Wanted to highlight Marc's post
Marc -
Quote:
Quote:
For me, I define "talent" as an inborn, hardwired (aka genetic) propensity to find performing some action or operation more easily than other people.
Quote:
I use the term "skill" to refer, regardless of any talent, to the ability of an individual to perform the actions and operations associated with that skill.
Now, these definitions have some implications that are both a) pretty obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together, and b) anathema to the PC crowd, since they assume an innate, genetic difference between people.
I think this is an important observation and others have made this with respect to command. Interestingly there is a move afoot to see how some of this can be modeled. Could you for example take the 5 block model and make some qualifications about what education, experience and training constitute them? Could you then quantify this in a mathematical expression? Could you then use that to compare probability of success of one individual with a given combination over another dependent upon conditions and objectives?
It seems that until you can put these capabilities into a model and simulate it in a way which provides justification for making programmatic decisions, relevant anecdotal information by itself will not move the ball forward (much). *Note - this says allot about our bureaucratic culture that we are far more comfortable with a false reality of mean time between failure (MTBF) and probability of kill (PK) ratios (which are themselves based on observation and historical averages) then we are with trusting our senses and intuition (based on our own experiences) simply because we've found a way to mathematically express one and not the other. The equation of how you know a tank BN of X will destroy a tank BDE of Y does not match perfectly to the anecdote of sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you are the windshield.
Again, I'd refer anyone interested in the issue of how our perception of reality influences our judgment to Marc T's excellent website.
Best, Rob
If I may, while I very much agree with Marc's categories and their definitions,
I think there's a skill set (and / or a talent... ;)) block missing; Five blocks are cool but I think the third one might be shown as a hopefully existing and embedded set of skills that may need slight -- and only slight, very slight -- remodeling to be move on to the fourth block and be effective as an advisor.
All Officers and NCOs are responsible for leading and training subordinates and use -- or should use -- the skills I placed in Block 3 below, translating those skills to an advisory rather than a command or leadership position will take some adjustment but that should be slight. No need to make it more difficult than it is...
Herewith is plan B:
Rob, must you come up with this
when I have to grade finals?!!!!! Wish I'd seen this thread sooner.
Couple of comments:
A lot of wisdom form all you guys who contributed.
In the ideal world, we would not need to use GPF for SFA. but the world is not ideal and to top it off we have SF guys getting "huffy" about the amateurs and GPF guys thinking the SF are prima donnas. SFA really requires SOF/GPF integration - especially SF, CA, and to a slightly lesser extent, PSYOP skill sets. Detailing some of these SOF guys to SFA teams made up largely of GPF might serve us well.
A basic issue here is the institutional military attitude that we can train an officer or NCO to be an effective leader. There really is no institutional recognition that leadership is a talent - and a talent that an individual may have in some circumstances but not in others. IMO we can teach the skills necessary to good leadership and many individuals can take the talent they have and use those skills to enhance it but some leaders are naturally leaders and others are not. Some leaders have talent to lead small units but not GCC; others may be great at leading echelons above reality but only adequate at leading small units. Well SFA and advising are similar. Generally, a good advisor has empathy for other cultures and often that extends from one culture to the next. I recall an Army COL - the ARMA in Peru - who was by training a Vietnamese FAO. He had the empathy to be outstanding in a totally different culture, Peru. My own experience has seen some success as an advisor in Latin America but I would have had trouble adjusting to and being successful in the Haitian culture (based on the research we did there for a study of Operation Uphold Democracy).
My point is, then, Rob's - SFA is mostly the individual. The challenge that we, the USG, face is how to make the most of the individuals, organizations, etc. that we have and how to train and educate for the skills and understandings (the education v. the training component) that will bring out the talents of the individuals available to us. To pick up on Bob's theme, how do we adapt the principles of SF Assessment and Selection to the task at hand for GPF based SFA teams? One of those principles is that soldiers who are not cut out for SF are de-selected without hurting their careers in other branches. Thus, de-selection is an important element.
Enough rambling. This is an important thread and it really shoudl be read extensively in the military and outside.
Cheers
JohnT