New Rules for New Enemies

[Rob Thornton]

I think one of the first things that would have to be addressed is the issue of resourcing. You either pay for the type of people you want up front (incentives or appeal), or you develop them (time, money, investment). To paraphrase a recent article by retired General Scales – this is a people business, and without good people you will not have a good military. This resourcing issue is exacerbated by competing requirements – we have both a mass based set of requirements in the Army, as well as an increasingly technical set of requirements (the range of attributes covers all of the leadership traits).

We are competing for the same types of leaders (in terms of realized or unrealized potential) as the profit based organizations which can afford to offer these people what they desire within the context of an 18-25 year old’s sense of what is important. Certainly we have an appeal, but when you add up incentives, which option do we think comes out ahead? Further, we often cannot afford, or choose not to afford providing the incentives at critical points in these leader’s lives where they make choices about staying or leaving (could be a branch, a service, an organization or the military). We all know Business covets the military leadership experience brings to the table, just look at the ranks of the contractors right now in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We need to consider what made the difference in that Soldier/Airman/Marine’s decision to go, or stay; then we need to adjust to compensate.

If you look at the erosion of benefits that active duty service offers, it most often targets people. Consider who and when the erosion of benefits like family medical and dental care, DODs schools, Housing, and social services targets. It impacts the family of a soldier at a time when his loyalties are divided between taking care of his family (this is of course compounded when deployed) and serving his country. The family weight in his decision making process should not be under valued. Consider the skill set this man or woman has in the context of COIN – he is by virtue of having a family, somewhat more emotionally stable – he is probably slightly older and his cumulative experience is worthy. He is a combat multiplier in his unit by his ability to provide calm and wisdom – having a family builds patience and exposes you to problem sets outside the normal military experience, and by such infect/influence many others with the same qualities. Consider the value of this man or woman when considering the use of lethal force. This is just one example of how we either undervalue people skills in favor of hardware.

Resourcing the types of educational investment to build the leaders we want is critical to realizing the goal. While Knowledge Networks, Communities of Practice, and Distance Learning offer opportunities in experience transferal and education on the cheap, the context upon which they draw is limited to the personal ability to internalize it an apply it, therefore it should not be a substitute for small group instruction, but a supplement. So how do we resource pulling out leaders at all level and giving them the right tools to succeed? Granted a bigger pool to rotate is attractive and provides more flexibility, but it also means more resources required for education, recruiting, and retention. Given the people we want often have families that must be entered into the equation; this has a large price tag.

I realize that culturally we are much more comfortable with a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) equation vs. the subjective human one, but if we do not resource the kind of people we know we need we will have to lower our expectations in reference to our capabilities. We have to balance our appetite for hardware with requirements for quality people we can recruit, train and retain. I’ve been on the Army’s cutting edge for technology for about 6 years (Stryker, FCS) and for the last 8 months I’ve been doing the advisory job here in Iraq. I can tell you, sophisticated equipment only bears good results when there are good people using it. Do we need to modernize, yes; but do we need everything on the buffet table right now? I see some great vehicles here in Mosul that would be perfect for COIN, it’d be great to replace every 1114/1116/LVL II 998 with the RGR Engineer vehicle. COTs is not necessarily a bad thing and relooking our hardware acquisition strategy to match our personnel one may not be a bad idea. Reevaluation of our genesis for hardware in the context of new alternatives and requirements for the 5-25 year mark seems militarily prudent in light of the strategic, operational and tactical consequences of not doing so.

Our strategy needs to be people centric with the goal to equip them with the best technology that meets their needs. Conversely, if we show a long term trend of taking care of people at the DOD level ( I mention it because I’m not sure it happens for most above the BN & BDE levels), then our reputation for doing so will spread. People want to belong to good organizations that they can both believe in and which believe in them. One of the things you learn early on is that it is not so much what you are doing that makes you happy, it’s the climate of the organization, and purpose or esprit de corps which accompanies it.

[marct]

Hi Rob,

You've raised some very good issues that apply across a number of militaries.

I think one of the first things that would have to be addressed is the issue of resourcing. You either pay for the type of people you want up front (incentives or appeal), or you develop them (time, money, investment).

