the hot topic, et cetera). Conversely, some tough judgment calls only get tougher with time. Acknowledging the fact that you can't go back in time, as yourself: 'when is the best time to make this decision: now or later'?

Consider inaction. Closely related to temporal thinking, sometimes the best decision is no decision. Will this issue solve itself, if you do not make a decision? Will this issue transform into something more palatable, if you do not make a decision? Closely related to this idea is the concept of tactical patience, which I will discuss in a sidebar post.

Ground judgment calls in hard evidence. No one can fault you if your assessment is based on tangible evidence (documented observation, email traffic, sales numbers, or other quantitative or qualitative metrics). Similarly, no one can fault you if your decision is based on and complies with regulation and policy. If you go against these grains, though, you better have a damn good reason, or your opponents will club you over the head with the evidence, regulations, and policy that you ignored or discounted.

Is there a precedent? Has someone successfully handled this or a similar issue before? Just like lawyers, if somebody before you ruled in a certain way or cited a particular rational for a decision and got away with it (was successful), a path of success has been trail blazed which you can follow.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 3 of 8: Domain Knowledge)

2011-12-21T13:25:00.000-05:00

Leaders with intellectual capacity have domain knowledge. As (students and) practitioners of leadership, they are knowledgeable about leadership-related topics such as leadership theory and practice, management, leader development, human resources management, logistics, et cetera. Additionally, as leaders of an organization that provides a product or service, intellectually capable leaders are instructionally proficient regarding the concepts, techniques, practices, and operations associated with the provision of that product or service.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectually Capable > Domain Knowledge

Obtain Domain Knowledge

Leaders establish and demonstrate domain knowledge through at least four activities: 1) education, educational credentials, and licensure; 2) experience and practice; 3) instruction and publication; and 4) networking.

1. Education, Educational Credentials, and Licensure. As both a method and a symbol, education and educational credentials and licensure are universally acknowledged sources of some degree of expertise. In today's day and age, the ultra-accessibility of education, both online and at the local accredited community college, makes the attainment of a very good college education easily within reach of those determined. Similarly, much professional licensure has migrated online into some form of computer-based study, so at least some portion of licensure is usually easily accessible.

It is always important to note that, while an important component for establishing yourself as an intellectually capable leader with domain knowledge, a college degree and/or basic licensure by themselves do not make you an expert. Instead, you should consider these important prerequisites or co-requisites to experiential learning.

Finally, one must continue to learn beyond the degree and license. Intellectually capable leaders refresh, maintain, and grow domain knowledge by staying abreast of current developments in theirs and related disciplines, through periodicals, self-study, and further educational attainment - all in concert under the unifying concept of lifelong learning.

2. Experiential Learning (On-the-Job Experience and Practice). Nothing proves your expert like an extensive history of on-the-job experience, or the regular practice of your expertise. As long as they remain current on industry developments, nobody can argue with the practitioner who has been doing the job for decades. This is especially true in private practice; if a person is good enough to survive or thrive in small business, their credibility as a domain expert is increased.

Additionally, if you make a habit of 'championing' the difficult and unpopular issues, you may carve out a niche as bad ass, an indispensable asset to the organization who can get any job done. This is a way to become known as a sort of expert in a very short period of time, and there is always job security for people who get tough and dirty jobs done. You know these people; they have nicknames like 'the hammer' or 'the garbage man' or 'the closer'. It's much easier to become an expert in a skill or craft if you're the only one willing or able to do it.

3. Instruction and Publication. As suggested above, one must possess great skill and expertise to employ instructional proficiency in practice. Similarly, to understand a domain so intimately so as to be able to write effectively about it requires a level of understanding and proficiency not easily obtained or forged. Instruction and publication about the theory, practice, and issues of one's skill or craft is a clear demonstration of domain knowledge.

4. Networking. In addition to your own personal level of domain knowledge, it is very helpful to have a broad, established network of subject matter experts, leaders, managers, administrators, and staff, in yours and related disciplines. This network should be a positive, proactive, vibrant effort on your part to add value, and should serve your interests in two ways.

First, a broad network gives you access to more knowledge. The ideal solution is that you know the answer to your customer or supervisor's question or issue; a strong secondary position - if you don't know the answer - is to know the person that does, obtain the answer from them, and still appear to be the domain expert to your customer or supervisor (with proper credit to your associate for the assist).

Second, a broad network gives you a venue through which you can broadcast and advertise your activity, accomplishments, and special expertise. That way, when a network associate gets asked a question that they don't have the answer to, you will be the one who gets the call.

Education and licensure, experience, instruction and publication, and networking are ways to create and grow domain knowledge. This is an important dimension of the intellectually capable leader, and a serious undertaking by those of us who are committed to effective leadership.

Sidebar: Appreciative Inquiry as Part of a Positive/Negative Balance

2011-12-21T10:36:00.005-05:00

I have written recently about how intellectually capable leaders conduct an honest and thorough iteration of introspection, in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to obtain self-awareness. Similarly, once we start talking about what leaders do, I will describe similar processes used in an effort to identify organizational strengths and weaknesses.

At this point, though, I think it is appropriate to introduce the concept of appreciative inquiry, as it relates to self-awareness and organizational evaluation and change. The concept of appreciative inquiry also allows us to further explore the ideas of positivity and negativity (motivations, levers, et cetera) as leadership tools.

Appreciative Inquiry Described Briefly

Perhaps the best way to explain what I understand appreciative inquiry to be, is to explain how it came into existence.

Generally speaking, evaluation is, by nature, a negative enterprise; in many ways, it is an active search to identify problems or faults in an effort. During his doctoral work, a guy named David Cooperrider identified this negative trend, and developed the concept of appreciative inquiry as a response to this negativity. Essentially, he realized that all this negativity, accompanied by little or no positivity, was driving down morale, focusing on all the problems within the organization, and resultingly marginalizing all of the good, hard work that people have been doing.

Preskill and Catsambas: Negative Brings More Negative

In 2006, two smart ladies named Hallie Preskill and Tessie Catsambas wrote a book called 'Reframing Evaluation Through Appreciative Inquiry', which is a very good comprehensive read on appreciatve inquiry. One of the points in their book that I found most interesting, is the suggestion that negativity brings more negativity, and positivity brings more positivity:

“... the mind cannot develop a negative image or negate a picture - for example, the statement ‘do not paint this blue’ makes us see blue; we do not have the ability to imagine ‘not blue.’ Therefore, since humans have a tendency to move toward the images they hold, when studying problems, the mind will focus on negative mental images, and our thoughts and actions will reinforce those images. Conversely, when studying successful experiences, the power of the positive images shared and studied will move participants toward thoughts and behaviors that make them successful” p. 77

This is a huge and powerful constructivist idea: through attitude, perspective, and framing, we perceive our existance in a world that we create for ourselves. Through the power of positive thinking, we have the ability to improve the perceived quality of our existence. Chew on that one for a minute.

This idea of positive constructivism is easier said than done, and may not be what we as humans want anyway. More on this below.

A Simplified Application of Appreciative Inquiry

So, how is appreciative inquiry employed? After all the appropraiate preparation (survey plan, consent, funding, et cetera) an appreciative survey is administered, which consists of three parts:

1. In your opinion, what are the best part(s) (characteristics, aspects, et cetera) of the evaluation subject (your performance / the organization / a particular department, process, et cetera)?

2. What are the qualities or characteristics about these parts, that are superior or compelling? Can you provide examples from your experience?

3. How could these qualities or characteristics be cemented or proceduralized into the evaluation subject, and/or applied to parts of the individual or organization, in an effort to increase team member satisfaction, organizational effectiveness, and mission accomplishment?

The results of this third question should be the genesis of the interventions employed to affect organizational change.

My Assessment of Appreciative Inquiry

I like appreciative inquiry. I believe it has a place in all evaluation activities, to include both individuals and organizations that are peforming well or poorly. However, I must argue, especially with individuals or organizations that are performing poorly, that evaluation and change is really just another form of problem solving and decision making, and attention must therefore be devoted toward finding the problem(s).

Think about this from another perspective: taken at face value, an interpretation of appreciative inquiry could lead one to believe that all we should do during evaluation is go around looking for things that are working well, and accentuate them. But what if there are major problems within the organization? Wouldn't they be ignored by an evaluation that was purely appreciative in nature?

For example, consider this tactic's effectiveness using an automobile analogy: the exterior (body, paint, trim, wheels) of the car is in looks great and is in great shape (nevermind that the motor is shot); therefore, the best way to improve this car is to wash, wax, and detail the exterior, so it can look its best.

Additionally, as another critique, it seems to me that appreciative inquiry seeks to identify outstanding performance and exceptionalism. What if the outstanding performance and exceptionalism that is occurring within the organization is a mitigation (workaround, bridging strategy, stop-gap measure - or whatever the current buzz phrase is for a bubble gum and duck tape fix) for some significant organizational problem? Seen in this regard, couldn't the use of appreciative inquiry codify and cement these organizational problems (an the associated mitigations) into organizational practice?

The Yin and Yang of It

Perhaps my (current) final opinion - for appreciative inquiry as an evaluation strategy, as well as the dichotomy of positivity and negativity in leadership - is as simple Yin and Yang: both should be represented in equal amounts.

Nobody wants to work in an organization that is all negative. Similarly, I would argue, nobody wants to work in an organization that is all positive. Negativity has its place in organizational culture, as a contrast and validation of positivity. If everyone is great and gets recognized, the praise and recognition are meaningless. When poor performers get reprimanded, re-trained, and eventually issued walking papers (when we give them a chance, if they fail remediation), that negativity contrasts, and ultimately validates the positivity associated with my retention, praise, and recognition.

You have likely heard the cliche: if everybody gets a trophy, everybody is special. If everybody is special, being special is meaningless. Therefore, in this vein of thinking, I prefer my positivity peppered with a little negativity (for contrast and validation), and I like my evaluations to be a mix of both problem identification and assessment, as well as appreciative inquiry.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 2 of 8: People Awareness)

2011-12-20T10:08:00.000-05:00

Intellectually capable leaders have people awareness. I would estimate that 90 percent of leadership is interacting with others; leaders must understand how and why people (including themselves) think and behave the way they do. If you understand people, you can better lead them and respond to their needs.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectually Capable > People Awareness

People awareness can be thought of in three subordinate dimensions: self-awareness, other awareness (empathy), and cultural awareness.

Self-Awareness

Intellectually capable leaders that are self-aware know what makes themselves tick. These leaders know self and seek self improvement. They are familiar and comfortable with their strengths, and they are knowledgeable of their weaknesses in a searching and fearless way. They understand their motivations and currencies, as well as their emotions and behaviors.

1. Be honest with myself about myself.  Self-awareness starts with fearless honesty. If you are not willing to be honest with yourself, about yourself, then there is no point in further discussing self-awareness, and you probably should not be in a leadership position.

An obvious but important note: we are usually very good at identifying our strengths, and at downplaying, minimizing, and ignoring our weaknesses. To counter this natural bias, I recommend that when you conduct introspection, you spend four parts of time identifying weaknesses for every one part you use to identify strengths.

Yes, being brutally honest and critical about yourself and your shortcomings can be an unpleasant exercise, but only up to the point where you take accountability for those shortcomings, apply effort to overcome or eliminate them, and succeed. It is important to note that this process is not meaningless or purposeless self-flagellation; on the contrary, it is an attempt to identify those shortcomings that reside in us and our leadership, so that we can improve or mitigate them, and ultimately become better leaders.

Again, it all starts with honesty. Do you respect yourself enough to be completely honest with yourself? Are you committed enough to yourself, your subordinates, the organization, and the mission? Do you truly want to be that leader to which you aspire?

2. Understand my strengths and weaknesses. Self-aware leaders engage in an iterative process of rigorous and honest introspection and self-accountability. They compare themselves and their performance to those standards to which they aspire, and are honest about their strengths and shortcomings.

Side note: we all are three leaders: the leader that we think we are, the leader that our subordinates see us as, and the leader that we aspire to be. More on this in a sidebar post.

Attempting to understand your strengths and weaknesses is a broad effort to identify which characteristics are resident in you in strength, which characteristics are absent or weak, which behaviors you perform well, and which behaviors you perform poorly. There are many tools available, to help you identify your strengths and weaknesses: 1) professional instruments, 2) the 360 degree appraisal, 3) self-assessment, and 4) work with a leadership development specialist.

   - Professional Instruments. Within the fields of psychology, education, and human resources management, a number of professional instruments have been developed to do this, including Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory and the the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator.

- The 360 Degree Appraisal. Additionally, an emerging tool known as a 360 degree appraisal may be effective for identifying strengths and weaknesses. The 360 degree appraisal is a performance assessment tool that allows anonymous feedback from supervisors, subordinates, and associates, and is designed to give a leader a comprehensive understanding of his or her leadership from all perspectives (not just from their supervisor’s).

- Self-Assessment. Nobody knows you like you do, if you’ll be honest with yourself.  Using an identified framework, such as a leadership model, values statement, industry performance standards, goals list, et cetera, review your recent performance. Pay close attention to those events that went especially well (mission accomplishment, good synchronization, et cetera), and those that did not (failure, heavy conflict, disorder and chaos, et cetera).

- Coaching. There also may be great value in working with a coach or mentor, who are ultimately filling the role of Leader Development Specialist.  If you are interested in developing yourself as a leader, and are considering working with a coach and mentor, I can help. Send me an email (to WLAaWLD@gmail.com), and we can talk about working together.

3. Understand my motivations and currencies. Similar (and perhaps synonymous) to goals and objectives, motivations can be immediate, short-term, and long-term, and are usually the defining components of what propels our emotions and behaviors. Similarly, currencies are those tangible and intangible results (outputs) that satisfy a motivation.

The obvious currencies correlate highly with our basic and advanced needs in modern society:  money, material possessions, power, status, attention, affirmation, and love.

Currencies can be immediate, short-term, or long-term. For example, immediate currencies could include: a smoke or coffee break, lunch, or required support in completing a task. Short-term currencies could include a day off, being put in charge of a big project, a special parking spot, a nice office, or health insurance. Finally, long-term currencies could include promotion to a desired position, specialized professional education or training, completion of civil college education, or retirement.

In many ways, currencies can be carrots that leaders use to accomplish the mission, when employing a transactional style of leadership.

Important note: In my opinion, in what can either be good and healthy or negative and dysfunctional, all relationships between people (to include leader and subordinate, supervisor, peers, network members, et cetera) are in some way transactional (I'll give you this, if you give me that). In leadership, transactionalism has a negative connotation associated with it (it was denounced as the evil that 'transformational leadership' was supposed to cure). I reject this negative connotation, and submit that, used properly, transactionalism is a fair and effective way to deal with others as a leader. More on this in a separate post.

4. Understand and control my emotions and behaviors. We must understand those emotions that affect and influence us, as well as our resulting behaviors.

