Photo by Doug Finstad
“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing”
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?