Professional Self-Development, the Crumbling Pillar?

by Michael Shaw

In Thank You for Being Late, Thomas Friedman’s research found that, “a primary care physician would need more than 630 hours a month to keep up with the flood of new literature... related to his or her practice.” The volume of new and/or evolving information within many professional fields is vast. If Friedman’s estimates are even incorrect by half, the time required to consume, not to mention digest the vast quantities of information are staggering. Why is it then, so many avoid touching or engaging in the professional pillar of self-development?

While only a personal observation, when the question of what are you doing in the realm of self-development is asked one of three responses are typically heard: 1) I am taking college courses, 2) I attended the previously scheduled/directed Leader Professional Development talk, or 3) I am just too busy. When did professional self-development fall into such predetermined paths? Let’s take a brief look at each of these responses before moving on.

The taking of college courses is no doubt a method of self-development and if applied correctly is very possibly connected to professional self-development. So why then is there more to be said on the topic? The friction with the taking of college courses is two fold, first, the courses are most often connected to a final degree that is believed to be needed for promotion or elevation. Often this leaves very little commitment or connection between the student and the material with the exception of passing the course. Second, because the courses are on ones own time, the degrees selected are not often professionally aligned. Increasing ones education in general is of benefit to any organization and should increase the perspective of that worker when it comes to problem solving or enhancing operational perspective, but when the end state of the course and degree is simply completion then the organization as a whole end up overly educated and yet under developed. College or graduate education is a wonderful achievement both personal and professional, but the simple act of obtaining a degree does not guarantee enhanced application within the existing profession.

Next, the attending of scheduled leader professional development talks sounds like the sort of option that might meet the mark of professional self-development. After all, many professions hold seminars and lectures for which members of the professional body can attend and develop. However, the key to success with this type of professional self-development is the diversity of topics and the dissemination of events across the field for which one can select from a menu of tasks, debates or hands on application sessions. However, it has been my experience that the attending of singular and directed professional development forums is most often limited in scope, rudimentary in material and when directed to attend, eliminates the responsibility and stifles the interest of those in attendance. The success of medical and legal professional forums are that they offer a myriad of topics and throughout the year so that individuals have options from which to choose where and when to spend their time. Perhaps a page from such a playbook might be beneficial.

Finally, I am just too busy reverberates office cubicles. The title of professional is simple enough to say outlaid or to put on a business card but living up to the tenants of a profession are not so simple. Time is a precious commodity, one that can not be created but can be taken. To hear those in my profession speak to a lack of time to conduct self-development rings of misaligned priorities. While not all professions have annual hours or periodic self-development gates for continued certification, should such a requirement be necessary? Perhaps so. If fields such as education, medicine and law all believe that annual hours of continued self-development are essential to keeping their edges sharp, perhaps it is not only the blade they are concerned with but also a realization that people will most often take the path of lease resistance. If there is not a requirement then why spend the time. The old adage holds true, what one spends time inspecting is often what other spend time refining.

There is no simple answer to the topic of professional self-development. However, the subject remains one of the three pillars that form a profession. Besides ones schooling which stops at a given point and organizational education which is ongoing but only is a strong as the organization knowledge held within, self-development is the key to improving existing operations, preparing for future endeavors and ensuring that we prepare ourselves for the next inevitable professional shift.

What are you doing when if comes to self-development?

Thought Distillery: June 2019 - Counseling and Evaluation: How Does One Successfully Navigate These Demanding Expectations?

by Michael Shaw

This past fortnight, the Thought Distillery team met and discussed the ideas surrounding Counseling and Evaluations. To very little surprise, this topic drew ideas, observations, experiences and perspectives from almost every angle of leadership thought. Dialogue spanned the ideas that counseling is important but the way in which one goes through the motions varies and the impact they have upon their team is even more randomized. Discussion touched upon the Armed Services well drafted and exceptionally under executed counseling regulations. Experiences were shared describing a complete lack of counseling, a perceived lack of counseling and times where the counseling that was delivered lacked any sort of value.

Like many aspects of a profession, skills require practice and practice requires time, time that everyone seems to lack in their current routines. If time is the one value that seems to be required for each formula to work and yet the application or inclusion of that variable seems to be lacking. Perhaps it is not time that evades us, rather the importance or urgency to spend the commodity of time on such an endeavor.

Because the topic of counseling dominated much of the distilleries attention this session there was not much engagement into evaluations. What was touched upon was a lack of connection between expressed expectations and codified goals and the resulting paperwork that cemented ones annual performance. Perhaps if counseling was completing in a more regular manor then there might be greater clarity and expectation management for all parties involved?

What Do We Really Mean When We Say, Mentor?

Photo by Doug Finstad

By Michael C. Shaw

Words Mean Things 

How many of us have sat through a speech, promotion, award presentation, or a similar event where the speaker introduces the subject of mentoring?  In the U.S. Army, such mention is part of the infamous “teach, coach, mentor” bundle.  Such references are either giving thanks to someone for providing or describing how they are proud to have provided such a capability.  Even in job/performance descriptions the written triad of “to teach, coach, and mentor” is often seen.  I beg to ask; do we truly know what such words mean and what commitments are garnered by invoking such terms.  I feel that, much like the term leadership, mentorship has become a common, overused, and misunderstood turn of phrase.  An unfortunate bumper sticker for those who are in positions of authority and unsure how to define some of their role and efforts.  Mentorship is an action that can't be done "to" someone. Instead, it is a process, dare I say a relationship that takes more than lip service, positional authority, or an existing hierarchical structure.  Mentorship requires trust and a level of intimacy that can only exist over time.

BAM

The etymology of the word mentor comes from the Greek, Mentor, “a wise advisor, intimate friend who also is a sage counselor,” who is a “friend of Odysseus in the “Odyssey.”  What I find striking in the origin of this term and pivotal to the word’s usage is the usage of the term intimate.  Intimacy, is generated by choice, not by obligation or assignment. Teaching and coaching can be conducted through positional leadership assignment (think academia and extracurricular activities), though without an extra investment in time and a formation of intimacy the mentorship relationship doesn’t form.  We’ve all had many teachers and coaches but only a few where such intimacy ever existed with simultaneous commitment from each participant impacting each other on a deeper level.  All too often the term mentorship is used as though an action to be imparted upon someone. To borrow the expression so often used by the television celebrity and chef Emeril Lagasse, "BAM," you have been mentored.