We attempt to understand our emotions, so that we can control and employ them in a meaningful way. In my observation of the world, all emotions can be explained as some mutated form of either self-satisfaction or fear. Consider the following logics:

- I ensure the well-being of my subordinates before I ensure my own. This reflects my commitment to my espoused value of selfless service. While potentially personally discomforting, I gain self-satisfaction from this 'selfless' gesture, because I am living in a way that resonates with my espoused values.

- I provide income, take care of the cars, cut the chicken, and take out the trash for my spouse. I listen to her stories about her friends, the TV show she watched, and the dream she had last night.  Performing these acts makes me feel several emotions, to include a sense of love, connectedness, and providership. These emotions are clearly derived from the self-satisfaction I get from being a participating and contributing member to my spouse and our marriage.

- My subordinate made an error. I became angry. My anger stems from my fear that my subordinate's error will reflect poorly on him, myself, and the organization.

- I forgot to follow-up with an associate on an important matter. This makes me angry at myself. My anger stems from my fear that my reputation is now damaged in the eyes of that associate, and that I have damaged part of my network through poor customer service (when you're a leader, everybody is a customer).

- My peer does well with one of his operations. I become jealous. My jealousy stems from my fear that my peer's success will make my efforts and performance appear inferior.

I could go on forever applying these logics, but you hopefully see the point by now: the argument can be made that all emotions ultimately derive from self-satisfaction or fear.

Similarly to our analysis of emotions, when we reflect on our behaviors, we should consider why we behave the way we do. Many a volume have been written in the field of psychology, to attempt to explain why people behave the way they do. While this discussion is related, but beyond the scope of this post, I would at least offer the following list as common reasons why people behave the way they do:

- Self-Satisfaction.
- Fear.
- They are impaired (crazy, drunk, on drugs).
- They are dysfunctional and are reverting to a role that is comfortable to them (some psychodynamic role, such as the victim, the discounted baby sibling of the family, the girl with daddy issues, the boy that struggles to connect to women, et cetera).

In addition to understanding our emotions and behaviors, we should think about those factors that influence our emotions and behaviors, such as diet, sleep, exercise, and work and non-work related stresses. Consider the following questions:

     - When is the last time I ate. How has by diet been in the last 24 hours?

     - When is the last time I slept? When is the last time I got seven or eight hours of good sleep? Am I off my normal circadian rhythm?

     - How has my physical stress relief program (exercise, sex, outdoor recreation) been in the last week?

     - How involved have I been with work in the last week? Have I had a day off (completely away from work - no email, no phone calls) in the last seven days?

     - How is my life outside my work right now? Am I having problems with my spouse, kids, landlord, et cetera, that I am bringing into the office and unfairly projecting onto subordinates?

One final thought on emotions and behaviors: we are more inclined to think about situations - what happened, how we could have prevented, how we could have mitigated, where to go from here, what to do next time - when things go poorly. While there is obvious value in this effort, I would submit that there is just as much effort in conducting a similar post-event analysis (in the Army, we call them After Action Reviews) when things go well. Just as important as identifying modifications and enhancements (we call them 'improves') that are revealed from poor performance, we must also identify those elements which worked and must be employed again (we call them 'sustains'). In my experience, such post-event analysis rarely occurs in any sort of depth if things go well; instead, the team is usually busy celebrating or exploiting their success.

Side note: employing the After Action Review process to identify the 'sustains' parallels the concept of 'appreciative inquiry'. More on this in a separate post.

Others-Awareness (Empathy)

In all but the most time-constrained or urgent situations, intellectually capable leaders attempt to visualize the other party’s perspective, prior to decision or action.  Especially for their strongest and most belligerent opponents, empathetic leaders try to walk a mile in the other person’s shoes.

How do we attempt to become empathetic? Simply apply steps two through four (above) to your thinking about others: attempt to understand their strengths and weaknesses, attempt to understand their motivations and currencies, and attempt to understand their behaviors and emotions.

Also, the may be value in considering the following sort of questions:

- Do I understand this person’s value system? How does it compare and contrast to mine?

- Do I understand this person’s situation in life?

- Do I understand this person's mission and objectives? What is their espoused purpose? Do they possibly have a clandestine agenda?

- If dealing with a specific event, do I understand this person’s reason(s) for behaving the way they do? What would I do done in their situation?

Cultural Awareness

In addition to thinking about self and individual others, people-aware leaders consider the beliefs, values, and behaviors that are generally practiced by groups. This is commonly referred to as cultural awareness.

It is important to note that there are multiple ideas of what culture is; in addition to those traditional ideas of culture (nationality, ethnicity, religion, et cetera), a culture can be created when any size group forms and begins sharing common practices.

Very literally, each and every organization of any size can develop an organizational culture, which can be observed and studied, and its best parts be used to achieve your organization's mission. Consider, for a moment, the practices (values, symbols, behaviors) of the following groups: an Army platoon, a motorcycle gang, a semi-professional baseball team, a fire department.

So, what are we to do with all of this awareness: awareness of self, awareness of other individuals, awareness of other groups? You use it - to get the damn mission accomplished, and to take care of your people. Sustain and highlight the strengths of yourself, others, and the organization. Improve and mitigate the weaknesses of yourself, others, and the organization. Understand your motivations and currencies; ensure they are aligned with the mission and organization's.  Channel your emotions and behavior toward mission accomplishment. Leverage other's strengths, motivations, currencies, emotions, and behaviors to achieve success and results. Celebrate and employ cultural practices that facilitate mission accomplishment, and mitigate or minimize those that do not.

Leaders Have Intellectual Capacity (Part 1 of 8: Introduction)

2011-12-20T06:10:00.000-05:00

To review: through my 14+ years of study and practice, I have developed a leadership model - a philosophy - that attempts to talk about effective leadership using two frameworks: Who Leaders Are (characteristics), and What Leaders Do (behaviors). Within the Who Leaders Are framework, I have identified intellectual capacity as a key characteristic of effective leadership.

Who Leaders Are > Intellectual Capacity

Intellectual capacity is a transcendence beyond the conventional measures of intelligence; it is above average cognitive capability in those aspects related to leadership. Intellectual capacity is described within seven subordinate dimensions: people awareness, domain knowledge, common sense and good judgment, mental agility, creativity and ingenuity, critical skepticism, and opportunism.

I will briefly describe each of these subordinate dimensions below, and discuss them at further length in parts two through eight of this series.

Seven Dimensions of Intellectual Capacity

People Awareness (Part 2). Intellectually capable leaders are aware of themselves and others as both individuals and members of various cultures. They attempt to understand motivations and currencies, as well as emotions and behaviors of themselves, in order to maintain clarity and consistency in their thoughts and actions. Additionally, leaders with intellectual capacity attempt to understand motivations and currencies, as well as the emotions and behaviors of others and other cultures, in an attempt to be empathetic and predictive of others' actions.

Domain Knowledge (Part 3).  Through education, licensure, on-the-job experience, recognition, and networking, intellectually capable leaders have established themselves as a top subject matter expert in their domain.

Common Sense and Good Judgment (Part 4). Intellectually capable leaders have not devoted so much time and effort to intellectual development that they have lost their social skills or common sense (as is the case with many doctors, scientists, and professors). Intellectually capable leaders have street sense in addition to book smarts.  These leaders make good decisions that are legal, ethical, moral, and safe the overwhelming majority of the time. In most cases, good judgement is preceded by consultation and collaboration with trusted advisers, and frequently involves selection of the safest or most conservative option available.

Mental Agility (Part 5).  Intellectually capable leaders are cognitively adaptable and flexible. The situation, mission, resources, and timeline are going to change several times; intellectually capable leaders expect and anticipate this situational turbulence, are able to quickly adjust their frame of thinking, and rapidly redesign and retool plans and operations to account for changes.

Creativity and Ingenuity (Part 6). Intellectually capable leaders can develop and employ methods to solve problems that transcend the conventional solution. In time or resource-constrained environments, creative and ingenuitive leaders can rapidly develop ‘field-expedient’ solutions or ‘bridging strategies’ to account for shortfalls, continue forward, and accomplish the mission.

Critical Skepticism (Part 7). Intellectually capable leaders take little at face value; every email, telephone call, conversation and interaction, and report are scrutinized for inconsistencies and irregularities. Critically skeptical leaders have fine tuned their BS detector, and remember the numerous old adages regarding reports and information. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The first report is always inaccurate or incomplete. If a story doesn't add up, it's because someone is BS'ing you.

Opportunism (Part 8).  Intellectually capable leaders are opportunists, and are always on the lookout for a better solution, deal, opportunity, et cetera. If a better deal comes along, strong leaders will trade up with only the hesitation needed to conduct hasty due diligence. If a short-notice opportunity presents itself (as is usually the case), opportunistic leaders will seize upon it. When opportunity knocks, intellectually capable leaders kick the F'ing door down.

Sidebar: Rule Breaking: When to Bend, When to Break, When to Toe the Line

2011-12-17T11:32:00.001-05:00

Leadership can be tough, messy business. In many ways, the essence of leadership is mission accomplishment, and this often occurs in a setting of less-than-ideal conditions. Frequently, leaders are faced with advanced leadership problems: resource and time constraints, the choice between poor options, and confounding roadblocks in the form of stifling bureaucratic rules and policies.

In these situations, leaders may find themselves considering whether or not to observe, bend, or break a rule. I suggest that logical thinking will help us determine if and when it is (and is not) acceptable to bend or break rules. I will suggest such a logic for considering when to bend or break rules below, but first, I want to present what I believe is probably the most important consideration of bending and breaking rules:

If you obtain results, deliver the goods, and accomplish the mission, all but the most egregious or flagrant violations will be overlooked and forgiven.

Get results, and all but the worst rule breaking will be forgiven. Mission accomplishment can be like a sea of immunity washing away any and all of your transgressions.

However, just as the above statements are true, so is its opposite: fail to deliver results, and you should expect closer scrutiny for bending and breaking rules. Fail to deliver, and they will come harder and faster rules broken and bent, policies ignored and violated. As with many other dimensions of leadership, much depends on mission accomplishment.

A Logic for Considering Rule Breaking

So, how can you determine when it makes sense to bend, break, or observe? The following logic is my litmus test of bend and breakability:

1. Is the rule associated with one of the cultural non-negotialbe issues? Each culture has those issues that are non-negotiable, and whose violations are taboo. In my career, such cultural non-negotiables include finances and money, aviation regulations, safety, and equal opportunity. If the rule you are considering is associated with a cultural non-negotiable, I would strongly recommend that you adhere to strict observance of it.

2. Is the rule regulatory, policy, guidance, or cultural norms?

If it is regulatory (law), you're going to have a hard time justifying breaking the law (although I can think of many situations when this could be appropriate). Be very careful here, have a very compelling reason if you decide to bend or break, and expect to be severely reprimanded or fired if you do bend or break.

In my experience, much of policy (written, published standards for the organization) is outdated, unnecessary, and out of touch with how things really happen, so this is often prime ground for bending or breaking. If you get caught bending or breaking policy, (your first defense is mission accomplishment) your second defense is the out datedness or out-of-touchness of the policy.

Next, when considering whether or not to violate guidance (written or verbal opinion or direction from supervisors), one must consider the quality, strength, temperament, and self-awareness of the issuing supervisor. A hot-head, self-unaware weak supervisor may not tolerate a violation of any sort for any reason. Conversely, a strong, self-aware supervisor may take more delight in the fact that you had the sand to step up and make a tough call (especially if it turns out to be a good call).

Finally, as explicitly stated above, the success of getting away with bending and breaking cultural norms (unwritten standards of how members of your culture are supposed to behave) depends entirely on the end results you obtain. If you are successful, you will be labeled a change agent; if you are not, you will be labeled a radical or misfit.

3. Is there a logical, sensible reason for the rule’s existence? If there is a logical, sensible reason for its existence, you better have a good reason for bending or breaking. If it is obviously not appropriate, relevant, or sensible, you may be more enabled to bend or break.

4. Is the rule enforceable? Is the rule frequently enforced? Just because a rule exists, doesn't mean that it is enforceable or enforced. Stop signs. Speed limits. Mattress tags. If it is not enforceable or enforced, break away. On the contrary, if the rule in question is somebody's pet project, you may want to take care.

5. Will I get caught? I know these questions are beginning to sound like criminal thinking, but they are a necessary consideration when performing the risk/return calculation. If you have little or no likelihood of getting caught, the risk associated with obtaining the desired reward is decreased. If you have a very high likelihood of getting caught, the associated consequences and punishment must be more heavily factored into your consideration.

6. If I get caught, how likely am I to get in trouble? Another criminal thinking question, but also another consideration for the risk/reward calculation. What are the consequences for getting caught bending or breaking this rule? Perhaps the consequences are so severe, that bending or breaking the rule is not a feasible option. On the contrary, perhaps the consequences are negligible, and we can bend and break away.

7. How important is the violation of this rule to getting the mission accomplished? Does the bending or breaking of this rule guarantee or significantly increase our chances of mission accomplishment? Is this rule the only thing standing between us and mission accomplishment? This makes the bending or breaking of this rule more compelling, than if the likelihood of mission accomplishment is not significantly increased by the violation of the rule.

8. Is the amount of trouble that I am going to get into worth the benefit of bending or breaking this rule? This is the ultimate martyr calculation. Is the return we get from bending or breaking this rule (and thus, accomplishing the mission) worth the consequences and punishment associated with getting caught?

Please don't misunderstand me: I respect and observe meaningful rules (most of the time). But leadership involves making difficult decisions, and sometimes you have to consider whether or not to bend or break a rule. With the above-offered logic, I am not advocating that you go around violating rules regularly; instead, I am advocating that you apply a logical thought process to the consideration of rule bending and breaking, and violate rules only when 1) it guarantees or significantly increases your chances of mission accomplishment, and 2) the risk associated with the consequences and punishment of getting caught is outweighed by the return you enjoy by violating the rule.

Leaders Have Command Presence (Part 6 of 6: Judicious Irreverence)

2011-12-17T11:06:00.001-05:00

I believe that effective leadership can be described, in part, by those qualities or characteristics that leaders possess - Who Leaders Are. Among these qualities and characteristics, I would identify that of command presence as one of importance. Leaders with command presence are physically fit, charismatic, articulate and eloquent, and professional. Additionally, leaders with command presence are judiciously irreverent.

Who Leaders Are > Command Presence > Judicious Irreverence

Judicious Irreverence

Judicious irreverence is that characteristic that enables effective leaders to not allow silly bureaucracy or bureaucratic process to frustrate, delay, or confound mission accomplishment. Additionally, judicious irreverence empowers effective leaders to ignore established processes that are outdated, obsolete, and antiquated.

Essentially, my desire for and focus on mission accomplishment outshines your unnecessary bureaucracy and outdated paradigms.

1. Bureaucracy for Bureaucracy's Sake. If marginally competent people hang around long enough, they will eventually get advanced or promoted into positions of authority. Additionally, low or mid-level staff members are frequently endowed with control or authority of one or more small functions in conjunction with their regular duties. While many of these people are easy to deal with and perform these duties to the best of their ability, some people jealously treasure the limited power that they have been given, and set up their little fiefdom.