Paying up front does not, necessarily, have to be incentives based - at least in the sense of hiring bonuses, etc. ROTC programs are an example of an up front incentive which is universally available. The problem with many of the other types of up front incentives is a complex mixture of loyalty by those hired and resentment from those who didn't get them; at least that is the experience of most of the high tech industry. While internal development takes longer and, on paper, costs more, in the long run it is probably a much better solution.

We are competing for the same types of leaders (in terms of realized or unrealized potential) as the profit based organizations which can afford to offer these people what they desire within the context of an 18-25 year old’s sense of what is important.

TRue. I know of at least one person who graduated with a BA and, within 3 years, was making 3.1 million. But "important" is a very slippery term. In my experience teaching a lot of people in this age range, admittedly Canadians not Americans, many of them are searching for "meaning" and something they can commit to. This need for meaning isn't being met in the current Canadian university environment by the older systems which, in many cases, are getting viewed as increasingly irrelevant. That's probably why the Canadian Forces started their new recruitment campaign (warning, it loads slowly).

....We need to consider what made the difference in that Soldier/Airman/Marine’s decision to go, or stay; then we need to adjust to compensate.

Very true. Surely there have been internal HR exit studies done, haven't there?

If you look at the erosion of benefits that active duty service offers, it most often targets people.... This is just one example of how we either undervalue people skills in favor of hardware.

I think that there are several issues running around here. Some have to do with forced promotions, i.e. an institutionalized Peter Principle. For example, my brother-in-law was given the choice of being promoted out of an area he loved working in and was really good at or leaving. He left. Others are directly related to benefits for family, while others may be more personal.

Resourcing the types of educational investment to build the leaders we want is critical to realizing the goal. While Knowledge Networks, Communities of Practice, and Distance Learning offer opportunities in experience transferal and education on the cheap, the context upon which they draw is limited to the personal ability to internalize it an apply it, therefore it should not be a substitute for small group instruction, but a supplement. So how do we resource pulling out leaders at all level and giving them the right tools to succeed? Granted a bigger pool to rotate is attractive and provides more flexibility, but it also means more resources required for education, recruiting, and retention. Given the people we want often have families that must be entered into the equation; this has a large price tag.

It's tricky, and its not a new problem by any means. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that would work immediately. I know that the Canadian Forces shifted part of their general social role towards disaster relief and SAR operations, and that is now part of the social expectation of the CF. I don't think that solution would be immediately possible for the US forces, even though the expertise is there as is the history.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that one good retention motivator is the feeling that "I am making a real difference". It's a very strong motivator for a lot of people. And as an added bonus once there is general social acceptance, the feeling is reinforced by having your own citizen thanks you for doing it while, at the same time, getting good organizational PR.

I realize that culturally we are much more comfortable with a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) equation vs. the subjective human one, but if we do not resource the kind of people we know we need we will have to lower our expectations in reference to our capabilities.

I suspect that part of the problem is that the expectations are set by politicians, many of whom have never served in the forces and, as a result, have a totally skewed set of expectations. That is certainly the case in Canada.

Our strategy needs to be people centric with the goal to equip them with the best technology that meets their needs. Conversely, if we show a long term trend of taking care of people at the DOD level ( I mention it because I’m not sure it happens for most above the BN & BDE levels), then our reputation for doing so will spread. People want to belong to good organizations that they can both believe in and which believe in them. One of the things you learn early on is that it is not so much what you are doing that makes you happy, it’s the climate of the organization, and purpose or esprit de corps which accompanies it.

I totally agree with your overall strategy and with your comments on organizational support.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

TRue. I know of at least one person who graduated with a BA and, within 3 years, was making 3.1 million. But "important" is a very slippery term. In my experience teaching a lot of people in this age range, admittedly Canadians not Americans, many of them are searching for "meaning" and something they can commit to. This need for meaning isn't being met in the current Canadian university environment by the older systems which, in many cases, are getting viewed as increasingly irrelevant. That's probably why the Canadian Forces started their new recruitment campaign (warning, it loads slowly).

I've seen studies, and my own experiences with our AFROTC cadets confirm this, that many American students in this age group are also searching for that elusive "meaning."