But why should we be cautious about using the term teach, coach, and mentor in the same turn of phrase? Simply put, words have meaning. While some word definitions may be similar or occasionally touch one another through synonym association, word origins and their usage separate them.  The terms teach, coach, and mentor fall into a realm of perceived similarity and thus all too often are clumped together as three words yet only one action.  Teaching, coaching, and mentoring are separate but not equal.  Individuals spend years learning how to master just one of these skills.  So instead of falling victim to verbal runoff, perhaps we should take a closer look at our intended outcomes and be satisfied if, in the end, we are merely the best teacher, best coach, or best mentor possible. 

Departure

How then does one determine when a relationship moves from the stage of a teacher or a coach to that of a mentor?  After several evenings of debate amongst friends and associates on this question of when does mentorship first take place, I propose that a mentor/mentee relationship is born only upon termination of the initial positional authority relationship.  Only once all requirements to work or perform for someone are removed can both parties truly enter an association of intimacy.  Now, this does not ignore or devalue the trust and development that existed during the initial term of professional engagement, just the opposite.  Such time is critical to the development and future of the two parties. Instead, while under a hierarchical model, the passing of information or advise lacks the intimacy that must exist for mentorship to take root.  Instead, teaching and coaching become the predominate and no less important or influential methods for the passing of advice and professional tools.  While we tend to want to throw the title of mentorship into this situation, the lack of choice from the advisee is the exact reason why mentoring is not taking place.

Once established in a mentor/mentee relationship, future boss to subordinate associations or assignments matters less in the capacity of the two to continue a mentorship association. Intimacy exists and thus the higher form of engagement through a mentor can and should continue.    

Where Do I Get Mine?

In a similar vein as discussed above regarding leaders mentoring at a subordinate, “BAM,” the junior individual in the relationship has just as much responsibility in developing and sustaining the rapport.  In many a group coaching session with junior officers I have been asked, how does one "get a mentor."  While knowing such phrasing may not be precisely what the individual had in mind, the theme of the question is common.  Many have grown up hearing that they should have a mentor in their lives and yet no discussion exists on where and how such a relationship is established. While many know that such a relationship is not assigned, they are still waiting for someone to tap them on the shoulder and introduce themselves as their mentor.  More time and energy needs to be expended with junior individuals, discussing how they must play an active role in reaching out to prospective mentors thus communicating an intent beyond the assigned relationship. 

Moreover, rank and position do not singularly qualify an individual to be a mentor.  General officers and chief executive officers are not in abundance, and the opportunity to develop any level of intimacy with such individuals is infrequent especially the more junior you are, only because of interaction limitations and exposure.  Mentors exist in fields that we want to pursue, in families that we wish to emulate, in financial management we want to match.  Mentorship is much more than the generality of a successful senior vice president and a young manager within a company.  

Conclusion

It is time mentorship was placed in its own class.  Such an endeavor between two people is an undertaking that requires energy, time, and intimacy beyond that for which many of us have deliberately prepared.  Mentorship is a verb, an action that needs to happen through us, not to us.  While time consuming, such intimacy is also exceptionally rewarding for both parties. Let us begin a new chapter where teaching and coaching pave the way to the potential for future mentorship.

Thought Distillery: March 2019 - Is Leadership More Important Over Time or Space?

by Michael Shaw

This past week, the Thought Distillery met and discussed the idea of leaderships impact in regard to time and space. This topic does not fall featly into categories of black or white, heck sometime grey is too stark a color. Thoughts and ideas spanned from leader development to monthly USR reporting to annual evaluations to training units versus tactical units.

The primary theme for which the group tackled centered around immediate impacts in day to day activities which are measurable and used for performance statistics versus the prolonged development of individuals or the organization in the next 12, 24, or 36 months. Because we as a military value present production the value of organizational success in the near future continues to be of little relevance, at least that is the way it appears. 

We all toiled with questions such as:

1. Does performance trump potential or potential trump performance? Have you ever received an evaluation that did not represent your actual performance?

2. How do evaluation profiles fit into performance vs potential?

3. Just like sports, commanders change out as often as coaches. If you have a successful team is that because of the work you did building that team or is that the path they were already on.

4. What should the formation look like under the next commander/IP/PSG/manager? Should you be held accountable or is it statistically relevant to track their success, retention, etc?

5. Do the actions of today matter more or less than the impacts you have on 6 months from now?

6. Was Lincoln effective just because he brought in the right people or was the path he charted what enabled those diverse thinkers and political opponents to succeed?

During the discussion it was suggested that all training schools are graded and ranked across the branch of service. We rank colleges, it might be worth wile to know which Captains Career Course or Warrant Officer Advanced Course, etc were the best in the Army. Pride, effort, dedication, all things that individuals look for in the organizations they work and presently there is very little that categorizes training schools and how they stack up. There is something to be said for knowing if you are #1 or #75.

If this subject peeks your interest, here are a couple of books and articles that travel further down these rabbit holes.

Books:

Team of Rivals by Dorris Goodwin

Built to Last by Jim Collins

Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster

Articles:

The importance of leadership to organizational success

Differentiating high potential from performance 

Thought Distillery: February 2019 - Technology or the Consumer, Who is in Control?

by Michael Shaw

As some of you may have noticed, our monthly think and drink is possibly undergoing a name change. Welcome to the monthly Thought Distillery! While not permanent quite yet, there has been plenty of positive feedback thus far to position our gathering for such a change.

During this months intellectual escapades, we discussed the topic of technology and the impact, positive or negative, that it currently plays on us individually, us as social creatures, those inside our organizations and those inside the professional sphere at large.

In opening the discussion the story was shared about drafting this events discussion outline and how in that one brief 30 min period of “dedicated” work I stopped to look at my phone twice, messed with four separate computer applications and stopped to have three separate brief conversations with those around me. Furthermore, as I draft this summary I have opened and searched five websites that may or may not be applicable to this text, searched though my bank account and played with my dogs. While not all technologically connected, I argued this past week and will continue to believe that we are currently overly stimulated and continuously distracted by irrelevant and unnecessary actions, notifications, interactions and communications. Society at large has let technology control and drive daily interactions whether they be with friends, colleagues, commercial enterprises or academic exploration. While not necessarily overall, it is this individuals opinion from this weeks conversation that we need to take back control of our time, our energy and our overall connectedness to the technological world.