Judiciously irreverent leaders ignore this stupid bureaucracy. They roll in hot, bust through the red tape, and flank bureaucracy. Please don't misunderstand me: if there is a good reason to abide by a sensible bureaucratic process, me and my team are going to abide. However, if there is a bureaucratic process in place which is unnecessarily difficult, or exists only to satisfy someone's head, I am going to employ the more dominant, directive techniques within my repertoire in order to obtain immediate compliance and support.

2. Outdated Paradigms. People who lack the ability to think critically and temporally fail to realize that the only constant in our world is change. Once they get set in their ways, career bureaucrats abhor change. Change is difficult; you have to think about what has changed and why, develop new strategies and techniques to account for the change, then implement those new strategies and techniques. Instead of being tough and properly adjusting to change, lazy career bureaucrats cling to mental models of the past, and the associated paradigms which have become outdated and obsolete. When attempting to implement changes with these dinosaurs, you will often hear their rallying cry, 'That's the way we've done it for the last 20 years!', as they dig their heels in.

Judiciously irreverent leaders do not care how you have done it for the last 20 years (unless it’s still the best way to do it). So much has changed in the 20 years, to include technology, equipment, and communications, that across the board, in almost every case, paradigms from 20 years ago surely do not apply.

'That's how we've done it for the last 20 years.' Well, this is how we do it now. Next week or next year, we might decide that it needs to be done differently, and change again. Leave 1985, get on board with how we do it now, or F'ing retire.

Important side note: an important part of this discussion on judicious irreverence has to do with how and when it is (and is not) acceptable to bend or break rules. I will discuss rule breaking, and present a logic for considering when to bend or break rules in a separate sidebar post.

Laugh at Self and Others

The employment of humor in leadership is critical. Humor can be introduced in several ways, and one of the most effective, from the perspectives of humility and team-building, is a little ribbing of self and others. Judiciously irreverent leaders do not take things too seriously (except the serious stuff), and are able to laugh (in a good-spirited nature) at themselves and others. In the heat of the moment, when a team member says or does something that will later be comical, team members and leaders capture it, and use it at the appropriate time and place for a little irreverent comic relief.

Impressions are one of my favorite forms of appropriate irreverent comic relief. We often see team members using impressions to poke fun at each other and the organization's leaders in skits and roasts during banquets and formal dining events, but I have also seen these used very effectively in the field, and in day to day operations.

The ability to laugh at self and others in a good-spirited nature can be healthy and helpful. It can be an effective way to inject a little levity into an otherwise intense, mission focused organization and situation.

Do not tolerate unnecessary bureaucracy. Abolish obsolete, outdated paradigms with fresh, up-to-date strategies that reflect and account for change that has occurred. In a good-spirited way, add a little levity and comic relief in your organization by poking fun at yourself and others. These are the actions of a judiciously irreverent leader who embodies command presence.

Leaders Have Command Presence (Part 5 of 6: Professionalism)

2011-12-14T07:19:00.001-05:00

To review: my model attempts to describe effective leadership, through two frameworks: who leaders are, and what leaders do. When considering who leaders are, command presence is one important characteristic identified. Part of having command presence is embodying a sense of professionalism.

Who Leaders Are > Command Presence > Professionalism

Part of having command presence is knowing what professionalism is and means, knowing what professionalism is not, and employing the appropriate amount of professionalism (or calculated lack thereof) into your interactions with others.

Dimensions of Professionalism

Much like the broader discipline of leadership, the concept of professionalism is highly open to interpretation. For the purposes of my leadership model, I have developed the idea of professionalism into at least five dimensions: 1) demeanor, 2) established gestures, 3) profanity, 4) walking the walk, and 5) doing your job without excuse.

1. Appropriate Demeanor. Determine and employ the appropriate demeanor. Professional leaders with command presence employ a combination of seriousness, intensity, friendliness, humor, formality, and informality, as appropriate for the particular situation, to set the tone of individual and group interactions within the organization, as well as the tone of the organization as a whole.

Sometimes this means seriousness and intensity. Other times, when the situation dictates, this may mean silliness, humor, or informality. You can't be serious and intense all the time; sometimes you have to laugh at yourself and others. For example, just prior to or right after an intense, high-risk mission, the proper employment of silliness or humor can add a little levity to the situation. Similarly, when counseling your subordinate on a very personal and troubling problem, you may get better results by temporarily suspending the established norms of formality, in an attempt to make a personal connection so you can help.

2. Established Gestures. Be aware of those established gestures of professionalism within your culture. These include the physical and behavioral symbols that are regarded as a mark of professionalism, and could include your dress (a nice suit or clean, serviceable uniform), accessories (brand name tools or equipment), or behaviors (adherence to approved routines or protocols).

Sometimes established gestures don’t make sense. For example, when we wore black boots in the Army, the degree of how shiny your boots were was often taken by weak leaders as a symbol of professionalism. Additionally, still today, Soldiers are discouraged from putting their hands in their pockets.

Here are my thoughts on these two issues: the best boot shiners are not necessarily the best leaders (there is no correlation between boot shining ability and leadership ability). Additionally, and very literally, every minute that I spend on shining my boots is one minute that I am not devoting to solving a Soldier’s problem. Similarly, pockets were made for hands to be put in them. Don’t we have bigger things to worry about?

Other times, though, established gestures do make sense. Examples of such gestures that do make sense include: a clean, serviceable uniform and boots; a haircut within prescribed standards; and a clean shave (so the seal on a chemical protective mask will seal, should you find the occasion to need to wear one).

3. Profanity. Among the right crowds and at the appropriate times and places, I get great mileage out of the appropriate use of profanity. At this point in my career, I would consider myself as a mid-level manager; when dealing with subordinate leaders and team members, the occasional delivery of an animated F-bomb can energize and motivate in a way that no other technique quite can.

And of course, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: avoid the use of profanity with your superiors, in all but the rarest of cases; it can be misperceived as disrespect.

Additionally, although it is or is becoming mainstream in our society, some people have a strong aversion to profanity; I have found that such people are likely to not be your star performers, but I still caution you to exercise the employment of profanity with judiciousness.

Important side note: for the above three dimensions, I believe that it is very important to consider the appropriateness and benefits of employment, as well as the appropriateness and benefits of non-employment. That is, there are times when a high degree of professionalism (for example, as exhibited by a calm demeanor, acknowledgement of established gestures, and absence of profanity) is the most appropriate tactic to employ to achieve your goals. However, there may be other times when a calculated lack of professionalism (for example, as exhibited by an animated demeanor, ignorance of established gestures, or judicious use of profanity) may be more effective in achieving your goals (read that: getting the mission done).

Another important side note: while the employment (or lack) of the above three dimensions of professionalism are flexible and situationally dependent, I would submit that the following two dimensions are not.

4. Walking the Walk. Not negotiable, plain, and simple: you must be able to do what you ask your subordinates to do. The only exception to this rule is those situations, where you are a generalist managing specialists, and tasks and functions of a highly specialized, technical nature which require special training and/or licensure are performed by your specialist subordinates; for these tasks and functions, you should certainly have a very strong understanding of their nature, so as to be able to speak about and supervise them intelligently.

5. Do Your Job Without Excuse. Another non negotiable: do your damn job satisfactorily, without excessive supervision or excuses. Doing your job (delivering the goods, getting results) is the essence of a true professional.

In many ways, this dimension of professionalism is closely tied to the characteristics of honor and character, and are eventually and ultimately expressed in the behavior of getting results. This is, I hope, a good example of the connections which exist between many of the characteristics and behaviors identified in my leadership model, as well as how each informs the other: who we are informs what we do, and what we do reflects who we are. Professional leaders exhibit honor and character when they do their job without excuse, and ultimately get results.

Apply the appropriate demeanor for the situation, consider and use established gestures and profanity to your advantage, walk the walk, and get your job done without excuse; and you will be on your way toward understanding what it means to be a leader who possesses professionalism and command presence.

Sidebar: Eat the Slowest Zebras, and the Herd Speeds Up

2011-12-12T10:38:00.001-05:00

Subordinate and organizational development and improvement can take many forms. Prior to such development and improvement, enablers need to be in place. Then, multiple iterations of the practice, assess, adjust process should be conducted. Finally, when sub-standard performers appear and fail to improve - we call them slow zebras - they are segregated, isolated, and separated from the organization, as a form of good housekeeping and healthy negative motivation. If you eat the slowest zebras, the herd speeds up.

Resources, Training, and Guidance

First and foremost, leaders who are serious about improving their subordinates and their organizations as a whole must ensure that they have provided sufficient resources, training, and guidance:

1. Resources. When conducting initial training and practice, it is imperative to ensure that proper resources are on hand and available to practice and operate. Getting basic operations down is difficult enough without a resource constraint (although this is a good variable to insert in advanced-level training).

2. Training. Ensure that both the individuals and the team have received the training needed to be expected to operate proficiently.

3. Guidance. Ensure that you have provided clear guidance regarding such things as mission, intent, objectives, what 'success' means, visualization and description of the end state, standards of performance and quality, et cetera. During practice and development, it is important that the team know what it is supposed to be doing (although again, vague guidance or an unclear mission statement can be a good variable to inject in advanced training).

Practice, Assess, Adjust

Once the three afore-mentioned critical enablers are sufficiently covered, individual and organizational improvement is best achieved through several iterations of practice, assess, and adjust.

1. Practice. Practice team or organizational operations, in conditions as close to the real operation as possible. Start off by going half-speed. Once proficiency is attained at half-speed, increase the pace to full-speed. Once proficiency is attained at full-speed, begin inserting 'variables' to increase mission complexity (variables can include resource or personnel shortages, time constraints, multiple operations occurring simultaneously, et cetera).

2. Assess. At the conclusion of each practice session, assess individuals' and the team's performance.

3. Adjust. Prior to commencing a new practice session, develop and implement adjustments to correct problems identified in the previous practice session.

Positive Feedback

The overwhelming and vast majority of the time, this process of practice, assess, and adjust should be resoundingly positive. Progress, improvement, and success should be heralded. For those trying their best, mistakes, errors, and shortcomings should be addressed and corrected in a manner as positive as possible. Again, the more positive these iterations are, the better.

Under-Performers

During these iterations of practice, assess, and adjust, it will become apparent who your under-performers are, through their selfish lack of participation, sub-standard performance, and poor attitudes. Even after counseling and re-training, your true, bona fide under-performers will continue to fail to progress and improve; these are the individuals that need to be removed from your organization.

Bad Attitude. Especially in difficult situations (resource or personnel shortages, uncomfortable environmental conditions, or difficult missions) bad attitudes are infectious. I usually don't tolerate bad attitudes for very long at all.

Selfishness. I know that we are all egocentric; it's in our genetic programming. But when someone is overtly more interested in themselves than they are the organization and mission, I equate this selfishness to a flaw in values and character.

Gross Negligence or Inability. There are some people out there who have simply found themselves working in positions above their ability level.

Eat the Slowest Zebras, and the Herd Speeds Up

When individual and organizational development and improvement is a high priority, and you find yourself confronted with such under-performers, I recommend that you consider the use of a little negative motivation. Specifically, I recommend employment of the tactic 'eat the slowest zebras, and the herd speeds up.'

This tactic is simple: under-performers who, after multiple attempts to assist and improve, are deemed not able or worthy of remediation, growth, and development are quickly segregated, isolated, and separated (terminated) from your organization's activity. When employing the 'eat the slowest zebras and the heard speeds up' tactic, this process of segregation, isolation, and separation (termination) balances the privacy required to maintain the under-performer's dignity and privacy, with the publicity required to let other team members see the carnage.

Maintaining the under-performer's dignity and privacy is important, because we are leaders of character who respect others. Additionally, there are laws and policies associated with privacy and due process that we must not violate. Further, it's also important, because odds are that every other under-performer that you axe is going to come back with some sort of complaint of mistreatment or discrimination.

Additionally, though, it is important that the survivors see enough of what happened to inspire a little bit of negative motivation. By seeing what happens to bad attitudes, selfish members, and grossly negligent members, performing team members will: 1) feel like their efforts are validated because they are still here and those that did not perform are not, and 2) feel the residual pressure within any organization when someone gets removed for poor performance or bad attitude and resultingly step up their game. Additionally, by seeing the slowest zebra get eaten, marginally performing team members will suddenly realize that they may in fact now be the 'slowest zebra', which will likely inspire better attitudes and performance.

Side Note 1: The term 'negative motivation' carries with it a negative connotation, but I question if that is a bad thing. Can the appropriate dose of negative motivation not be healthy and productive? Do we not do things every day of our life to prevent bad things from happening? Isn't this the basis of laws, crime, and punishment in our society? Are not these negative motivations effective and beneficial in our lives?

Side Note 2: These ideas are similar to my Pirate Theory of Leadership, which I will discuss in a subsequent post.

Conclusion

Eat the slowest zebras, and the herd speeds up. When you think about this idea, it is really profound. First, obviously, all the other 'zebras' see one of their own 'eaten', and this motivates them to 'run faster' (work better). Second, and perhaps less obvious, by removing the 'slowest zebra', you have removed your worst team member, which mathematically increases the average speed of the herd.

Additionally, when sub-standard performance is not tolerated, it translates our espoused values of excellence and professionalism into practiced behaviors. By seeing the slower zebras get eaten, team members see that organizational leaders have and are serious about a cut line of acceptable attitude and work performance. This also causes team members to realize that they have surely been held to these standards and found worthy, which inspires morale, professionalism, and further excellence. In this day and age of 'rehabilitative transfers in lieu of termination', 'everybody gets a trophy', and a general lack of personal accountability in many aspects of our lives, this line of thinking can be refreshing and welcomed by those team members who are getting the work done.

In summary, a little bit of negative motivation, directed in the right direction and judiciously sprinkled among a much larger field of positive motivation, may help improve individual and organizational performance and improvement.

Sidebar: Avoid Making the Same Mistake Twice

2011-12-11T10:11:00.008-05:00

I am a leader, who is interested in subordinate leader development and organizational improvement. In this role, one of the common issues that I face is the occurrence of errors and mistakes within my organization. If not grossly negligent or intentionally malicious, I have found that the commission of errors and mistakes can be used as teachable moments.

When my people are working hard, trying their best, and commit an error or make a mistake, I employ the following four steps:

First, together, we identify and acknowledge our error or mistake. It is our error or mistake, because we are a team, and we succeed or fail together (the Koreans say 'Kat-Chi Kap-Shi-Da').

Side note: if you do have someone who is grossly negligent, malicious, or otherwise remarkably sub-standard and untrainable, you as the organization's leader must address this issue, through termination (fire their ass), mitigation (damage control), or marginalization (get them out of the way).

Second, I ensure my people that they are not in trouble, by stating something to this fact, then pointing out the following:

1) Mistakes are a good thing; they are the most efficient way that humans learn. Remember, Edison said "I have not failed. I have just found 10,000 ways that will not work."

