A Noble Goal
It happened as early in your career as basic training. Your drill sergeant asked you a question and you responded correctly—sort of. Although the content of your answer was sound, he insisted not only that he couldn’t hear you, but that you lacked a pair of something. When you repeated your answer with zeal, focus, and intensity, the problem was mysteriously solved. This universal experience vividly illustrates the Army’s enduring and pervasive commitment to cultivating confidence in every soldier—a commitment that is as noble as it is necessary.
A Misconception
Unfortunately, a great deal of the Army’s traditional efforts toward cultivating soldier confidence are based on the misconception that confidence (much like honesty or fairness) is a virtue that ought to be practiced. Confidence, however, is not a virtue but an asset. Behaviors like decisiveness, authoritative tone, and command presence, are merely the natural byproducts of possessing the asset of confidence. Although these behaviors can be faked, genuine confidence cannot be practiced until it is possessed. Leaders, therefore, should refrain from demanding the behaviors of confidence, and begin supplying the foundations of confidence: Competence, Confirmation, and Conviction.
Competence
The very best soldiers lack confidence whenever they lack competence. That is because the best soldiers understand that genuine confidence must be rooted in tactical proficiency. History, experience, and common sense all confirm that soldiers and leaders who manufacture behaviors of confidence to mask their own incompetence do tremendous harm both to their unit and to their mission. Confidence without competence is far more dangerous than competence without confidence. That is why leaders must take personal responsibility for training their soldiers. When a soldier does not appear confident about performing a task, nine times out of ten it is because he/she does not feel properly trained and equipped.
Confirmation
I drove for three different team leaders in Iraq. I did a good job for two and a poor job for one. It wasn’t that I didn’t like the guy. I really tried. But when he second-guessed every decision I made, my confidence was slowly eroded. Eventually I found it difficult to make the spilt-second decisions the job required. Whether driving, evaluating a casualty, or determining levels of force, soldiers face many spilt-second decisions, each with long-term consequences. The difficulty of these decisions can be disastrously compounded by incessant criticism. The soldier will ask, “If everything I’ve done thus far has been wrong, how can I be confident in what I’m about to do?” As leaders, we must take every opportunity to confirm a soldier’s competence by recognizing good performance as we see it. When soldiers do the right thing, we need to tell them that they did the right thing!
Conviction
There’s the right thing to do tactically, and there’s the right thing to do morally. We do a lot of talking about one (as we should) and almost no talking about the other. This is unfortunate. I don’t mean that leaders need to start teaching ethics or promoting religion. That is not the point. What I mean is that leaders need to help their soldiers believe in what they are doing. True confidence doesn’t just mean knowing that you can do something. It means valuing it. If you believe that what you do in the Army is a force for good in the world on any level, take some time and share that belief with your soldiers. If you find that you don’t believe in anything you do, please do us all a favor and resign your position. Sharing your belief in the work of your unit doesn’t have to be a long-winded speech. In fact (take it from a lover of long-winded speeches), its better if its not. Keep it simple, keep it real, and keep it you. Your soldiers' confidence will benefit.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Three "M"s of Maintaining Soldier Mobility
One or the Other
Every soldier is a machine with two operating modes. They have “get the job done” mode, and they have “wait out the clock” mode. Regardless of what you may have heard, these are the soldier’s two operating modes and they are his/her only two modes. The challenge of every leader, therefore, is to keep his/her soldiers in “get the job done” mode for as long as there are jobs to do.
A Common Problem
Frequently, a leader will come upon a group of soldiers sitting around in “wait out the clock” mode. If this has happened to you, you know how infuriating it can be. When you’re up to your combat patch in administrative tasks and stressful deadlines, the last thing you want to see is a gaggle of carefree soldiers with an uncanny immunity to the urgency of your situation. That is why most leaders will immediately assume (either consciously or otherwise) that the soldiers are being lazy, and will issue a vague decree like “Get to work!” or “Find something to do!” I cannot overstate how destructive such snap-judgments are to unit moral and mission success. Group inactivity is rarely, if ever, a result of laziness.
The Myth of Soldier Laziness
There are some very lazy soldiers. This fact cannot be denied. Most soldiers, however, are not lazy. Most soldiers, when given the chance to do something demonstrably productive, will choose to do it rather than to sit around, even if the task is difficult or unpleasant. After all, the number one complaint given by soldiers about drill weekend is not that they dislike doing this or that, but that they dislike doing nothing! That is because soldiers, like all human beings, crave meaningful and validating work. Why then does inactivity occur? Because leaders fail to provide soldiers with the three things they need to stay in motion: Mission, Materials, and Motivation.