The influence of technology in our daily life offend goes unchecked or self-unregulated. Perhaps it is time to take an unbiased look at how much time each of us are spending engaged with technology and how much of that time is necessary, self-induced, helping o hindering all other factors. Is the work cell really that much of a help or is the 24/7 expectation not allowing people to truly disconnect when they get home for that much needed separation from work? If 24/7 connectivity is truly such a win, then why are corporations looking to reward and incentivize those who disconnect?

There is no easy answer and technology is not going to disappear, that genie is out of the bottle and will not go back in. So where do we go from here? This conversation is very much worth having at all levels.

For those that want to dig a little deeper, here are some readings that you might find interesting.

Books:

Board and Brilliant by Manoush Zomorodi

Wired for War by P. W. Singer

Brain Rules by John Medina

The Honest Truth about Dishonesty by Dan Ariely

The Inevitable by Kevin Kelly

The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell

Articles:

Your Identity has Three Layers and You Can Only Protect One of Them

The Surprising Benefits of Boredom

New Research Answers Whether Technology is Good or Bad for Learning

Bottle to Intellectual Throttle: Installment #3 - Lead by Example: What Does that Mean?

by Michael Shaw

Bottle to Intellectual Throttle (BIT) kicked off 2019 with an enthusiastic gathering of new and old faces. It was a welcome start to a new year of intellectual exploration.

This month, Mike Gourgues took the helm and challenged the group with this question - Lead by Example: What Does that Mean?  Like many pithy leadership quotes, leader of all variants are familiar with the phrase Lead by Example.  But when you take the time to ask someone what that means exactly the explanations vary from canned responses such as “do the right thing when no one is looking” to more introspective such as “demonstrating those specific actions that one wants emulated or duplicated within their organizational culture.”  Some even boiled the subject down sarcastically by suggesting “don't be asshole!”

In Stanley McChrystal’s new book, Leaders: Myth and Reality, Mike shared with the group McChrystal’s research explaining how consistency in adaptation to changing situations in the moment was a key to success for many great leaders. This idea points to the idea that leading by example through individual experiences may be just as impactful as an crafted response that is duplicated over and over again based on a specific set of circumstances.

What the group did agree upon was that we are always leading by example whether we mean to or not. Moreover, one persons interpretation of that example will not be the same as another’s. One leaders directive nature may be appreciated by some but resented by others. More importantly, before one concerns themselves with how their leadership is being interpreted then must first take time to look internally and figure out what example they are trying to set. While leading by example may be a daily occurrence, intended or not, only through a self-examined life can a leader can begin to deliberately shape the example they desire.

Bottle to Intellectual Throttle: Installment #2 - Teach, Coach, Mentor: More Than a Cliche?

Photo by Doug Finstad

by Michael Shaw

During this months installment of Bottle to Intellectual Throttle (BIT), the GATCT team offered for public consumption, the phrase “Teach, Coach, Mentor” (TCM). The hypotheses presented was, this phrase is overused, misunderstood and even more often misapplied by leaders or individuals in positions of authority.

The evenings format was a roundtable discussion with a twist. Creator and writer of the well known blog, From the Green Notebook, Joe Byerly, joined the conversation via Skype and offered his insights into the importance and complexities of mentorship. The GATCT team is grateful to Joe, Mike and Kim, for making the evenings gathering a wonderful success. Whenever we as people, not positions or points of authority, gather together, discuss, disagree, debate and learn something from one another, the investment in time is always rewarded.

Here are some of the evenings thoughts worth sharing.

1. Using the phrase, TCM, is an automatic response by most leaders within the Army and yet most that use the term can not identify the difference between each of the three distinctly different levels of that phrase.

2. Teaching, coaching, and mentoring are individual professions all on their own. People and professions focus their lifes education and expereinces on the art and science of each word independent of the others. Yet, as a Soldier in a position of leadership there is an unspoken expectation to preform these skills. Additionally, there is a misguided self-perception that because one is in a position of authority that they are indubitably performing each of these three skills.

3. Teaching, Coaching and Mentoring are each similar and yet different. Teaching is built upon by coaching and mentoring is the surgical application of the first two. The greatest divide and debate falls at the foot of mentorship. There was unanimous agreement that mentorship was the one skill or action that needed separation from the phrase TCM; TC-M.

4. You can teach at someone, you can coach at someone, but you can not mentor at someone. The act of mentorship is only solidified when there is a positive two way relationship that has grown beyond the bounds of positional/hierarchical authority. A debate throughout the evening surrounded an idea that mentorship only takes root once the initial bounds of positional authority are removed.

5. Throughout the evening, Joe Byerly offered a couple of insights to the importance of mentorship. First, he introduced us to Major General Fox Connor, the Army’s mentorship cornerstone. While successful in his own right, Fox Connor was mentor to George Patton, George Marshall and President Eisenhower, not through his telling but through his mentee’s recounts. Second, Joe reminded the group that mentorship is a tool to be wielded with deliberateness and care. Not everyone is a mentor, nor should they. Third, Joe offered that mentorship is how we will create the next generation of leaders and it is our responsibility to ensure that our cups are empty so that those that come after us have cops filled to the brim. Finally, the path of mentorship is not one that leads towards fame and power. Fox Connor is little known in todays Army but his impacts are seen through the success of others. We must give of ourselves so that others may succeed.

TCM, a phrase heard at every change of command/responsibility. Just because one uses the term does not mean they understand what they are saying, or worse, they understand and believe that their actions have achieved this trinity of professional development. That though their position they have managed to teach, coach and mentor those around them. The Army’s intention is clear with regard to the development of subordinates. But like most things in the Army, we need to move beyond the catch phrase and commit time to the development of self and others. Actions over words, first and always!

Join the GATCT team in December for another round of imbibing. Time, date, location and topic are still under review.

Here are a list of books mentioned/recommended by Joe Byerly during our evenings festivities.