2) I would be failing you in my duties as a leader (of mentorship and development) if I did not correct you. So instead of viewing this as a negatively disciplinary event, I ask you to think of this as subordinate leader development.

Third, we fix and prevent: 1) identify how the error or mistake occurred, 2) determine how it can be fixed, 3) fix the error or mistake, and 4) develop and implement preventative and pre-emptive measures so the error or mistake can be avoided next time.

Fourth, I give my pep talk on errors and mistakes:

"There is a way to become very, very good at what you do in a very short period of time: don't make the same mistake twice. If you can avoid making the same mistake twice, both the frequency and magnitude of your mistakes will decrease rapidly. As opposed to making big mistakes with regular frequency, you will soon be making minor errors every once in a while. Once you arrive at this point, you and your organization will likely begin to stand out as superior, when compared to any competitor, evaluation metric, or industry standard."

Avoid making the same mistake twice, and you and your organization will become very, very good in a short period of time.

Leaders Have Command Presence (Part 4 of 6: Articulate and Eloquent)

2011-12-03T06:40:00.002-05:00

My leadership model attempts to describe what effective leadership is through two frameworks: 1) who leaders are, and 2) what leaders do. Within the framework of who leaders are, I have identified command presence as an important leadership characteristic.

Who Leaders Are > Command Presence > Articulate and Eloquent

In my understanding of leadership, an important element of command presence is articulateness and eloquence. Leaders with presence can speak and write well; they have a strong command of written and spoken language.  They understand the standards of appropriate communications for the different generations and digital tribes. They understand how to communicate technical issues to laypeople.

Articulateness and Eloquence begins with a strong vocabulary. With a strong vocabulary, communication skills are developed and mastered. With a strong set of communication skills, communications are tailored to the intended recipient. This is articulateness and eloquence.

Strong Vocabulary

A strong vocabulary consists of having solid language skills, as well as the ability to communicate from a broad and robust proper vocabulary, professional jargon, and set of appropriate colloquialisms.

Language Skills. People that are articulate and eloquent have a strong grasp on the grammar and sentence structure of their language. When writing, they are also proficient in the correct use of punctuation and formatting. This is very basic, but important stuff.

Proper Vocabulary. Articulate and eloquent leaders can always find the perfect word to describe the situation. They are very comfortable employing a broad and diverse palate of words in their daily communications.

How does one improve their proper vocabulary? To do this, I read and write a lot. When reading, if I come upon a word I don't know, I look it up on dictionary.com. Similarly, when writing, if I am looking for just the right word, I use thesaurus.com.

Professional Jargon. In addition to being able to employ a proper vocabulary, effective leaders must be able to talk the talk of their trade. This ability can immediately give you credibility among those at your work site, whereas your inability in this regard can expose you as unknowledgeable and irrelevant.

Colloquialisms. Additionally, leaders with presence possess a strong colloquial vocabulary. For me, this includes: 1) common slang, such as similes, metaphors, and cliches; 2) terms, phrases, and quotes from popular culture; and 3) profanity. The value of a good profanity-laden ass chewing.

Similes, metaphors, and cliches are snappy ways to make a pithy point. Similarly, the use of terms, phrases, or quotes from popular culture is a great way to connect with younger team members, and can add some levity to stressful or mundane work environments. Additionally, while inappropriate in some situations and with some groups, profanity has its place in leadership. Many, many times, I have gotten great mileage out of one or more appropriate and well-timed expletives that were inserted in an ass-chewing (reprimand) or animated, rallying pep-talk.

Important note: often times, foreign nationals' tenuous grasp of our language and culture is not strong enough to understand these advanced linguistics without some assistance. Be careful with the use of slang, pop culture, or profanity when working with foreign nationals; make sure they understand what you are saying, avoid the use of this sort of language, or explain it to your foreign team members.

Interpersonal and Communication Skills

Once you have a strong command of language, the next step in being articulate and eloquent is employment of that command, through the use of well developed interpersonal and communication skills. This includes interpersonal skills, public speaking skills, and written communication skills.

Interpersonal skills. Effective leaders are comfortable and proficient at one-on-one communication. They take the time to say hello and shake hands. They go into most conversations with a clearly defined goal or objective; this is, to them, just another battle to be won. They quickly establish respect, a connection, and trust with others. They can judge how much informal chat is required prior to discussing business. Effectvie leaders understand that interpersonal communication is like dancing: sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow. Leaders with presence know the value of silence during conversation. Effective leaders know that, when dealing with others, once they have met their objectives, they stop 'selling' and transition to the closing.

Public Speaking Skills.  Leaders with command presence are comfortable and proficient at speaking to small or large groups. They speak loudly and clearly. Their main idea is easy to understand. Their body posture reflects and projects confidence in their message and themselves.  These leaders do not let audio/visual technical difficulties disrupt their speaking; on the contrary: they view such occurrences as spectacular opportunities to adapt and overcome in front of an audience. When conducting question and answer sessions, effective leaders do not stumble; they can either answer the question, or not. They also understand that public speaking does not end with the speech, but that post-speech activities (such as shaking hands and signing books) is a continued opportunity to connect with others.

Written Communication Skills.  Leaders with presence write well, in all written formats. Papers, essays, and memorandums are well organized and make sense. Emails have greetings and closings, and comply with the unwritten rules of email etiquette. In all formats, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and structure are correct (although these may vary in importance by tribe and generation).

Tailor Communications to Fit Recipient

Finally, once you have a strong grasp of vocabulary and communications, the final step toward articulateness and eloquence is the ability to tailor communications to the audience. This should be as easy as thinking about each specific communication situation (your goals, the other involved parties and their goals, any challenges or issues between you and your goals, et cetera), and tailoring your communications to address the nuances of that communication situation.

One other major consideration in this regard is how to communicate with the various Digital Tribes. In today's day and age, there are digital foreigners (members of the older generations that are computer illiterate), digital immigrants (members of the older generations that have some computer literacy), and digital natives (members of the younger generations who have grown up with computers and are computer fluent). When tailoring communications, it is important to use the appropriate combination of text, email, phone, and face-to-face communication for each digital tribe.

Leaders Have Command Presence (Part 3 of 6: Charisma)

2011-12-02T10:35:00.004-05:00

Effective leaders have command presence. One key aspect of command presence is charisma. Done properly, leaders combine an important combination of understanding and behaviors to evoke a strong feelings of admiration and followership from those with whom they interact.

Who Leaders Are > Command Presence > Charisma

Effective leaders possess a high degree of charm, magnetism, and affinity, during first and subsequent interactions. This is accomplished through culturally and generationally-appropriate displays of respect, status, and hipness. The quality described here - which is what I'm calling charisma - inspires trust, loyalty, admiration, and followership from others.

As implied, there are two parts to being charismatic. First, you must understand what behaviors are valued to those you are dealing with. Second, you must behave in a way that resonates with values.

Cultural and Generational ~~Awareness~~ Understanding

We will talk more about cultural understanding (which includes generational understanding) during our discussion on how leaders are intellectually capable, but now we must at least acknowledge the ideas of cultural and generational awareness or understanding in conjunction with charisma. In order to affect a sense of charm, magnetism, an affinity on members of other cultures or generations, we must understand what elements of interaction they value, then pay respect to that value.

For example, eye contact in America means something different from eye contact in South Korea; from my experience, Americans find eye contact to be an indication of confidence and engagement, whereas South Koreans find it to be confrontational.

Another example: your having a kick-ass Web site or blog may be very impressive to members of the younger generations (digital natives), but may mean absolutely nothing to a member of the older generation (digital immigrants, and especially digital foreigners). Conversely, using respectful language like 'please', 'thank you', 'Sir', and 'Ma'am' is highly regarded by older generations, but fails to hit the mark with the younger crowd.

Think about the people your interacting with, from a culturally and generationally-sensitive perspective, and pay respect to those elements of interaction which they value.

Behaviors: The Basics

Once you understand others' values, you must then display the correspondingly appropriate behaviors. However, regardless of cultural and generational differences, there are some basic behaviors that apply to almost all groups:

1. Personal Appearance. Be clean and well groomed. You saw how long the grunge movement lasted, right? That's because people don't like being around dirty people. Bathe daily and after physical or messy activity. Brush your damn teeth; there is nothing worse than trying to talk to you with your morning breath punching me in the nose. Use deodorant, comb your hair, address your dandruff, et cetera.

2. Eye Contact. In American society, when interacting with others, make as much as possible. If you are talking to me, or we are doing business, and you are not looking me in the eye, I will suspect that you are unconfident or disingenuous; neither of these bode well for you.

An important note: if you leave American society, study up on where you are going. Eye contact (and other gestures regarded as charismatic in American society) can be disrespectful or confrontational in other parts of the world.

3. Handshake. Offer a full, firm handshake (with eye contact). A good, firm handshake subconsciously implies that you are healthy, and thus am able to perform physically-intensive activities like hard labor (or battle). When shaking hands, hand me a dead fish, and I will beat you up and take your lunch money. Also, if you go to shake hands and misfire (get anything other than a full grip), apologize and redo it.

4. Manners. Basic manners demonstrate respect for others. They are free to use, you usually get good return, and there is no downside. Basic manners center around the basic premise of not being rude. Don't fart or belch in public. Don't use profanity or be otherwise offensive in normal operations. Don't put your feet on other peoples' tables. In short, don't be an offensive, egotistical ass.

An important note: rudeness may be an effective tool when engaged in conflict or confrontation. When doing battle, all bets are off.

5. Body Language. Non-verbal communication tells me a lot about your attitude, confidence level, and genuineness. Elements of non-verbal communication include: body posture; tone, volume, and speed of speech; speed of movement; what your hands are doing; position and stillness or fidgeting of extremities; facial expressions; et cetera.

6. Engagement of others. This is where it helps to be an extrovert. The ability to heartily engage others is helpful toward being charismatic. Study and practice toward being able to have a conversation with anyone; the easiest way to do this is to ask them questions about themselves, their work, their interests, and their opinions (about non-contentious issues). Additionally, a genuine sense of curiosity (again about people, their work, their interests, and their opinions) is also very helpful.

Respect

After we get the basic behaviors nailed down, we must then turn our attention to demonstrating respect. I demonstrate respect in three ways: 1) the traditional gestures of respect, 2) inclusiveness, and 3) genuine concern for others.

1. Traditional Gestures. Traditional gestures of respect go a long way toward having charisma. This includes things like using Sir and Ma'am, polite treatment for the ladies, and proper treatment for the boss.

Many people fail to use Sir and Ma'am; I have been conditioned into their use through my military service, and it has payed dividends in civilian society. Especially during disagreement or conflict, the appropriate use of a Sir or Ma'am will convey to your opponent that the issue (not them personally) is the point of contention, and may set favorable conditions for you to get your way.

If you are successful at being an effective leader for any length of time, you will have developed a reputation for doing battle - successfully engaging and winning in conflict and competition. Once you have been labeled a warrior, you can let this reputation morph into your being characterized as a low-brow knuckle dragger, or you can develop that reputation into multi-faceted individual that is dangerous on the battlefield and in the ballroom by treating ladies politely. The manner in which you treat ladies is subconsciously linked to how people perceive your abilities in empathy, compassion, and caring.

So, hold the damn door open for the ladies when leaving or exiting the building.  Open their car door for them. Give them your coat or jacket if they are cold. Attend to their needs in an appropriate way (for example, if they are obviously thirsty, fix it). Stand up when the leave or return to the table. Help them with their chair when they sit. This isn't difficult stuff.

Finally, it is important to display proper treatment toward the boss. Generally, bosses are older, so their perceptions and values align more closely with the older generations; they remember how bosses used to be highly revered and regarded. Through your behavior and interaction, if you treat the boss less formally (as is the acceptable norm among the younger generations), you risk offending him or her.

So, give the boss the best seat at the table, on the plane, in the car, et cetera. The boss gets the remote, or at least gets to pick what we watch. In the waiting room or lobby, the boss gets first dibs on the newspaper or magazine. The boss gets the first bottle of complimentary water. At dinner, the boss gets to order first (after the ladies, of course). And so on.

2. Inclusiveness.  For both people within your organization, and people who support or patronize your organization, inclusiveness is a very effective gesture of respect, and inspires connectedness and loyalty toward you and your organization.  Taking the time to include people in your activities and decision-making makes them feel special, and ultimately helps them achieve a positive self-image (my participation and opinion are highly valued by others; this makes me important).

Therefore, one way to increase your charismatic appeal is to invite and include people in your important activities (holiday party, promotion or award ceremonies, et cetera).

Additionally, another way to increase charismatic appeal is to ask people for their insight and opinion on relevant matters that they may be qualified to discuss. Ask customers about customer service. Ask other leaders about issues of leadership. Ask vendors and suppliers about your logistical challenges. Not only is inclusive and charismatically developmental, it may also yield some valuable insight.

3. Concern. Similarly to inclusiveness, an appropriate display of concern can serve as a gesture of respect, and increase one's perceived charisma.

Ask people: how are you today? How is your family? Well, I hope. If they have a problem that you can easily solve, solve it. If they have a concern with their dealings with you, address it. If they have a problem that is well outside of your ability to solve, empathize and wish them well. If they have a family issue, consider the value of postponing business so that they may attend to their family.

Additionally, it takes social and interpersonal strength, courage, and fortitude to ask people how they and their family are. The reason: what if they give you a negative response, how are you supposed to react? In some ways, if you ask, and they respond negatively, you may be expected to act. Additionally, I think that part of charisma is interpersonal fearlessness, and having the courage to ask about others displays this fearlessness.

Physical Gestures of Status and Hipness

Once you have a handle on the basic behaviors and respect, it is time to consider those physical gestures associated with status and hipness. In this area, I employ two guiding principles: 1) be who you are - phoniness and ingenuousness are easily recognizable, and 2) form follows function - if it has no utility, it is superfluous. Apply these guiding principles to the areas of dress, accessories, automobile, and your office.

For example, I am thrifty, so when I need new clothes (which is rare), I shop at the local thrift store. You can get the same name-brand clothes that are for sale in the mall at a thrift store in clean, good condition for pennies on the dollar. Additionally, I don't wear jewelery or a watch, because: 1) again I am thrifty, and 2) it doesn't seem functional to me, and can impair the performance of hard work. I do have one of these new touch-screen phones, but only because they are so functional:  with it I can make phone calls, do email, surf the Web, and take and email pictures. Further, I drive a mid-sized pickup truck that is 11 years old with 165,000 miles; it's a very useful vehicle, it's paid off, and it gets decent gas mileage. Finally, my office is clean, organized, and simple; there is only standard, mid-grade office furniture and equipment: desk, chairs, computer, phone, et cetera. Those decorations that adorn my office are limited to things that are of personal value or meaning to me, such as my college diplomas, a photo of my Wife and I, a photo of my Father, et cetera.