Mission
This is a no-brainer. Or, at least, it should be. If soldiers are to accomplish a task they must be given a task. If they are to accomplish another task they must be given another task. Why am I stating the obvious? Because instead of determining if soldiers have been given a task, too many leaders are still saying things like “Get to work!” every time they see inactivity. “Get to work!” is not a task. If soldiers do not have a task, “Get to work!” will not help them. Leaders must also set clear standards to ensure that the task is performed properly and contributes to overall unit success.
Materials
For every task there are required supplies and equipment. Leaders must anticipate what materials will be needed for each assigned task and ensure that soldiers have access to them. This is more difficult than it seems. That is because, in addition to physical tools, there are a number of essential supplies which leaders often overlook. Here is a just a short list:
I know what you’re thinking. “Motivation shouldn’t be an issue. If I tell my soldiers to do something that should be motivation enough!” Guess what? It’s not. A leader who only invokes his/her authority to motivate soldiers is like a man who draws water from the shallowest, muddiest well simply because it is closer. “Yes”, you have authority. And “Yes”, you are justified in invoking it. But your actions shouldn’t simply be justified. They should be effective!
The reason invoking authority alone is ineffective is that it doesn’t address a soldier’s natural and healthy curiosity about why tasks are done and how they relate to the overall mission. The most trivial tasks can be infused with significance by just a few words showing their necessity to troop safety or mission accomplishment. Leaders who consistently fail to explain why tasks are important are not only failing to motivate their soldiers properly, but are robbing them of the satisfaction of accomplishing an important task.
Every soldier is a machine with two operating modes. They have “get the job done” mode, and they have “wait out the clock” mode. Regardless of what you may have heard, these are the soldier’s two operating modes and they are his/her only two modes. The challenge of every leader, therefore, is to keep his/her soldiers in “get the job done” mode for as long as there are jobs to do.
A Common Problem
Frequently, a leader will come upon a group of soldiers sitting around in “wait out the clock” mode. If this has happened to you, you know how infuriating it can be. When you’re up to your combat patch in administrative tasks and stressful deadlines, the last thing you want to see is a gaggle of carefree soldiers with an uncanny immunity to the urgency of your situation. That is why most leaders will immediately assume (either consciously or otherwise) that the soldiers are being lazy, and will issue a vague decree like “Get to work!” or “Find something to do!” I cannot overstate how destructive such snap-judgments are to unit moral and mission success. Group inactivity is rarely, if ever, a result of laziness.
The Myth of Soldier Laziness
There are some very lazy soldiers. This fact cannot be denied. Most soldiers, however, are not lazy. Most soldiers, when given the chance to do something demonstrably productive, will choose to do it rather than to sit around, even if the task is difficult or unpleasant. After all, the number one complaint given by soldiers about drill weekend is not that they dislike doing this or that, but that they dislike doing nothing! That is because soldiers, like all human beings, crave meaningful and validating work. Why then does inactivity occur? Because leaders fail to provide soldiers with the three things they need to stay in motion: Mission, Materials, and Motivation.
Mission
This is a no-brainer. Or, at least, it should be. If soldiers are to accomplish a task they must be given a task. If they are to accomplish another task they must be given another task. Why am I stating the obvious? Because instead of determining if soldiers have been given a task, too many leaders are still saying things like “Get to work!” every time they see inactivity. “Get to work!” is not a task. If soldiers do not have a task, “Get to work!” will not help them. Leaders must also set clear standards to ensure that the task is performed properly and contributes to overall unit success.
Materials
For every task there are required supplies and equipment. Leaders must anticipate what materials will be needed for each assigned task and ensure that soldiers have access to them. This is more difficult than it seems. That is because, in addition to physical tools, there are a number of essential supplies which leaders often overlook. Here is a just a short list:
- Time: The time required to complete each task should be realistically evaluated to ensure that it is at least possible to complete them all.
- Training: Soldiers must actually know how to do what they’ve been instructed to do.
- Personnel: If the task requires a certain number of people, or people with certain qualifications, those people need to be made available.
I know what you’re thinking. “Motivation shouldn’t be an issue. If I tell my soldiers to do something that should be motivation enough!” Guess what? It’s not. A leader who only invokes his/her authority to motivate soldiers is like a man who draws water from the shallowest, muddiest well simply because it is closer. “Yes”, you have authority. And “Yes”, you are justified in invoking it. But your actions shouldn’t simply be justified. They should be effective!
The reason invoking authority alone is ineffective is that it doesn’t address a soldier’s natural and healthy curiosity about why tasks are done and how they relate to the overall mission. The most trivial tasks can be infused with significance by just a few words showing their necessity to troop safety or mission accomplishment. Leaders who consistently fail to explain why tasks are important are not only failing to motivate their soldiers properly, but are robbing them of the satisfaction of accomplishing an important task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