Books

• Friend of a Friend…:Understanding the Hidden Networks That Can Transform Your Life and Your Career - David Burkas

• Army Officers Guide to Mentoring - Raymond A. Kimball

• Gray Eminence: Fox Connor and the Art of Mentorship - Edward Cox

---

Frustration to Anger to Apathy: A Well-Worn Path

Photo by Doug Finstad

by Michael Shaw

The Formula is…

You are a newly hired employee in a field which was a personal goal of yours. You show up to your first day buzzing, excited, and ready to explore opportunities and take on challenges.  How is it that very same individual described above, just a few years later, is so frustrated or angry that they begin looking for an exit?  Or worse, that same individual with the same frustration or anger did not leave; instead they swallowed their anger and, in its place, they find abject apathy. Several years back I was introduced to a formula, “frustration leads to anger; unresolved anger leads to apathy." I agree with, have been witness to, and personally experienced this formula. I suspect, so have most of you. What is truly disappointing to me is not this formula but how well travelled this path appears to be within the Army.

The emotions of frustration, anger, and apathy are not unavoidable, nor should these emotions be avoided. For through self-acknowledgment of these emotions within ourselves and peers, we can begin to tackle his formula and the impacts it has on individuals and the organization. One can almost break apart this formula and apply the emotions of frustration, anger, and apathy to stages in ones’ career; frustration - entry through year six, anger – year seven through fifteen, and apathy - years sixteen and beyond. While not supported through research or scholarship at this time, the identification of such stratified professional ranges should cause us to pause and ignite a desire to reflect.  For if not addressed and reversed, this formula compounds upon itself and leads to a couple of outcomes; 1) early departure from service with an overall negative experience or 2) continued employment with less than optimal production capability because of varying levels of apathy or any one of the synonyms that accompany this adjective (indifference, insensitivity, lethargy, aloofness, coolness, detachment disinterest dispassion, etc.). Both of which result in a loss of talent and capacity, a critical and challenging resource to come by for an organization that requires bottom-up growth and is hierarchical in structure. 

Moreover, this formula is not an Einbahnstraße. Professionals move across this formula spectrum on a regular basis. Singular events, personal interactions, and decisions within our professional environment influence where we reside. The amount of iterations and the length of time spent at each emotional stage acts as a self-conditioning program. The more often we become frustrated, the easier it is to become frustrated. Just like levels of addiction, one becomes numb to the ever-common feelings of frustration they feel and because of the numbness that is now experienced an elevation to anger begins.  For the sake of self-perseveration, once anger mounts to a breaking point, the individual must decide either to find a way to dismantle their anger to move forward or for mere personal survival, convert that anger into apathy. For the good of both the people and the organization, we must become more adept to identifying the stages in this formula for which we all reside and assist one another in the movements forward and backward.

Frustration

“In the beginning…” there is energy, excitement and a whole lot of not knowing. The commencement of a new career inspires learning and the development of individual and group habits that will carry forward. Yet, many people end up viewing this beginning as a time of continual frustration instead of continual challenges. Many newbies want to help put their mark on their organization, I certainly did. However, except for the rarest of the rare, none of us knew our fronts from our backs. (some like me still struggle with our lefts from our rights). Service in the Army is unique, in that, no one has ever served in similar positions before. The newly enlisted Soldier has no rank nor positional authority, many new Warrant Officers knew what it was like to be a Soldier but struggle to balance the role of officer and technical expert. The Officers, new to the Army and new to their trade poses positional authority over everyone in their team but not the experience. Through these experiential and educational shortcomings, it is not hard to see how frustration can creep into daily events. While emotion frustration remains an individual emotion, it is essential for the community to realize that by looking at an emotional experience felt by the majority of a peer group, the experienced emotion impacts all. Moreover, it is not the fact that frustration exists, instead, it is how these new professionals interact with the feeling of frustration that will directly impact their emotional transformation. 

The experiences that generate emotional frustration are never alike in their cause. The difficulty of the job, lacking professional encouragement, minimal guidance, or absence of organizational change regardless of effort are all possible elements that affect individuals differently. Peer interaction and the sharing of shared experiences is one way to mitigate experienced frustration. The chain of command provides another outlet. How one perceives these events and how individuals dissect and categorizes them (challenges, tests, experiments, or trials) directly affects the rendering of emotion. 

No one is immune to the entanglements frustration can produce, and those who find themselves within its grip take one of two paths 1) depart the profession with a feeling of unpleasantness or 2) choose to continue to serve in the hopes of finding salvation through elevation in rank or position. Unfortunately, many who look for organizational change to become the driving force in their professional satisfaction most often discover a negative shift as opposed to a positive. In this shift, we begin to see continual frustration transforming into anger, and the Army experiences its first exodus of the force.

Anger

Onto stage two. With the increase in rank comes increases in positional responsibility and authority. For everyone, the cycle of frustration to anger to apathy begins again. The remaining variable is, to what degree have personnel managed their frustrations and peaks of anger during their initial professional development. New situations, familiar difficulties, greater responsibility, all of which respond to the emotional muscle memory of previous experiences. 

The vital question to ask oneself is, where do I currently exist inside this formula? If able to depart stage one with the emotions of frustration under control then, while encountering new, broader, and increasingly complex challenges one’s new contexts will be of noticeable variation.  Those that decided to continue in the profession but remain unable to deal with their frustrations beyond burying them beneath their emotional surface will now encounter obstacles that have an increased possibility of transforming into anger. We have all worked with or for that individual who has refused to come to a resolution with prior experiences and only magnifies present events by compounding the emotional connections. Here one can begin to see the further breakdown caused by experiential anger. Opportunities for dialogue are dismissed out of hand, points of differing perspectives turn into defensive fighting positions to protect one's opinion, and stovepipes are reinforced with attempts of power consolidation.  Instead of organizational success and a broader understanding, we begin to see weakness in single solitary positions and yet those weaknesses are whitewashed away and sometimes emboldened through parochial beliefs of success for one’s section at the expense of all else.

Apathy

During the latter part of one’s career, a second major bow wave of professional evacuations takes place. This time, self-selected departure and promotional non-selects comprise the bulk of attrition. This separation further divides the professional haves from the have-nots. Now, closer to the twilight of one’s career, professionals continue to function as molded.  Here again, the formula of frustration to anger to apathy is either reset or carries along the continuum. Those that have found an ability to reset their perspectives and compartmentalize topics tend to become fewer and the forces of the formula pull even more laborious.  Here the adage of 10% of the workforce doing 90% of the work appears to carry more weight.   