I tell you all of this about myself to demonstrate that these physical gestures say something about me, in terms of status and hipness. I would hope that people would look at me and conclude that, even though I could afford to shop at the mall, wear a designer watch, and drive an expensive import; I don't as a matter of choice. I would hope that people would further conclude that this choice is based on my level comfort with myself and my self-worth and that ultimately, this self-confidence is charismatic.

Again, though, these decisions of dress, accessories, care, et cetera are yours. Just don't be a 'big hat, no cattle' person who has all the fancy things, but can't produce results to save your life.

Next up, we'll talk about how leaders who have Command Presence are Articulate and Eloquent.

Leaders Have Command Presence (Part 2 of 6: Physical Fitness)

2011-11-28T07:25:00.002-05:00

Important Note: There is an important difference between physical un-fitness and physical disability. Both physically disabled persons and persons with no physical disability can be physically fit or physically un-fit. For the purposes of this post, these two conditions (fitness and disability) are not directly related. In no way is this post intended to be an attack on team members with physical disability.

A critical component in establishing Command Presence is physical fitness. It is difficult to get behind a leader that gets winded walking to the job site, or who can’t perform some of the physical tasks associated with their work. Additionally, a leader who attempts to be strong but is physically inferior may get labeled as having bark, but no bite.

Who Leaders Are > Command Presence > Physically Fit

Why is physical fitness important? Consider the following three points:

     1. Physical fitness reflects an individuals' discipline, pride, and drive.

     2. Physically fit people are likely to have a stronger work ethic, be less tolerant of excuses, and are less easily distracted.

     3. Physical fitness subconsciously inspires confidence, and reassures our fundamental need for security (think Maslow’s hierarchy).

What is Physical Fitness

The term 'physical fitness' can have a broad number of meanings. What, exactly, do I mean by the term ‘physically fit’? I see physical fitness as having four components: job performance, appearance, cardiovascular strength, and muscular strength.

1. Job performance. First and foremost, strong leaders must be able to perform the physical tasks associated with their job - easily. My explanation of this to my subordinates (for those of us in the Army), includes at a minimum: 1) pass the Army physical fitness test every time you take it, 2) pass height/weight screening or body fat tape test, 3) complete collective physical fitness events (formation runs, road marches) with ease, and 4) perform those physical tasks associated with yours and your subordinates’ occupational specialties.

2. Appearance. Millions of years of evolution have predisposed us to think less of physically inferior people. Despite their actual abilities and talents, those who are puny or significantly overweight immediately face a significant bias and disadvantage in establishing credibility, rapport, and followership. Strong leaders’ physical fitness is evident in their appearance. I’m not talking about being a perfect specimen, but it helps significantly to present the appearance that you take care of yourself.

3. Cardiovascular Capability. Your heart and lungs must be in decent shape. This means being able to keep up with the boss during lunch hour physical training; or not arriving to a meeting winded because you had to walk up a flight of stairs with a full briefcase; or being able to easily handle your own luggage when travelling.

4. Muscular Strength Capability. You must have a reasonable amount of physical strength. At the job site, this means being able to handle the heavy equipment that you and your subordinates use. In the office, for example, this means being able to carry a box of paper to the copy machine, or putting a new five-gallon water bottle on the water cooler.

How to Obtain Physical Fitness

See the value of physical fitness, but don’t know how to get there? Physical fitness is as easy as a balance and combination of three aspects of your life: diet, exercise, and sleep.

1. Exercise

There are two types of exercise: cardiovascular exercise (running, elliptical) and muscular strength training (weight training).

     1a. Cardiovascular Exercise

For cardio, I run 3.5 miles (usually on trails) four or five times per week. This keeps my heart and lungs in shape, and it lets me eat whatever I want without getting fat.

If you are just getting started with a cardio program (and are in reasonable physical condition, with your doctor's consent to begin an exercise program), try this: go to the gym and get on a treadmill. Walk at a pace of 2.0 miles per hour at an incline of 1.5 degrees for 30 minutes (most people should be able to do this). Repeat this combination of speed, incline, and time for three sessions over five days or one week. For the next three sessions, increase speed by 0.1 or 0.2 miles per hour, and/or incline by 0.5 degrees. Continue this slow increase of speed and incline for every three training sessions. In six months (obtaining cardiovascular fitness takes time), you will be running at a pace of 5.5 miles per hour, with an incline of 3.0 degrees, for 30 minutes; and your cardiovascular fitness will have improved greatly.

     1b. Muscular Strength Training

To maintain a decent level of muscular strength, I try to conduct some form of muscular strength training twice per week. If you haven't done weight training before, it would be beneficial to obtain a couple of sessions of instruction form a personal fitness trainer.

Here is my basic gym weight workout. It takes me about 45 minutes to complete.

     - 15 exercises total. There is a good description of many of these exercises on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_training_exercises).

               Three chest - a combination of the following: decline / flat bench / incline bench press or dumbbells, cables, or push-ups.
               Four back - shrugs, pull-downs, back extension, and dead lift.
               Two bicep - bar curls and dumbbell curls.
               Two tricep - two-hand push down and one-hand push down.
               Four legs - squats, hip sled, leg extensions, and leg curls.

     - One set of each exercise.

     - Twelve repetitions per set.

     - Light to moderate weight (which means that I can finish the set without killing myself, but I am having to exert a decent amount of effort).

2. Diet

Eating right goes a long way toward physical fitness, and wellness in general. This is a difficult area, because diet and lifestyle often conflict (especially when travelling). While this area of my life needs additional work, I have been able to set up a decent diet, and stick with it for a period of time.

     - Early morning - coffee (three large cups, with sugar and foo-foo creamer).     - Mid-morning - granola bar, orange, and/or yogurt.
     - Lunch - usually from a local restaurant.
     - Dinner - home cooked meal with a big, leafy salad with tomatoes, cheese, other vegetables, and balsamic vinegar dressing.
     - Evening snack - chocolate milkshake.

The more I look at this part of this post, the more I am beginning to realize that I need to work on this area. More on diet in a later post.

3. Sleep

Regular sleep is very important to being physically fit. I need six hours of sleep each night (from 2200 to 0400), plus a one or two hour afternoon nap, two or three times a week (usually on weekends). In addition to making sure that you get a certain quantity of sleep, you should ensure that you get a high level of quality sleep. To do this, I recommend the following:

     - Go to bed tired. Put in a good day at work, get your physical fitness training done, do your chores around the house, and spend some quality time with family and friends; if you live life to the fullest and have a productive day, you will be tired at bedtime, and will sleep better.

     - Avoid caffeine later in the day. I switch to decaffeinated iced tea by noon.

     - Make the place where you sleep comfortable. Think about what makes you comfortable during sleep, and make your sleeping area that way. This should include the appropriate level of darkness, a comfortable temperature, a generally quiet area (or a sufficient amount of white noise), and free of distractions or other activities. Also, I turn the damn TV off, or my subconscious will continue to pay attention (and my quality of sleep will be reduced).

     - Empty your mind. This starts to get into personal organization. Don't lay in bed worrying about what you have to do tomorrow. Instead, prior to going to bed, make a list of all the things you have to do (I make a list for the week), then make a plan to get all of those things done. You are then free to stop worrying about everything on the list, because you can't affect those things until tomorrow.

Additionally, I keep a pen and pad of paper on my night stand, and jot down ideas, thoughts, and tasks that pop in my head as I am laying down.

Positive Second-Order Effects of Physical Fitness Training

In addition to the positive effects of being physically fit mentioned above, and its place as an important component of Command Presence, physical fitness training can also afford the following positive second-order effects:

1. Problem Solving and Meditation.  Especially outdoors, extended cardiovascular training can afford time to think and meditate on issues and problems in your life and organization. Many of my organization's problems are solved on the trails out behind my current residence.

2. Study. Indoors, on a treadmill or elliptical, you can pass the time quickly and be a highly efficient multi-tasker by studying while conducting cardiovascular training.

For example, in the Army, helicopter pilots are required to have about 200 flashcards' worth of information committed to memory. When conducting cardiovascular training indoors, I study these flashcards, and enjoy the following benefits:

     - The PT session passes quickly. Instead of watching the timer on the machine, my mind is occupied with other things, and time seems to pass faster.

     - I become more efficient by doing two things at once. This allows me to either do more, or have more free time in a given day.

     - I retain more information. Perhaps its the increased oxygen and blood flow to the brain during cardiovascular training, but I retain more information when I study it on the treadmill, as opposed to studying in a conventional setting.

     - I develop my discipline, tolerance for personal discomfort, and concentration skills. It is difficult and uncomfortable to run and study flashcards at the same time. However, if I can successfully do it, I will have overcome these difficulties and discomfort, and improved my concentration skills.

3. Character Development.  I wrote about this idea in a previous post. You can read about it here.

Next up, we will talk about Charisma.

Leaders Have Command Presence (Part 1 of 6: Introduction)

2011-11-27T12:54:00.001-05:00

The ability to actively and passively project a sense of confidence and competence in any situation, Command Presence inspires feelings of trust, loyalty, and followership in allies; fear, envy, and dread in belligerents; and respect, admiration, and acknowledgement from all.

Who Leaders Are > Command Presence

Command presence is described within five characteristics: physically fit, charismatic, articulate and eloquent, professional disposition (military bearing), and judiciously irreverent. I will provide a very brief description here, and go into more detail in the subsequent parts of this series.

Five Characteristics of Command Presence

Physical Fitness. Leaders with command presence are in good physical shape. Their physical condition is considered by the majority of society as healthy or better, and they are easily able to accomplish those physical tasks associated with their job. Physically fit leaders are aware and in control of their diet, exercise program, and sleep schedule.

Charisma.  Leaders with command presence easily engage and connect with others. They possess a high degree of charm, influence, and affinity through culturally and generationally-appropriate displays of respect, status, and hipness.

Articulate and Eloquent.  Leaders with command presence speak and write well. They understand and effectively employ the standards of appropriate oral and written communications for different cultures, generations, and digital tribes.

Professional Disposition (Military Bearing). As is appropriate with the existing situation, strong leaders effectively employ a combination of seriousness, friendliness, humor, formality, and informality to set the tone for individual interactions and the organization. When it is appropriate to be serious, leaders with a strong professional disposition are serious. When it is appropriate to be relaxed, they are relaxed. Additionally, those leaders with a strong professional disposition display an effective use of the symbols and gestures associated with professionalism in their culture.

Judicious Irreverence. Judiciously irreverent leaders ignore stupid stuff, bust through red tape, and flank bureaucracy. They do not care how you have done it for the last 20 years (unless that is still the best way to do it), and are in this way irreverent of the 'old guard', tradition, and seniority as a result of being around longest.  Additionally, judiciously irreverent leaders do not take things too seriously (except the serious stuff), and are able to laugh (in a mostly good-spirited nature) at themselves and others.

Leaders Understand the Situation (Page 7 of 7: Describe the Situation)

2011-11-27T12:08:00.001-05:00

When attempting to understand the situation, leaders listen well. They understand the elements of the particular situation they face through the use of appropriate organizational frameworks, and employ effective tools to feed those frameworks. Leaders employ effective techniques in order to get good information, and they balance their thinking when making an effort at situational understanding. Finally, leaders describe the situation.

What Leaders Do > Understand the Situation > Describe the Situation

Situational understanding is culminated and verified through the construction of a situation description. This does at least two things: 1) it confirms that you understand the situation well enough to compose it into a comprehensive product, and 2) it creates a construct for you to share with others, to aid in their situational understanding (and ultimately action).

Situation Description Format

So how do we describe the situation? My best (and the most obvious) answer is to start with those organizational frameworks in which information was collected and arranged. The below five points may also be helpful, in the construction of your situation description:

1. Written Product. A written product provides a tangible item that you and subordinates can reference and update. Some of the tools that we previously discussed are very effective written products, including the Army OPORD Paragraph 1, the Mission Analysis Brief format, and a written narrative using the SWOT framework.

Other interesting examples of situation descriptions to look at and think about include those used by the Department of State country specific travel information (http://travel.state.gov/travel/travel_1744.html), the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/), and city information from City-Data (http://www.city-data.com/).

2. Graphical Depiction. As previously stated, a picture is worth one thousand words. If appropriate, maps, photos, diagrams, and other graphical depictions can very effectively augment a written document, and facilitate situational understanding.

3. Oral Presentation. In addition to providing written and graphical products, an additional level of situational understanding is gained through the delivery of an oral presentation. Having the project leader, the VP for operations or strategy, and/or the organization's intelligence officer deliver the oral presentation makes good sense, and facilitates the following point.

4. Leader Impressions. In conjunction with the above three techniques, it is important that the organization's leader provide his or her own, personal insight to the situation. This allows the leader to highlight those aspects of the situation that he or she sees as critical to the organization's operations and success. 'Team here are what I see as the salient points and take aways, and where I would like you to focus your efforts...'

5. Questions and Comments. Ensure understanding and express value and respect of others' opinions and time by soliciting questions and comments.

Not only does this afford opportunity for individuals' deeper understanding, but it also may develop into an impromptu discussion among the team (where team members address and answer each others' questions and issues), which facilitates still a deeper level of situational understanding. If this discussion occurs, I suggest you let it develop; there is great strength in the collective knowledge of the group.

Leaders Understand the Situation (Part 6 of 7: Balance Your Thinking)

2011-11-27T11:06:00.002-05:00

Our thinking must be fair and balanced if we are to truly understand the situation. We can listen well, select a suitable organizational framework to understand situational elements, employ effective information collection tools, and obtain quality information; but if we do not then approach this information with balanced, logical thinking, we are just as likely to misunderstand the situation than if we conducted the listening or information collection activities poorly.

What Leaders Do > Understand the Situation > Balance Your Thinking

The actual situation is only half of the equation. Similarly to how you listen, how you perceive (think about) the situation is also a critical factor in both your understanding of the situation as a leader, as well as the resulting situational depiction that you provide to others. Therefore, we must ensure that our thinking is calibrated, and free of errors and bias.

One other point, as a sidebar: if you are going to do some important thinking, prepare for it. For me to be the best thinker I can be, I must be well-rested, not hungry or thirsty, in an organized and comfortable space free of annoyances and distractions, with no other crises presently occurring. If you are like me, and you try to do some important thinking when you are hungry or your desk is a mess, the amount of effort contributed is greater and the result is not as good.

Six Techniques to Balance Thinking

There are many, many ways to facilitate balanced thinking. Here are six to consider:

1. Be Aware of and Avoid Thinking Traps. Our minds are subject to the mental influences, or thinking traps, below. These will distort your thinking (and listening), which can ultimately delay or disrupt mission accomplishment.

     - Primacy. The first report is the most important, because it is the most impressive (it has the biggest effect on your situational understanding). It is the mental framework from which all other reports, updates, and information are hung. If it is severely flawed (that is, grossly inaccurate or incorrect), and you accept it without any critical skepticism, you will expend significant mental energy and time 'unlearning' what you perceived to be the truth, before you can begin to understand what is really going on. Beware the first report.