While this is not a complete correlation, the divide becomes apparent. There are those who are merely going through the motions, moving paperwork from one side of the desk to another, inhibiting or just ambivalent to any real progress vs. those who want to impart actual change and fight through the friction. Look to any large-scale organizational shift within the past five years, and it becomes readily apparent as to who is seeking to overcome resistance as opposed to those who are institutionally apathetic. Moreover, these apathetic organizational veterans are inflicting damage twofold, 1) they hold seniority in the organization and thus hold leadership positions or manage directorates that manage programs, dollars or people, 2) all the newly hired possessing that same buzz and excitement they once felt are looking up to these individuals asking themselves, is this where I want to be in 15-20 years?

Conclusion

What remains intriguing is how this formula (frustration to anger and anger to apathy), touches everyone but only devours some. Moreover, how this emotional journey is solely controlled by the perspective of the individual and yet has operational impacts from team to entire commands. Also, for both professional and personal stability, one should avoid stagnation in any one of those three emotional states. Regardless of the motivation that anger might provide in problem-solving, we have all been around that individual who knows no other emotion. Thus, every problem regardless of its trivial nature or strategic impacts becomes a point for a pre-programmed emotional response.

Where frustration lies at one end of the spectrum and apathy at the other, self-awareness becomes the map legend for which we can identify our present location. Just like navigation, once one's current position is recognized, only then can a useful decision be put into action.

Bottle to Intellectual Throttle: Installment #1 - Professional Self-Development: When, Where, and Why

Photo by Doug Finstad

by Michael Shaw

Tonight, ushered in the beginning of individual distillation in thought. The GATCT team welcomed back the monthly roundtable discussion where ideas are presented, opinions express and positions challenged. All in the hopes of driving each participant to thing broader and deeper with regard to their own positions.

This evenings format was a roundtable discussion. The topic before the group, Professional Self-Development: When, Where, and Why. I would like to thank Mike, Mike, Ryan, Kevin, COL Chasteen, and our surprised guest MG(R) Simmons (you never know who will drop by a table for a chat) for making tonight’s inaugural gathering a spring board for future events.

The discussions tonight brought a couple points to light that I would like to share.

1. Self-Development is in the gravitational pull of two immense characteristics, 1) knowing one’s own personality and 2) a need to ensure lifelong learning. The strength and or weakness of either of these traits can cause one’s self-developmental orbit to tilt off axis or spin uncontrollably.

2. Self-development is what one makes of it. Events such as church or volunteering can be as developmental as the latest biography on Churchill. But, for such progress to take place, we need to be present physically, mentally and emotionally present.

3. Self-development is a deliberate process. One should understand the goal or objective they strive for. As Simon Sinek’s book is title “Start with Why”. While the text may cover great leaders inspiring subordinates to action, we too as individuals must understand the “why” in our own actions.

For all those currently rolling their eyes and believing this is the same subject just ground a different way, I challenge you to pause and look deep at what you are doing for self-development, the time you may or may not be committing to the process and write down the excuses you are telling yourself as to why you can or cannot do something. Are you truly self-developing or are you going through the motions? Is this process really important to you or are you phoning it in? What we discovered tonight is that regardless of the passion one person has for a topic or method, each of us must stand and face our true selves in the mirror.

Join the GATCT team ext month for a Skype conversation with Joe Byerly, creator of the successful and popular blog “From the Green Notebook." Time, date, location and topic are still under review. We look forward to the next chapter.

Here are a list of books and articles that were included, mentioned or talked about during tonight’s events.

For a larger variety of books on the topic of learning, here is an insightful link: Best Books on Learning: 70 Great Books on Learning Faster.

Books

• Thank You For Being Late - Thomas Friedman

• The Power of Habit - Charles Duhigg

• How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything - Rosa Brooks

• The Tipping Point - Malcolm Gladwell

• The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition - Caroline Alexander 

Articles

• Aviation Digest

• In Praise of Annoying Majors

• The Lie that Perfectionist Tell Themselves

• Can Intellectuals Wear Muddy Boots

• Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession

---

See below for the outline notes that guided tonight’s discussion.

---

The Army Who Cried Truth

Photo by Doug Finstad

by Michael Shaw

Many are familiar with the Eastern European narrative of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Peter was easily bored while shepherding. So he'd find ways to amuse himself, running up rocks, climbing trees, chasing sheep, but nothing kept him entertained for very long. Then Peter hit upon a brilliant idea. He climbed to the top of the tallest tree, and started shouting towards the village: "Wolf! Wolf! Wooolf! Woohoolf!"

One of the villagers heard him, and got all the other men together, and armed with axes, hoes, and forks, they ran out of the village to chase away the wolf and save their herd. When they got there, they merely found Peter perched high up in his tree, laughing, and the sheep grazing peacefully. They were very annoyed with him. 

Peter repeats these antics several more times. With each false announcement of "wolf," the villagers increasingly numbed themselves to Peter's game. This tale concludes with a real wolf threatening the herd, only now, Peter's cries are ignored, and the sheep slaughtered.

Many of us were told stories like these as children. Parents, friends, and teachers all hoped to instill life lessons into our young minds.  However, as childhood transforms into adulthood the narrative of the Boy Who Cried Wolf appears to be upended. Instead of a moral impetus to tell the truth, in today's world, it seems that much of what we do rather is "Crying Truth."

Previously, when someone mentioned truth or brought forth truth from deceit the sky would open, and angelic trumpets would sound. These triumphant notes connected the path from discovered truth to corrective or restorative actions. Or so the imagery in my head tells me. Today, first and foremost, the truth is increasingly difficult to identify. Next, the announced truth is more often in the eye of the beholder rather than the result of collective findings.  Perspectives certainly matter and one person's reality can be another person's falsehood. Moreover, the "truth" is being bellowed from every mountaintop. And, much like the villagers in the opening fable who charged the hill with their tools to defend the herd, many today are numb to all the "truth" that is "reported" and thus, less eager to charge the hill, galvanized to defend the herd.

To provide some context to "Crying Truth," let us look at the use of audits in the Department of the Army (DoA) as a background.  This topic much larger than these introductory examples but they do provide visible and tangible examples for initiating a more extensive and broader debate across the entire community, not just the profession of arms.

In an attempt to dissuade those in conflict to such a topic, specifically the usage of audits in this article, the argument pertaining to “Crying Truth” is mealy a vessel, one of many processes that has fallen victim to such vocalization. This dialogue is not supposing the elimination of external evaluations, they have a very real place as a method of checks and balances. Instead let us examine the purpose, results and most important, follow on actions with identified findings.

The DoA is a subordinate organization to the Department of Defense and even more subordinate to our nationally elected political representatives. The DoA, in its subordinate capacity, has a responsibility both professionally and legally to explain and document the decisions it has made and investments it makes concerning the national treasure allocated to its coffers each year (people and dollars).  Like many organizations, there are times when accountability and record keeping is simple and others where the proper documentation and records are difficult to come by. In recent years, to ensure such accountability and process are followed leadership both inside and external to the DoA have begun to lean heavily upon the audit process to discover “the truth.”  Audits primarily originate from organizations such as the Army Audit Agency, the DoD Inspector General office, and the US Government Accountability Office.

While the audit process itself is not part of this discussion, the point or results of such audits indeed are.  With each investigation organizational capital is spent; time, energy, dollars and organizational credibility. The all too common phrase, real or interpreted, "we are here to help" echo's through the cubicles and minds of staff officers and civilian employees undergoing the audit process. For what purpose, what result, what improvement or refinements are these efforts engaged? In today's environment, the secondary and tertiary effects of an audits findings should become the primary focus. Otherwise such investigations become a “gotcha” game. The teams findings should be mildly important, but what an organization is does with those findings should ring loud and clear. Instead, most often the opposite is true. Audit agencies develop findings, publish those findings and follow up at some predesignated time to see what actions if any the organizations have taken. The audit report becomes the object of importance rather than the effect or change that could result from the findings.

Moreover, with each audit and individual finding comes a tasking for the DoA to determine what action they will take in regards to the findings. These tastings, have over time become irrelevant and bureaucratic. What changes one organization is going to make pales in comparison to the outcome or "truth" that the audit team uncovered. A discovery of project overspending takes center stage in political trench warfare while the actions to correct said mistakes become lost to paperwork, tasking trackers and multi-colored status boards that staff officers want to go away.

When every discussion, every investigation, every audit is cause for the use of a platform and megaphone to announce "look what we have discovered," the announcements begin to lose their power.  Truth is an imperative but "Crying Truth" in an attempt to rally support in one direction or another, to use discovered information without context or to ignore the necessary secondary actions to correct undesired or improper findings only continues to numb the community.  When a real action is required, or essential course corrections identified, the stick will become necessary to move the organization. Moreover, when a truth is discovered to truly contain illegal, improper, or immoral action the community writ large is equally as numb to the previous report that found improper historical documentation retention.

Individual, social and organizational capital are all wells that contain only a finite volume. Just as in young Peter's experience, when his game of falsely calling wolf wore thin within his community, Peter was unable to galvanize the village's help needed when a dangerous threat appeared on the hillside.  The same danger exists today in the act of "Crying Truth." When findings and documentation lead, the military profession becomes numb to said findings and reports.  When the expectation by those undergoing an audit is that fault will be found before innocence, understanding, and perspective then no amount of “truth” will move an organization from its current course. Instead trenches deepen and greater obstacles constructed. Today, it appears that whoever finds truth and can cry the loudest wins.  What victory results from such action is still up for debate.  Instead, what should become our focus point are the organizational responses and completed fixes to the uncovered truths.  Have these findings made our organization better?  Have our processes changed?  Or, do we have a laundry list of truths that remain open, unanswered, or worse, answered with such ambivalence that it merely changes the color of a status report from red to green?

This same argument could be overlaid on politics discourse, media coverage, social media dialogues, and activism regardless of the cause with similar findings. While the truth is important we must dig deeper to discover what lays beyond the truth, what must happen next.

Are you "Crying Truth?" 

This blog was inspired and title coined by a friend and coworker Dan. Thank you for your continued ideas and insights.

Professional vs. Expert: Does it Really Matter?

Photo by Doug Finstad

“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing”

— Benjamin Franklin

by Michael Shaw

So, there we were, roaming the proverbial hallway and overheard a conversation between a senior leader and a subordinate.  In that conversation the senior stated, “they were glad to see…” the results of an ongoing research project had “matched their gut instinct.” Upon hearing this exchange, we lost our composure and had a “slight” uncontrolled burst of laughter, which was of course, quickly curtail.  Having been personally involved in similar situations and conversations throughout our careers, we are aware that in the most basic of mathematical formulas, one plus one equals two.  However, there appears to be routine exceptions where leaders want/expect a different answer than two and so, instead, the formula change.  As a result, one plus one equals the gut instinct of the senior leader.  Still, what exactly happened in that exchange?  Are the senior leader’s years of military experience providing clear enough intent for the individual to develop the best result/response for the study?  Or, has intent turned into directive, where the parameters are given in such a way as to generate a specific solution?  Perhaps those individuals conducting the research do not possess enough knowledge, or perspective in a particular area as to find different alternative solutions or consider non-obvious factors?  Perchance those individuals are lacking the professional courage to generate their own answer, which may or may not run contrary to the senior’s position.  Worst of all, the individual may not know any better and may only be capable of moving at the speed and direction they are given leaving freedom of thought and application for another day.

Interactions such as these stir a desire to question events and interactions on a deeper level. Such as, how does the Army build the expertise or depth needed for such problem solving when people change jobs or positions approximately every 12 to 24 months?  Or, what exactly is the definition of military expertise and how does the Army plan and train for both a professional and expert force?  

Since that particular conversation, we have been struggling with the topic of professionalism vs expertise.  Are there differences between being a professional and an expert?  If so, where is the line drawn or when does professional knowledge or experience transform into expertise?  Moreover, while gut instincts provide us initial insight, do we refuse actual data presented because of personal feelings or preconceived notions (close-mindedness)?  What is one to do when expertise and professional points of view collide?  Does/should the gut impression of a professional overrule the data and information provided by experts?  Moreover, what happens when everyone providing information is only a professional and no expertise is to be found?  This topic is worth mental gymnastics in order to better understand the professional meaning of these words that society and more specifically, the United States Army (Army) throws around. Like the difference between leader and manager, professional and expert in many respects are similar but not synonymous.  They have subtle differences that only the keen notice but should be readily acknowledged by all.  