     - Intensity. Events that have a significant emotional impact retain their importance in our minds. As less-intense pieces of information fade into our long-term memory, these intense impressions grow in weight and effect in our listening, information valuation, and decision-making processes. Consider whether or not any of the following emotions are associated with a particular memory, piece of information, et cetera: greed, fear, jealousy, pride, embarrassment, extreme anger, or extreme happiness. If so, that piece of information may carry more weight

     - Confirming Evidence. If you are pre-disposed toward a particular line of reasoning, your mind will subconsciously look harder for evidence to support that line. Additionally, your mind will subconsciously marginalize that evidence which weakens your favored line of reasoning.

     - Overconfidence. Being too confident makes one less thorough, less interested with exploring all aspects and details, and ready to draw conclusions before all evidence and possible conclusions have been explored.

     - Underconfidence. The exact opposite of overconfidence. Not being confident enough makes one want to be too thorough, not sure of one's self to the point of inaction (or action that is too little, too late), and unable to arrive at a particular conclusion with any degree of confidence.

2. Think Critically. Take nothing at face value; validate and verify the reasonableness of all facts, assumptions, and conclusions through the application of critical skepticism (more on this during our discussion on how leaders are intellectually capable).

How though, can we think critically? There is a library written on this issue. My personal favorite is those techniques prescribed by Paul and Elder in their book called 'Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life'. Specifically, Paul and Elder's framework of applying the intellectual standards to the elements of reasoning in order to achieve and possess the intellectual traits (as depicted in figure 4.1 in the second edition) is worthy of study and practice.

3. Listen to Your Intuition.   What we call 'listening to our gut' or 'trusting our intuition' is actually (at least in part) our subconscious making correlations with past experience, using a form of pattern analysis and recognition. If positive correlations are made with past experiences, outcomes of those past experiences are employed by our subconscious and applied to the current situation as a predictive template.

This can be very powerful and effective, if the patterns of the past experience and current situation are the same or similar. If these patterns differ significantly (that is, if your subconscious is making a bogus correlation, or if you are the victim of a deception), the results can be disastrous. One activity in which these manifestations of intuition and deception are most easily observed is high-stakes poker. For these reasons (the potential for your subconscious to make an incorrect pattern match or the potential for an opponent to use intuition as part of a deception operation), intuition is best used in conjunction with other thinking tools (such as critical skepticism).

4. Employ Reflection. As best as I can define it, reflection consists of thinking about a particular topic or issue in other than its natural setting, for the purposes of gaining additional insight or perspective. Take your thoughts, impressions, and conclusions on an important issue out if their natural environment, and think about them in a different place to gain fresh perspective. Here are examples of some possible 'other than natural' settings:

          - Quiet calmness. Probably the stereotype of what is thought of when thinking about 'reflection', this is the deep thinking that occurs in a quiet, safe place. I conduct this type of reflection very early in the morning in my home office (with the computer and music turned off). Other venues that may possibly be ideal for this type of reflection include a peaceful backyard garden, or a solitary, serene place in a natural setting. One could feasibly characterize this activity as meditiation.

     - During an enjoyable physical activity. One can reflect on life's issues and challenges, with great success, during enjoyable physical activity.  During low-intensity running, relaxing motorcycling, or leisurely sailing, I can gain some real, meaningful insight on how I really feel about the issues and challenges in my life. Doing these activities (alone) allows me to put the events of my life into their proper perspective.

     - Reflection as an interpersonal activity. Explaining your position, thoughts, and ideas to trusted advisers or allies, and asking for honest, rigorous feedback: where are the flaws in my conclusions or plan? Do you have a better idea or perspective on these issues? Which of my assumptions or preconceived notions do you think are ?

As a sidebar, one variation to performing reflection as an interpersonal activity is to designate a team member as the Devil’s Advocate, and present your evidence and conclusions to them for scrutiny. More on this later, in a separate post.

     - Sleep on it. There is a psychological process called 'incubation,' where our sub-conscious continues to reconcile issues or solve problems when our conscious mind is otherwise engaged (doing other things or sleeping). For me, it's scary how effective the process of incubation can be; I will go to bed with a big problem, and wake up with the solution waiting for me in my mind.

5. Avoid Absolutes. In our quest to condense life down into easily comprehensible pieces, we all to often simplify rich, detailed issues into absolute, 'black and white' issues. The vast majority of issues are not absolute, but are instead an extensive and wonderful range of in-betweens.

Therefore, be careful with 'either / or' assessments, characterizations, or decisions; remember that the options 'both', 'neither', and 'a little bit of each' are possible almost all of the time.

6. Think Temporally. Finally, don't forget to include the considerations of time into your thinking. With the the passage of time comes change, which may or may not facilitate better situational understanding. Questions to consider include:

- Do we have to arrive at a conclusion or decision today, or can we postpone conclusion, decision, and action until a later point in time (when we may have better information).
- Will the facts change or transform in time? Is this issue static or dynamic? Would such change or transformation be beneficial for us?
- Will our ability to verify assumptions increase in time? Will assumptions transform into facts (and thereby become more valuable and actionable) as events unfold?
- Will the significance of the issue or its conclusions increase or decrease in time? How does this relate to our strategy or plan?

Sidebar: Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

2011-11-26T12:00:00.000-05:00

Important note: the current version (October 2009) of the Army's IBP manual (FM 2-01.3) has a distribution restriction, so I did not refer to it during the preparation of this post. Instead, I referred to an older version (July 1994) of the IPB manual (FM 34-130), which does not have a distribution restriction, and sufficient for our purposes here.

Continuing with our discussion on how leaders employ tools to understand the situation, I want to discuss the Army's Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) process.

What Leaders Do > Understand the Situation > Employ Tools for Situational Understanding > Conduct Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

Conceptually, in my mind, the IPB is a robust and thoroughly extensive version of the O and T in SWOT. IPB is a methodical process of thinking about a specific entity (enemy, competition, or customer) and/or place (geographic area, market niche, cyberspace, et cetera), and provides us a very good framework and process from which to study and understand the external environment and its actors.

Similarly to what I did with the Mission Analysis process, I will present here a simplified version of the IPB process. As mentioned above, the current Army doctrine on IPB is restricted, but the older, superseded manual (Army Field Manual 34-130) is available 'open source' on the Internet.

Four Steps to IPB

IPB consists of four basic steps:

1. Define the Environment.
2. Describe the Environment's Effects.
3. Evaluate Other Relevant Entities (Enemy, Competition, Customer).
4. Determine Other Relevant Entities' Courses of Action.

Let's discuss each of these in more detail.

1. Define the Environment. In the first step, the environment is defined and described. Geographic and spatial boundaries (if appropriate) are articulated; or, perhaps market segments and niches are a more appropriate way to define the environment in which the organization will operate. In any case, this step is a systematic, thorough analysis, which usually begins at a macro-level perspective and proceeds/zooms in to greater detail.

Topics covered in this step can include, but are not limited to, the following:

   - Definition of the Area of Interest (the area where events can occur that would be of interest to us).
     - Definition of the Area of Operations (the area where we will actually operate).
     - Terrain Considerations (terrain types, vegetation, mobility, transportation infrastructure, bodies of water, key terrain).
     - Sociological Considerations (population centers, economy, religion, culture, nationality, ethnicity, economy, activities and services available)
     - Weather (climatology, local forecast - including high and low temperatures, predominant weather, winds, type and amount of precipitation, any weather advisories, watches, or warnings).
     - Solar and Lunar Considerations (BMNT, sunrise, sunset, EENT, moonrise, moon set, percent lunar illumination).

2. Describe the Environment's Effects. This step is the 'so what' of the first step. Once the environment has been articulated, its effects are then described as they relate to our operations.

Questions asked during this step could include: how does the above-defined environment affect our organization and our subordinate organizations? How does the environment affect our customer (if we have one)? How does the environment affect our competition, the enemy, or other relevant entities? Does the transportation infrastructure support operations at the pace which we desire?Will the weather facilitate or degrade our operations? Can we operate effectively in the expected solar and lunar conditions?

3. Evaluate Other Relevant Entities (Enemy, Competition, Customer). Next, other relevant entities are described and evaluated. For military organizations and operations, 'other relevant entitnes' means enemy and belligerent forces. In business, 'other relevant entities' means the competition and the customer.

Aspects of description and evaluation can include:

- Disposition (location, recent and present activities, level of morale).
- Composition (size, organizational structure, key leaders, skill sets, equipment and resources, capabilities).
- Demographics (gender, age, religion, socio-economic status, ethnicity, nationality, marital status, et cetera).
- Values - What ideas or concepts are fundamentally important to this entity or group?
- Mission - What does this entity or group generally do? What is this entity's current specified mission, if any?

4. Determine Other Relevant Entities' Courses of Action. This final step combines the analysis from the first three steps, to make a predictive forecast about what these other relevant entities will do. The format of this predictive forecast can take one or more of several forms:

- Written Narrative. The written narrative is just that - a couple of paragraphs that describes a particular course of action for a relevant entity. In military operations, at least two courses of action are usually described: the Most Dangerous Course of Action (that course of action which is most threatening to our organization or activities), and the Most Likely Course of Action (that course of action which the other relevant entity is most likely going to execute). When the other relevant entity's mission is to destroy you and your forces, the Most Dangerous and the Most Likely courses of action can be the same.

- Situational Template. This is a graphic representation of how the other relevant entity is thought to be arrayed at a particular point in time. The situational template (or SITTEMP) combines known intelligence and the intelligence officer's best estimate, and reflects such considerations as composition, disposition, terrain, and mission.

- Event Template. The event template (or EVENTTEMP) is a graphic representation of how the other relevant entity may be arrayed over time. Obviously, the EVENTTEMP is especially helpful if the other relevant entity is moving.

The Implied Fifth Step of IPB

So once you have accomplished the above four steps of IBP, what do you do with the analysis produced? You employ it, of course, which brings us to the 'implied' fifth step of IPB:

(Implied) Step 5:  Leverage IPB Products to Inform Organizational Activities In Support Of Mission Accomplishment.

This valuable information is put to work in at least two ways:

First, IPB outputs inform the organization's information collection plan (as described in my recent sidebar on Mission Analysis). Second, IPB outputs inform the development of Courses of Action during step three (Course of Action Development) of the MDMP.

Sidebar: Step Two of the MDMP (Mission Analysis)

2011-11-26T10:06:00.001-05:00

We will talk more extensively about problem-solving and decision-making processes when we discuss how leaders plan, but now it is appropriate to describe the generic problem-solving and decision-making methodology:

1. Identify a problem.
2. Analyze the problem.
3. Develop solutions to the problem.
4. Pick and implement the best solution.

The Army has developed a very good problem-solving and decision-making model, which loosely follows the above logic, called the Military Decision Making Process (or MDMP). Step two of the MDMP is called Mission Analysis, and is a very effective way for planners, staffers, and leaders to begin to understand the situation.

What Leaders Do > Understand the Situation > Employ Tools for Situational Understanding > Employ Step Two from the Army MDMP: Mission Analysis

In conjunction with our discussion on how leaders employ tools to understand the situation, I will present a condensed and simplified version of the Mission Analysis process below. Mission Analysis, as part of the whole MDMP, is discussed in its entireity in Army Field Manual (FM) 5-0, Appendix B.

Don't Use a Complex Tool to Solve a Simple Problem

First and foremost, it is important to think about the appropriateness of this (or any other) situational understanding, problem-solving, or decision-making tool prior to employment. Mission Analysis (and the MDMP) is designed for use under the following circumstances:

Size: Mission Analysis and MDMP are intended to be conducted by Army battalions, brigades, and divisions; these forces are comparable in size to small businesses and corporations of 300 to 20,000 (or more) employees.

Structure: Organizations employing Mission Analysis and the MDMP should have a robust staff of planners and specialists (operations, HR, logistics, safety, et cetera), a second-in-command (VP operations or VP strategy) to lead the process, and multiple subordinate organizations capapble of executing plans developed.

Mission: The MDMP is intended for organizations that face a dynamic mission set whose elements (situation, mission, resources, et cetera) are ever-changing.

Employment of the MDMP outside of these parameters (that is, in smaller organizations or with simple missions) can create an unnecessary administrative burden. Several times, I have served on a staff when MDMP was not necessary, but conducted anyway (the mission was very clear and simple, the one acceptable course of action was obvious, et cetera).

The result was that we expended a large and unnecessary amount of time and effort to arrive at an obvious conclusion. Not only does this waste peoples' time (which effective planners and staffers rarely have any extra of), but it also kills morale, and creates a lack of confidence in the weak leaders who tolerate this nonsense.

The bottom line is: don't use a complex tool to solve a simple problem. If MDMP is too complex a tool for your simple situation or mission, abbreviate it (more on this during how leaders plan). Or, as another option, if MDMP is to extensive for your situation and mission, employ a more simple problem solving tool, such as the Eight Troop Leading Procedures (again, more on this during how leaders plan).

Prelude to Mission Analysis

As mentioned, Mission Analysis is step two (of seven) in the MDMP. Prior to conducting Mission Analysis, receipt of mission (step one of the MDMP) occurs.

'Receipt of mission' should actually be 'receipt, identification, or determination of mission'. Sometimes you will receive a written order from higher, directing your organization to accomplish a mission. Sometimes, the awareness that a mission exists is not as specified;  there could be times when it is apparent that your organization has something to do (perhaps based out of necessity or opportunity that is not observed or realized by higher), yet you have not received a formal order to do so. These missions are deduced, as opposed to being specified.

In addition to the acknowledgement of a mission (in whatever form that takes), several other important activities occur during receipt of mission, including:

- Alerting planners and staffers that it's time to plan.
- Alert your subordinate organizations (through Warning Order #1) that a mission may be coming down.
- Gather the tools (people, equipment, software, publications and documents, et cetera).
- Update running estimates in each department (HR updates personnel status, logistics updates supplies and equipment on hand, et cetera).
- Conduct an initial assessment (a quick, five-minute estimate of what the organization is facing).

More on all of this when we discuss how leaders plan.

Mission Analysis, All 19 Steps

Step two of the Army's MDMP is Mission Analysis. This step has 19 sub-steps, and spans ten pages in FM 5-0, Appendix B. Here are the 19 sub-steps:

1. Analyze higher's guidance and products.
2. Conduct Initial Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB).
3. Determine specified, implied, and essential tasks.
4. Review assets and resources.
5. Determine Constraints.
6. Identify Facts and Assumptions.
7. Begin the Risk Management Process.
8. Develop Information Requirements.
9. Identify Information Collection Tools.
10. Develop an Information Collection Plan.
11. Develop an Initial Timeline.
12. Develop a Problem Statement.
13. Develop Information Campaign Themes and Plan.
14. Develop a Mission Statement.
15. Present the Mission Analysis Briefing.
16. Develop Commander's Intent.
17. Develop Initial Planning Guidance.
18. Develop Course of Action Evaluation Criteria.
19. Issue a Warning Order.