This topic is under further research and is intended for greater depth and greater discussion in the not so distant future. In the meantime, because this topic is one fraught with personal and professional perspectives and the results of research thus far could infer a stalemate or worse, a deepening of the quagmire, we ask you, the consumers of knowledge and ever growing insight for your input. Where is the line drawn? Is there even a line? Should there be a line? In a field where precision is rewarded and demanded it continues to amaze us how the willingness to round or to fudge or to accept less of an answer because it better fits the desired narrative seems to prevail.

Read, Think, Speak and Write. What say you?

Why is it?

by Michael Shaw

Original article appeared on LinkedIn May 25, 2018, edited August 4, 2018

While the content of the text below focuses on areas within the profession of arms (specifically Army), I am of the belief that this line of discussion prevalent throughout the all working environments and is worth further consideration and debate. 

Why is it whenever the discussion of complex problems or known points of friction within the Army arises, those most senior involved in the conversation without fail, remark, “ I never did ...” or “my fleet always was...”, or my favorite, “I would not tolerate..." Of course ladies and gentlemen, and we also all had that grandparent who walked uphill, to school, both ways, in the snow.  Several explanations describe my possible experiences.  First, perhaps I have had the privilege of working for only those singular leaders who knew the Army profession, knew their craft better than most and never faltered in their training or maintaining of soldiers or equipment. Second, perhaps their perceptions are shaped by what they perceived the units and individuals achieved during their assignment.  Since many of whom I have worked continuously move along the promotional path, perhaps there is an impression that their way was the right way and thus defines success.  Or third, there exists an inability to see the trees from the forest and the ability to self-identify success or failure is lacking.  Somewhere amongst these paths, one will find the truth. I am no better in pointing out such truth; I am of the belief that such conversations are not isolated events, and only I am fortuitous enough to have worked with such accomplished leaders.  If such accomplishments and set standards are the norms, how then is it that organizations within the Army appear to be struggling so mightily?  If these leaders did as they proclaim then would not the workforce of today reek of the same training rigor or maintenance approaches that lead their past leaders to such heights? I find it hard to believe that somehow only these senior individuals had “the secret sauce” and all else have tried and failed or tried and not quite achieved.  Why is it?

Perhaps these elders were successful, as individuals, but such success did not translate into continued success for the unit or subordinates.  The success of one does not guarantee success for all. Ones own memory is a funny thing, you remember the achievements but block out the failures; unless they were significant learning points. Somewhere a piece of the puzzle is missing.  As a footnote, the discussion of individual vs. organizational success in this context is not a discussion of selfishness, toxicity or any other negative attribute that is commonly attributed to individual vs. organizational success. Instead, the Army's evaluation process by nature is very individualistic.  Through this annual evaluation process, supervisors capture completed actions within the rating period, and then their supervisor estimates the ratee's potential for service in higher positions of authority.  It is no wonder when one presents a problem such as training plans, unit readiness, vehicle maintenance, etc., the answers all echo, "I was successful... not sure why these new leaders are struggling."  Why is it?

Of the leaders I have engaged in conversations surrounding the topics of training and maintaining, I believe they speak the truth, from their perspective. I think they set high standards and that they held their subordinates responsible to much of what they established. I also believe that many of those leaders I have not had the privilege of speaking with also had similar high standards and would have answered in much the similar way. How can one make such an assumption?  Most individuals that the Army promotes and additionally selects for a command are cut from the same cloth. While different assignments and organizations may populate one's resume, if we take a closer look we and remove the badges and names, we will see many of the same jobs, many of the same experiences, and many of the same generated outcomes. The Army is not a pyramid structured bureaucracy by accident. So then, why is it that training capabilities and outcomes are suboptimal and our maintenance and maintenance management is something less than desired?  How is it that most commanders claim victory and their promotion to the next level of responsibility supporting said claims and yet we find ourselves in training and maintaining deficits?  Both realities can’t coexist, can they?  Perhaps as a service, we are too quick to reward individual success or high quarterly stats like shareholders looking for high quarterly returns. Maybe the current model of success is too near-term focused and completely misses the long game. After recent exposure to more senior levels of service, I am confident that the most senior of our leaders are looking to the long-term and no amount of spontaneous success during this present quarter mitigates historical trends over the past many years that communicate less than desirable outcomes. It is hard to sell a narrative that says we understand training and maintaining when the raw data says something different. Even more frustrating than battling raw numbers is having to begin each conversation with the term “yes but.” The moment one invokes a caveat is the moment the narrative begins to crumble.  Right now it is hard to have a necessary conversation.  Why is it?  

Hearing the same broken record when asked why we fall short; “it’s the additional tasks”, “it’s borrowed manpower”, “it’s the last two decades of combat”, “we are not as bad as those other guys” and so on is no longer a viable path to discussion. Doing more with less makes goal achievement impossible, but today we have one of the healthiest budgets in recorded history, so money isn' the answer.  Does the Army lack the skills and training necessary for success?  Hard to make that argument when the Army's Training and Doctrine Command remains understaffed. Or, is the Army merely disconnected when it comes to expectation management?  Is there an expectation that has developed over the past couple of decades that when we say change, it happens overnight. Perhaps all or none of the above play a role and the spectrum of work has changed such that our models of personnel, training, and maintaining is merely antiquated? Why is it? 

Army Guilt: Nearly 100% Contagious

Photo by Doug Finstad

by Michael Shaw

Original article appeared on LinkedIn August 31, 2017

Prologue: I began this thread on a different social network and was surprised by the quantity and types of responses. This caused me to consider how the inputs and interpretations of the information presented below might vary depending on those using the different mediums. Enjoy!