Mission Analysis, Simplified

As you can see, 19 sub-steps over ten pages ends up being very busy, and can seem very confusing. However, Mission Analysis and its 19 sub-steps can be conceptually simplified by thinking about the whole process in three logical groups: analysis, initial development, and communication.

Analysis

Mission Analysis begins with analysis. First, analysis is conducted on what (if anything) has been provided by higher (sub-step #1). This can include specific orders for this mission; less specific near, short, or long-term guidance; quarterly or annual goals and objectives, et cetera.

Next, an analysis of the external and internal environments are conducted. This includes the conduct of initial Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (sub-step #2), which is loosely comparable to the O and T of SWOT analysis; as well as a review of assets and resources (sub-step #4), which is loosely comparable to the S and W of SWOT analysis.

Initial Development

Mission Analysis continues with initial development of critical mission details, information strategy, and early plan development.

     Critical Mission Details

Critical mission details are articulated in a series of lists:

- A list of specified, implied, and essential tasks (sub-step #3) is developed. Essential tasks ultimately become the focal point for mission accomplishment.
- A list is developed of any inherent or imposed constraints (sub-step #5).  Constraints can reside inherent in the situation, or can be imposed by higher based on political, financial, or other considerations.
- A list of facts and assumptions (sub-step #6) is developed. With regard to this problem, what do we know to be hard facts? What key pieces of information (or human behaviors) do we assume to be true?

     Information Strategy

Next, the information collection strategy is developed. This includes developing a list of information requirements - what information do we need to know about the situation, the competition, and ourselves (sub-step #8); identifying the tools (available and required) to collect required information (sub-step #9); and developing a plan for information collection (sub-step #10).

     Early Plan Development

Next, critical pieces and components of the plan are initially developed. This includes
     - Development of the risk management process (sub-step #7),
     - The timeline (sub-step #11),
     - A problem statement (sub-step #12),
     - An information campaign plan (sub-step #13),
     - A mission statement (sub-step #14),
     - The Commander's intent (the leader's personal comments on mission accomplishment) (sub-step #16), and
     - Initial planning guidance (general concept for subordinate organizations, when to expect an operations order, et cetera) (sub-step #17).

     The Oddball

Additionally, preparation for the next step of MDMP (Course of Action Development - step 3) is started with the development of course of action evaluation criteria (sub-step #18).  These evaluation criteria are developed at this point primarily to prevent the twisting of the development of evaluation criteria after courses of action have been developed, in order to favor a particular course of action.

Communication

Once analysis and initial development described above have been conducted, they are communicated within the organization conducting the planning, and to subordinate organizations for their concurrent planning and future execution.

Communication first occurs at the planning organization's level with the mission analysis brief (sub-step #15). The presentation of the mission analysis brief serves to establish a common operating picture among all planners and leaders in the organization, and provides the organization's leader (who usually has a limited role in Mission Analysis) an opportunity to provide feedback (accept, reject, or modify analysis or initial development products). It is with the mission analysis brief that situational understanding should really begin to occur.

Once any modifications and changes from the mission analysis brief are applied to the analysis and initial development products, all information is pushed to subordinate organizations through the issue of the second warning order (sub-step #19).

From Understanding to Action

Even though the organization moves on with the MDMP, Mission Analysis should never really end. Analysis continues and is ongoing (as leaders, aren't we constantly analyzing the situation and our mission); perhaps another review of the information will yield new insight, or perhaps the situation is dynamic and evolving. Similarly, initial development products get refined and updated as the situation evolves.

Once mission analysis (step two) is completed, the MDMP continues as Course of Action Development (generation of options) begins. Developed courses of action are then analyzed and compared, and the best one (hopefully) is selected and approved. From this point, warning orders to subordinate organizations are galvanized into a comprehensive, complete operations order (which is the Army's format for communicating instructions and orders). More on all of this when we discuss how leaders plan.

Read, Discuss, Then Practice and Employ

One important final thought: it is important to initally obtain a strong understanding of this (and other) situational understandign, problem-solving, and decision-making processes. There is value in reading about these directly from the manual, as there is value in me adding a little explanation or commentary to the manual. Ideally, this explanation and commentary would develop into discussion.

However, real learning and understanding of this and other situational understanding, decision-making, and problem-solving processes really begins to occur when practiced through hands-on leader development exercises, then employed in the setting in which they will ultimately be used.

Sidebar: The Directed Telescope

2011-11-25T08:40:00.002-05:00

In this post, I will briefly discuss this concept of the directed telescope.

What Leaders Do > Understand the Situation > Get Good Info > Employ Trusted Advisers > The Directed Telescope

There are times when the leader cannot be at the decisive point and time of their organization's operations. Reasons for this could include: the operation may be geographically-dispersed, its multiple activities may be occurring concurrently, or THE organization leader's presence is for some reason inappropriate.

To compensate for this (as mentioned in part five of my series on understanding the situation), leaders can deploy trusted agents to be where they are not, to observe and report (and be ready to act, if necessary).  This technique is called 'the directed telescope' method of command and control, as it was coined by Lieutenant Colonel Gary Griffin in a 1991 pamphlet published by the U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute. From Griffin:

'The directed telescope or, more specifically, the use of specially selected, highly qualified, and trusted young officers as special agents or observers for the commander.... These young officers have been popularly referred to as the 'eyes' of the commander. Throughout military history, the use of officers in this capacity has been critical in obtaining battlefield command information for the commander.... From the loyal aides-de-camp of the Napoleonic era to the British command liaison officers of World War II, command and staff liaison systems, an often overlooked technique of command, have played an extremely important role in successful command and control at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of warfare.... While this tool may appear to be an anachronism, modern commanders and military theorists can ill afford to ignore the time-honored directed telescope concept...'

Broad Utility of Telescoping Agents

While Griffin speaks of using this technique to look down into subordinate organizations and their activities - and this clearly has value - I would argue that the utility of the directed telescope technique is more broadly applicable. These trusted agents can also be deployed to sister organizations, your parent organization, or other involved or important entities to help gain a better understanding of the situation.

For example, take one of your junior, eager leaders-in-training that possesses solid observation and communication skills, and send them to your higher headquarters to observe and report. Many times, they will provide you with a much more objective, clear, and speedy assessment than you will get through the normal channels of communications and reporting.

In addition to deploying telescoping agents to other organizations, you can also deploy telescoping agents to decisive places, events, and times to observe and report.

For example, in 2008 I was in charge of the command and control of aviation assets in one part of a large field training exercise at Fort Lewis, Washington. My duties and responsibilities included designing the flying schedule, communicating with aircraft, tracking their progress during execution, and assisting with any problems at the PZ (pickup zone) or LZ (landing zone). Aviation operations are inherently dangerous, and in this case was one of the most dangerous aspects of the training.  Several times throughout the exercise, the exercise Commander's safety officer (from three echelons up) came down to observe (at what the exercise Commander obviously identified as a decisive event within his operations). The safety officer would look around, ask questions, and observe the execution of training. When he finished and left, I am sure that he reported back to the exercise Commander his observations of the event observed. This is an example of using the directed telescope at a decisive event.

~~Telescoping Agents~~ Liaisons Dos and Don'ts

Before you send your trusted advisers out to other organizations, ensure they understand their rules of engagement. This includes making sure that they know what they are supposed to be looking for, what actions you expect them to do, and - very important - what actions you do not want them to do. Additionally, your trusted advisors should try to maintain a low profile, so as not to attract attention (and end up getting kicked out). Here are some guidelines to consider:

   1) Unless you instruct otherwise, telescoping agents don't ask questions, make recommendations, or get involved in the telescoped organization's planning, decision-making, or execution;
   2) Stay out of the way - away from high-traffic areas, perhaps in a back corner, busy typing away on a laptop or texting (sending back info);
   3) Be aware of and looking for what constitutes 'flash traffic' (critical information that that you would want or need immediately); and
   4) Know what event constitudes a reason to depart the telescoped organization and return.

Additionally, label these telescoping agents and have them identify themselves as 'liaisons'. Observers get kicked out of command posts, but everybody loves to receive liaisons; it makes the leaders and staff of the telescoped organization feel like they and their organization are important enough to merit liaison. Additionally, if someone is labeled a liaison, they are much less likely to be caught up into doing work - they're too busy liaising.

What To Do If You Get Telescoped

As a side note, if you ever find yourself in a situation where one of your supervisor's or senior supervisors' telescoping agents are observing your organization's activities, the best thing to do is to is to engage them in a positive way: welcome them, give them a hot cup of coffee and a brief overview of what's going on, ask for their questions and input, and thank them for coming.

Doing this will get you as favorable a report as possible, and may turn the Commander's agent into your advocate. In contrast, stonewalling a telescoping agent (being exclusive, unhelpful, unwelcoming) will do nothing but sour the agent's attitude, and probably the message he/she will carry regarding your activities; stonewalling a telescoping agent is strongly discouraged.

Telescoping Agents Don't Usurp Established Leadership Channels

Finally, a word of caution with the use of the directed telescope method: don't let it supersede the established, conventional channels of command and control. Again, from our friend Griffin:

'The history of the directed telescope system has not always been positive. Numerous historical events confirm the worst fears of those who view the system as a breach of the proper relationship between senior and subordinate commanders. There have been many instances of abuses by aides, observers, and liaison officers who were granted excessive authority. Even worse, sometimes commanders took these officers' observations at face value, which resulted in command decisions that brought about failure in battle...'

The risk of the use of telescoping agents going awry can be mitigated by selecting only your most mature, level-headed, trusted subordinates for the job. Do not send a idiot or a loose cannon out to be a telescoping agent, and you should be fine.

Leaders Understand the Situation (Part 5 of 7: Get Good Info)

2011-11-24T08:59:00.001-05:00

As stated previously, situational understanding precedes decisive action. When attempting to understand, we first and foremost attempt to listen well. Next, we employ organizational frameworks and situational understanding processes.

Next (and the subject of this post), we employ beneficial techniques to ensure that our frameworks and processes are informed with accurate, credible, and meaningful information. The best organizational frameworks and situational understanding processes are worthless if you feed them with bad information.

Six Techniques to Getting Good Information

We absolutely must get good information from which to develop our understanding of the situation, and inform our way forward. Here are six techniques (among an infinite number) that you can use to feed your frameworks and processes with good information:

1. Un-Ass Your Desk. Nothing can replace the value of seeing things for yourself. Get out from behind your desk, go to where the action is (or more technically correct: go to the decisive point and time of your operations), and observe activities and events for yourself.

2. Consult Trusted Advisors. Trusted advisors are those people within your organization who you trust and confide in. How does one become a trusted advisor? Here are some of my thoughts (which also serve as justification as to why you should listen to them): 1) proven subject matter expertise; 2) proven loyalty to you and the organization; 3) proven ability to disagree with you; 4) proven track record of outstanding performance; and 5) proven understanding of the organization, its mission, and its values. If you find people within your organization who meet the five criteria listed here, you will have trusted advisors whose reports you can rely upon.

Similarly, when your organization is conducting decisive operations, if you can't be there yourself, or perhaps it is inappropriate for you to be there, send one of your trusted advisors, using a technique described by Lieutenant Colonel Gary B. Griffin as The Directed Telescope. I will talk more about the directed telescope in a separate post.

3. Talk to the Men and Women on the Line. It's important to talk to subordinate leaders, but it is also very important to speak with the men and women, who are on the line, doing the job. Preferably, you want to interact with these people with little warning (so as to prevent preparation, over thinking of the meeting, or grooming by supervisors), in the environment in which they work (so examples of conditions and issues are readily available for direct observation by you).

4. Take advantage of technology. Personal observation is the most preferable method of observation. If personal observation is not possible or preferable, technology can be used to assist in obtaining good information and situational understanding. A picture is worth one thousand words; have subordinates at the location or operations of interest send photos, videos, audio recordings, et cetera. In today's day and age of Internet connectivity and multi-media capability, and meaningful audio and visual experience can be created and used very easily.

5. Take advantage of history. Organizations that have been in existence for any length of time have many historical artifacts. Additionally, it is highly likely that those organizations' activities are limited to the organization's purpose, and are repetitive in nature. This means that, in all likelihood, the organization has experienced the issue that you are currently facing before.

Historical artifacts can include: any number of reports (periodic, event, accident, et cetera), email correspondence (keyword search on the company servers), and oral histories (people who were with the organization the last time this issue occurred, past senior leaders, et cetera).

6. Take advantage of intellectual thought. There are a lot of smart people thinking about whatever it is that you're doing. Many of them write; stay current with the publications (books, magazines, blogs, Internet forms) of your industry or discipline.

Additionally, do not discount publications in related industries and disciplines. There are perhaps ideas and techniques that can be extracted and applied to your situation with success. For example, I have personally observed and employed the transfer of ideas and techniques among the disciplines of education, leadership, and HRM, as well as between the activities of flying, sailing, and motorcycling.

Finally, a word of extreme caution: DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE ISOLATED. Isolation exposes leaders to two of the most dangerous conditions they can find themselves in: manipulatability, and irrelevancy. If you don't know what's going on, you can be played. Also, if you don't know what's going on, you are unlikely to be able to help your subordinates (which is what leaders are supposed to be doing). As a sidebar, it is for this reason why I prefer trapezoidal or matrix heirarchical organization, as opposed to the traditional pyramid organizational heirarchy.

Next up, balancing our thinking as part of achieving situational understanding.

Leaders Understand the Situation (Part 4 of 7: Employ Tools for Situational Understanding)

2011-11-24T07:27:00.002-05:00

In part three of this series, I suggested that complex situations can be more easily understood if deconstructed into relevant elements, and arranged within some comprehensive framework. In this post, I will discuss some of the tools that can be employed to collect information, which can then be arranged within the framework selected or developed.

If you think about it for a moment, you may join me in coming to the conclusion that information collection in support of situational understanding occurs constantly within our lives. Here are some examples: telephone calls to see how things are going, site visits, the development and review of periodic reports, emails, et cetera; throughout our day, we are continuously constructing and revising a mosaic of situational understanding through almost every action and interaction. Additionally, there are some deliberate processes that we can perform, which are intended specifically to gain situational understanding.

While the type and number of tools employable for situational understanding are potentially infinite, I would like to speak about some of them in three loose categories: 1) internally-oriented evaluation-type events; 2) routine interactions; and 3) bona fide situational understanding processes.

Internally-Oriented Evaluation-Type Events

Because a key component of situational understanding is understanding your own organization, much situational understanding can be piggy-backed off of internally-oriented evaluation-type events, such as evaluations, inspections, surveys, assessments, and the like. The information collection part (as opposed to the judgment part) of these events is usually very effective in obtaining situational understanding of a single aspect of your operations, or perhaps the general situation of your organization as a whole. Comparing these to the idea of SWOT analysis (discussed in part two, and below), internally-oriented evaluation-type events provide the S and W of SWOT.

Because a judgment component is inherent in these events, evaluation-type events can be scary things. If the results are bad, many fear that they will be reprimanded or fired. To use evaluations-type events as tools to gain situational understanding, leaders must ensure emphasis on informality (only maliciousness or gross negligence will be disciplined). Say something like, 'I'm just here to figure out where things are, not to reward or punish.'
Below are a few examples of three internally-oriented evaluation-type events that we use, which are very well suited to help build situational understanding:

- Accident Prevention Survey (APS). This is a site visit by an external team of subject matter experts, who come in and look at several different categories (safety, standardization, flight operations, supply, maintenance, personal protective equipment, et cetera) of our aviation operations from a safety perspective. Like as is with most situational understanding tools, the output of this survey includes an outbrief describing the state of each inspected category, as well as recommendations of what improvements or changes can be made to increase the safety of operations. If done properly, when you're done with one of these things, you know where your organization stands.

- Command Inspection Program (CIP). Similar to the APS, the CIP is administered by a team of subject matter experts, and is designed to give the inspected organization's leaders an understanding of what state their Command Programs (supply, Equal Opportunity, human resources, budget and finance, et cetera) are in. Again, the output of this inspection includes an outbrief describing the state of each inspected category.

- Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback (MSAF). We are just starting to work with this tool in the Army. The MSAF (also known as a 360 degree appraisal) is a performance appraisal tool designed to transform how Army leaders get evaluated. Currently, Army leaders are evaluated by their supervisors two levels up; obviously, this method is provides no anonymity for the evaluator. In contrast, the MSAF is designed to include feedback and input from not only the rated leader's supervisors (still not anonymous), but also their subordinates, peers, and other associates in a format that affords some limited degree of anonymity.

Seen in this regard, the MSAF is partially a situational understanding tool for both the rated leader and their supervisors. I suggest that this tool can be broadened in scope, to provide a similar type of 360 degree understanding for organizations; can't we apply this principle to organizations, programs, and processes in conjunction with our efforts to obtain situational understanding (as well as organizational evaluation and change)?

Routine Interactions

Even more obvious than the evaluations, inspections, surveys, and assessments described above, those activities which comprise our routine interactions - most notably discussion and personal observation - can serve as our primary tools to gain situational understanding.

- Discussion. Talking to all of the different players is an effective tool to build situational awareness. Speak with subordinates, supervisors, peers, and trusted advisors; explain to them that you are trying to build your situational understanding on a particular issue, process, or aspect of operations; and ask them for their opinion. After talking with several people, you will very likely begin to gain situational understanding as you notice frequently-mentioned elements, challenges, and issues.

- Personal Observation (Immersion). Want to see what the situation is with an organization, program, or process? Conduct an informal assessment, by observing the operation in context. Embed yourself into that situation and pay attention. Bring your organizational framework (from part two), and start filling in the blanks.

Bona Fide Situational Understanding Processes

Finally, processes exist which are specifically designed to develop situational understanding. Examples of these include SWOT analysis, Mission Analysis, and Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield.

- SWOT Analysis. From corporate America. This acronym (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) serves not only as an organizational framework (as mentioned in part two), but also a situational understanding process. The process includes an internal, self-assessment (to determine the organization, program, or process' strengths and weaknesses), as well as both a macro and micro-level external survey (to determine opportunities and threats).

- Mission Analysis. Step two of the Army's Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), Mission Analysis is the Army's primary situational understanding process. In my opinion, this is really the pinnacle of decision-making and problem-solving; outputs of this process include a thorough understanding of the macro and micro-environments, the competition, your organization's current state, and the current mission. I will write extensively about Mission Analysis in a separate post; in the meantime, you can read more about it in Army Field Manual (FM) 5-0, Appendix B.

- Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB). A process that is conducted before, with, after, in conjunction with, and separate of the MDMP and Mission Analysis. IPB is an externally-oriented situational understanding tool, which primarily focuses on the macro and micro-environmental conditions, as well as the customer and competition (or for the Army, the enemy force). Another way to think about IPB: it is the O and T of SWOT analysis. I will discuss IPB in depth in a separate post (referencing FM 34-103, which is 'open source' and not restricted in distribution).

Next up, how to get good info to feed your organizational frameworks and situation understanding processes.

Leaders Understand the Situation (Part 3 of 7: Understand the Elements of a Situation)

2011-11-22T06:47:00.001-05:00

Situational understanding starts with listening. Once we get our listening skills straight, we then have to start to get our heads around the situation. To make sense of massive quantities of information and a potentially dynamic environment, leaders and organizations use conceptual frameworks.

A conceptual framework helps deconstruct a situation into comprehendable pieces (or elements). Their forms vary significantly, based on type of organization, activities conducted, and leaders' style of learning and processing information; but generally speaking, conceptual frameworks articulate the elements of the situation into some form of the following five categories:

     Macro-Level Conditions
     Micro-Level Conditions
     The Competition: Composition and Objective
     Ourselves: Composition and Objective
     Resource Situation

Conceptual Framework Examples

The conceptual framework that you employ to organize the situation in which your organization finds itself should adequately address all of the aspects of the situation. It also may need to be tailored to accommodate the organization's leaders' styles of learning and processing information.

Below are four examples of what conceptual frameworks can look like:

Army Operations Order (OPORD) Paragraph 1 (Situation)

This one is a pretty detailed framework. The Army uses a five paragraph narrative to communicate orders and instructions to its organizations at all levels, from Squad to Corps. The first of these five paragraphs is a framework for both situational understanding and situational description. Take a look at Army Field Manual (FM) 5-0, Appendix E for more information. Here is a very brief example of what a Paragraph 1 would address:

PARAGRAPH 1. SITUATION
1. Terrain and Weather.
     - AO. Area of Operation. The broad area around where operations will occur.
     - AI. Area of Interest. The immediate area within which operations will occur.
     - Terrain. A specific description of the terrain within the AI, to include key terrain.
     - Weather. A description of the climatology within the AO/AI, as well as a forecast of weather for the AI during the times that operations will occur.

2. Enemy Forces.
     - DOCTEMP. Doctrinal Template. A description of how the enemy force expected to be encountered operates, according to enemy doctrine.
     - DCS. Disposition, Composition, and Strength. Takes the DOCTEMP (which describes the type of force to be encountered), and applies it to the specific unit expected to be encountered. Disposition addresses where they are, what they have been doing, and what kind of condition they're in (is morale high because they have been enjoying a recent series of successes?). Composition describes what the specific enemy expected to be encountered force consists of, to include equipment, organization, and any differences from the doctrinal template. Strength addresses how well manned and equipped the enemy force is currently.
     - Mission. What is the enemy trying to accomplish?
     - SITTEMP. Situation Template. Takes the DOCTEMP, incorporates the changes discussed in DCS, and applies it to the AI. How will this specific unit be arrayed in this specific terrain?
     - MLCOA. Most Likely Course of Action. What is the enemy force most likely to do?
     - MDCOA. Most Dangerous Course of Action. What is the thing that the enemy force could do, that would be most dangerous to us?

3. Friendly Forces.
     - Two Echelons Up:  Mission and Intent. What is our boss' boss' objective, and how does he/she intend to accomplish it?
     - One Echelon Up:  Mission and Intent. What is our boss' objective, and how does he/she intend to accomplish it?
     - Adjacent Units (left, right, front, rear). What are the other friendly units in the area? What capabilities do they have? How can I get in touch with them?
     - Other organizations (NGOs, DoS, et cetera). What are the other friendly organizations in the area? What capabilities do they have? How can I get in touch with them?
     - Attachments and Detachments. Are we augmented with any additional people, equipment, or capability during this operation? Have we been forced to give up any people, equipment, or capability to another unit?

METT-TC

More simple than Paragraph 1, METT-TC is an acronym, used by small units (Company and below), which facilitates understanding of the tactical-level mission variables. To say it another way: METT-TC is how small units organize the situation at a micro-level.

     Mission
     Enemy
     Troops available
     Terrain (and weather)
     Time
     Civilians

PMESII-PT

Similar to METT-TC, PMESII-PT is another acronym, this time used by higher level organizations (Brigade and higher), which facilitates understanding of the higher-level operational variables. To say it another way: PMESII-PT is how higher-level units organize the situation at a macro-level.

     Political
     Military
     Economic
     Social
     Information
     Infrastructure
     Physical environment
     Time

SWOT

From my time studying business. SWOT is yet another acronym, which helps organizations think about their situation. It includes introspection (what our are strengths and weaknesses?), as well as an external survey (where are the opportunities and threats?).

     Strengths
     Weaknesses
     Opportunities
     Threats

The above samples are just a few examples of how we can use conceptual frameworks to help organize our thinking about (and understanding of) the situation. Ideally, you should be able to construct a similar framework, tailored specifically for the types of operations you conduct.

All of the above examples are categorically structured (and perhaps this is the best way to develop an understanding of the elements of the situation), but I wonder if a condition exists, where a chronologically-structured framework would be more appropriate.

Next up in part four: employing tools to enable situational understanding.

Leaders Understand the Situation (Part 2 of 7: Listen)

2011-11-21T07:05:00.003-05:00

Mission Accomplishment spawns from Situational Understanding. Much of situational understanding comes from input, feedback, advice, and intelligence received from others; seen in this way, it is easy to understand that Situational Understanding begins with listening.

Let's find ourselves on the model: What Leaders Do > Understand the Situation > Listen

Listening is one of the most important and most common activities that leaders do. For a number of reasons, to include 1) information overload, 2) the general egocentric nature of humans, and 3) the acute egocentric nature of some leaders; 99 percent of leaders don’t listen well.

Instead of thinking (or hoping) that you're a good listener, you would be well served to assume that you don’t listen well.

A little logic for you. Think about it this way:

1. If you assume that you do not listen well, but you do, you will just end up being a better listener; there is no downside here.

2. However, if you assume that you are a good listener, but you are not, then you will be that boss that doesn’t listen, the brick wall that people will eventually stop talking to (definite downside here). Have you ever worked for this person? It's like talking to a telephone pole.

Given the above two points, why wouldn't all leaders work to become better listeners?

Tools for Better Listening

OK, so if you're on board with the idea that being a better listener means being able to better understand the situation (and thus be a better leader), then consider the below tools for better listening.

If you're not on board: see, I told you so - many leaders don't listen well. Life and leading are going to be harder for you than they have to be.

1. Be Aware of Assumptions and Preconceived Notions. Many times, in dealing with leadership issues, I intuitively believe that I understand the situation (or its underlying reasons), only to discover later that my read of the situation was entirely wrong. This occurs because I subconsciously (and incorrectly) apply a script or scheme from a past similar experience to the event at hand. This especially has the potential to occur when I am anxious or excited about a particular issue, and does real damage to the effectiveness of my listening skills.

Our best defense against assumptions and preconceived notions is twofold: awareness and verification. First, we force ourselves (especially during times of anxiety or excitement) to acknowledge our propensity to think we know what's going on, and jump to conclusions. Second, prior to forming or acting upon conclusions, we validate and verify our assumptions and preconceived notions by asking lots of questions. Asking verifying and validating questions will either confirm or deny your assumptions and preconceived notions, and will transform them into credible facts.

2. Hire a Translator. I occasionally talk with technicians in various fields (to include medicine, law, mechanics, information technology and electricity to name a few), who are speaking English, but I have no F'ing clue what they're saying.

This is one of the many challenges of generalist (leader) and specialist (technician) interaction: as a leader, I am 'an inch deep and a mile' wide with regard with regard to my subject matter expertise. I know a little about a lot, usually just enough to manage and lead it.

So when a technical expert comes stepping to me with his techno-babble, I say 'como what?' and get a translator. Translators are usually 1) junior managers or leaders, who have more depth and understanding on that technical area than you do, or 2) a technician in that area who has the social skills and vocabulary to translate techno-babble to layperson and back. Avoid trying to speak techno-babble, as you will likely end up looking stupid (think Nick Burns, your company's computer guy from SNL, making computer users wear helmets).

3. Go to the Horse’s Mouth. There are other times when you don't want an intermediary. You want to personally hear the information, from the source, for yourself. Perhaps the exact words used are important. I find this technique to be especially important when details are critical, during negotiation, or when I suspect that the source may be disingenuous. Additionally, in these cases, it may be helpful to watch the other tells: voice inflection, body posture, eye contact, et cetera; and the only way that you can reliably do this is to see for yourself.

4. Rephrase. Intimidated, unconfident, don't really know what they want, just want to bitch or tattle, fishing, et cetera - for a number of reasons, people frequently muddle incoherently and beat around the bush when talking with leaders. Your time is important, and if you're like me, you don't have any extra time to commit to trying to figure out what people are saying (and what they really mean). To cease the linguistic dancing and expedite to decision and action, consider the various forms of rephrasing:

Ask them to rephrase what they're saying, in a more clear, concise manner: 'Tell me what you're saying in one sentence'.

Or, you can rephrase for them: 'This is what I think you are saying to me...'

Sometimes, it's the verbal, interpersonal communication that causes people to stumble. For these, try: 'Write your point down on a yellow sticky', or 'Send me an email summarizing your issue in three sentences'.

5. Stop looking at the computer, hand held, et cetera. I am addicted to the Internet. The power and speed at which information appears on my computer screen is awesome, and hypnotic. If there is a computer screen in my field of view, and a human being competing for my attention, the computer screen has a very good chance of winning most or some of my attention.

Therefore, because I have this flaw and I know I have this flaw, I take steps to mitigate it. I have moved my computer off of my main desk, over to a side credenza. When it's time to talk with people, and I'm sitting at my desk, that beautiful glowing computer screen full of ones and zeros is not within my field of view. Now I can give you my full attention.

The corollary here: if you're trying to talk to your boss, and he or she is looking at the computer screen, it is very possible that they aren't fully listening to you. In this case, proceed as you see fit: if you really need their attention, ask for it. Or, if they're a douche and are sitting there giving you some form of mindless affirmative response ('sure', 'okay', 'uh-huh', or something similar), go for it: a day off next Monday, flex-schedule hours, Hawaiian shirt Friday, et cetera. Make them pay for not listening.

6. Stop interrupting or finishing others' sentences. Finally, don't be that boss that finishes other peoples' sentences. Why not? First, it is extremely rude and disrespectful. Second, you are sure to not get the message that was intended for you, because 1) you interrupted its transmission, and 2) prior to your interruption of the message, you had to stop listening and start thinking about what it was that you were going to say when you did interrupt. Third, people absolutely deplore being interrupted and misunderstood.

People think that communication involves two modes: receive and transmit. I submit that good communication actually consists of three modes: receive, THINK, and transmit (and it is the modes of receive and think that make up the act of listening). There is a whole separate mental process associated with listening, that doesn't have the ability to occur if you do too much talking.

People who are stuck in transmit mode lack the ability to properly receive. When others are transmitting, shut the F up. Then, once they are done transmitting, think about what they said before responding or acting. This is listening.

Next up in this series, we will discuss the Elements of the Situation.