Army Guilt: Real or Not

In a discussion this afternoon surrounding work habits, a colleague brought forth a term I have not heard before but wholeheartedly have adopted, "Army Guilt". During the discussion, it did not take me long to acknowledge that I suffer from and envy those who have the ability to ignore/avoid Army Guilt. How many of us that have grown up in the service watched those who came before us become successful while sacrificing everything else for the sake of the job? How many of us have adopted those same attitudes when it comes to our jobs? How many of us have heard the phrase "do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to a work/family balance? How many senior leaders their mass quantity of use or lose leave days as a badge of honor? While not all these descriptions fit each and every one of us, I theorize that many of my peers, seniors, and subordinates that strive to be successful in the Army suffer from some form of Army Guilt. While this infliction can and does assist in one's drive to succeed, there are others that battle with their alarm clocks regarding scheduled PT as opposed to getting up at a deliberate time. While others endure the term "should" in their daily thoughts and verbal lexicon, as in "I should of" or "I should be". While still others find it hard to take leave during non-holiday periods. Still others, with all their work complete, sit at a blank computer surfing the internet because their boss has not left for the day. I believe that Army Guilt is real and unintentionally passed on from senior to a subordinate. Some may view this guilt as a right of passage, the idea that they suffered so those who come behind them should. Others are perfectionists and will diddle with a 75% product because it could be 85%. In the end, there is always more work than there is time. There is always something else that could have been done or a PowerPoint brief that could use a final touch. The bigger question is where do you draw that line?

With the exception of those few bosses out there who are keeping track of the hours their subordinates work, how many of us have been told they could not go home because of a project or because emails were left unanswered? How many have been turned down for typical leave opportunities? During how many counselings (if you actually were counseled; another topic altogether) or evaluation out briefs has leadership told you that you are working too many or too few hours? The struggle is real, yet the struggle is internal and left to the individual.

There are always times when work requires blood, sweat, and tears and in the "Profession of Arms", at times, it requires all three but in that other 95% of the time, when there is no risk to mission or risk to force one must take time to self-reflect and identify, how much of your day is driven by the projects and the task and how much is driven by the presence of Army Guilt? How often do you have to talk yourself into leaving for the day if your teammates and boss are still in the office? How many times have you justified to yourself that the extra time in the office is just in case the boss needs something? 

The Plot Thickens

Now, if you are taking time to read this, how many are doing so on your government issued blackberry or iPhone? How many have that phone on their nightstand because of the late night email or phone call? How many are walking around with two digital electronic leashes in our civilian attire with a Common Access Card reader at home for your personal computer in case you need Webmail access for those digitally signed/encrypted PowerPoint slides that the phone won't display (we all know that guy). You know what I am talking about. We self-generate a belief of self-importance with respect to the positions we serve. And, regardless of how important those jobs may be, the truth is, if we were not able to serve in our current capacity, the Army would find someone else or the team would adapt. After all that is the what the Army seeks, intelligent problem-solving individuals who can work with little guidance and direction and yet accomplish each daunting task. Again, "do as I say", we are all expendable and the mechanism that is the Army will continue with or without us. I do believe that because of such dedication by so many that the Army is a better place for all Soldiers who serve, however, if we become so riddled or consumed by internal Army Guilt we eventual burn out and are replaced or get fed up and walk away. 

Where To From Here

With the introduction of this term into my lexicon today, I believe I now have a better understanding or a better way to describe why I feel like I "should" be at the office before my boss. Why I "should" know everything about a subject before my boss or peers. And why I "should" be willing to put everything in my personal life on hold to accomplish one more briefing. I love my job, I have even told my wife I feel this is more of a calling than a J O B. But, this is the first year in 16 years of service that I took the day off work on my wedding anniversary to spend with my wife. Again, a personal choice and not something the Army owes me, but a decision none the less that was so out of character that my beautiful bride was taken aback (in a good way) by my decision. But I tell you all, the guilt was real and it took a concerted effort on my part to make that simple decision. Heck, the idea to take the day was not even mine. I heard a peer talking about possibly taking the day for his anniversary and I simply copied the idea. Ironically, he ended up not taking the day. Guess what, the Army went on, my boss didn't bat an eye, and my wife and I were able to enjoy and celebrate a very special day together. In the grand scheme of professional decision and time management debates I know that a wedding anniversary day off does not rank high in statistical collection efforts but the struggle that I went through to just take that one day is worth noting. 

Additionally, another colleague offered me some advice after reading my initial submission on this topic. 1) You will one day leave the Army, make sure you don't leave your family in the process 2) A 70% product now is better than an 85% product in three days and 21 Soldier hours and 3) Know your audience, for they set the pace. I bet many of you reading this article could add a few more such as 4) Do as I say not as I do 5) You need to make time to reset and recharge and 6) Family is #1. While I do not disagree with any of these notes and several of them I have heard throughout my career, what I responded to my colleague with was "Ok, how do you make any of that happen"? If I have heard these bits of knowledge for 16 years and yet I am riddled with Army Guilt what are my subordinates thinking and how are they acting? I certainly have stood before groups of Soldiers and repeated many of these same adages, yet when we look at success in our service many of these kernels of insight are not applied or might very well plateau one's career. 

One example of Army Guilt that summarizes much of what we have discussed thus far took place during my Command and General Staff College (CGSC) summer class of 2012-2013 when myself and just over 1000 fellow field grade officers sat in the large auditorium listening to a retiring Lieutenant General speak on what he had learned over the course of his career. His thesis for us aspiring field grades was "Family First". He described how he regretted three major personal events throughout his career that still sit with him today. He told my class that it was only in the twilight of his career, after the holidays sacrificed while being in the field at his discretion, the years away from his family because of numerous deployments he felt he should be part of, and the missed family occasions because the Army came first, that he realized he needed to find a new personal and professional life balance. The dissolving of his first family, the alienation of his kids and other such events taught him that it was not the Army that made him strong, rather those he loved that surrounded him on a daily basis. What I believe seemed to escape him at that point in his lecture was that without all those sacrifices, all those years deployed, all those choices of the Army vs his family he would not be on stage giving us his story. He learned these lessons as a General officer, not as a Lieutenant. If that young Lieutenant disregarded his Company Commander's "suggestions" to miss family events because it might "impact his career", that Lieutenant General might very well have been one of the Colonels leading a small group at CGSC and not pontificating on the Army Guilt he overcame after 30 plus years of service.

Simple and Sweet

All that to say, be self-aware, take notice of your actions and make sure they are yours based on what you need to do vs. what you think you "should" be doing. There are those individuals that have found that happy middle ground, seek them out and learn from them. I wager, those same folks who have found peace between the needs of the Army and their personal life have gone through the very same struggles discussed above. Only, they have found enlightenment before us all!