And as for private sector vs. military job comparisons, I think that people in the military lose sight of their benefits when compared to the "average" private sector worker at the same level. The NCOs in my area complain about their pay and benefits all the time, forgetting that they get a housing allowance (which private sector employers do not provide), bonus pay based on a number of factors, free household goods transportation and moving allowances (again, dream on about this in the average private sector job), decent guaranteed pay raises (which often do not happen in the private sector), and so on. They stopped complaining around me when I showed them that after a few years in the university system, at a fairly high grade, an E-4 who has just been promoted makes more than I do.

The other thing to consider is that most studies of Generation Y (or Millennials or whatever you want to call them) seem to indicate that they have no problem with changing jobs if they feel they've been slighted or disrespected in any way. But, oddly enough, they tend to rise and perform when challenged to do better than they have before. Retooling to match them could prove a very expensive and difficult undertaking.

[marct]

And as for private sector vs. military job comparisons, I think that people in the military lose sight of their benefits when compared to the "average" private sector worker at the same level.

That's a good point, and something that does need to be brought home. One of the things I have urged some of my clients to do is to consider putting in a person-centric HR "accounting" system which gives employees an idea of the "value added" they already have got and will get from their continued employment in the organization - compared with national level data. In the private sector, at least in Canada, an average hiring costs about $25k, so the cost savings can be quite significant.

The other thing to consider is that most studies of Generation Y (or Millennials or whatever you want to call them) seem to indicate that they have no problem with changing jobs if they feel they've been slighted or disrespected in any way. But, oddly enough, they tend to rise and perform when challenged to do better than they have before. Retooling to match them could prove a very expensive and difficult undertaking.

Honestly, I don't find the job shifting reaction surprising in any way. Then again, I've been studying it for a long time, and I lecture on it . The "challenge" reaction is also not surprising to me - it actually goes together with the job shifting and the lack of any loyalty to organizations. I could, and have , gone on for hours on this shift.

Would it be expensive to retool for this? Probably less expensive than you would think, at least in terms of cost. The biggest cost would be political changes.

Marc

[selil]

The other thing to consider is that most studies of Generation Y (or Millennials or whatever you want to call them) seem to indicate that they have no problem with changing jobs if they feel they've been slighted or disrespected in any way. But, oddly enough, they tend to rise and perform when challenged to do better than they have before. Retooling to match them could prove a very expensive and difficult undertaking.

I was told that my students were arrogant, ignorant, hopeless, deadbeats.

So, I raised the bar. They complained mightily. Attendance got better.

So, I raised the bar again. They complained mightily. Attendance got near perfect.

The problem wasn't the students it was the inflexibility of the instructional methods being foisted on them.

I made the projects real. I integrated actual scientific/technology research into the curriculum. The students stepped up to the challenge.

The Generation that gave us the summer of love, Disco and Cocaine, a war on drugs and the decade of greed (80's), radical religious right bounded by polarized political process (90's), and denigrates the "Y us" generation as being lazy fools has engaged in simple ageism. The 20 year olds of today are the smartest, calmest, tolerant, media savvy generation ever.

[selil]

Resourcing the types of educational investment to build the leaders we want is critical to realizing the goal. While Knowledge Networks, Communities of Practice, and Distance Learning offer opportunities in experience transferal and education on the cheap, the context upon which they draw is limited to the personal ability to internalize it an apply it, therefore it should not be a substitute for small group instruction, but a supplement.

The structure of highly effective educational environments and creating effective learning environments has been solved. The very topics of study in effectively creating the transfer of expertise between individuals and through an organization was originally studying military strategy. Would the grand chess player make a good general? Were the techniques of one type of strategy able to be transferred as expertise to another strategy? Unfortunately the answer has always been maybe.

The keys of knowledge skills and abilities as educational objectives hinge on the key process of context. Context is built through learning objects that the student or learner can internalize and then recall in environments where appropriate. A computer text session can provide some of that context through the stories and sharing between entities in an organization, but often the deeper sense of presence is lacking and context is diluted by the non-transactional or asynchronous communications model.

For rapid transfer of context nothing can beat the smoking room. A bottle of whiskey, a thick cigar, and a few hours for old war horses to reminisce can provide context to a junior (learner) that is missing from most programmed instruction. The key is not necessarily mentorship, but the transfer of expertise in context. The lions of academia in the faculty break room accomplished this task, the aging law officers shared their experiences in the shift room, the O-club served the military in this way.

Unfortunately formalizing concepts like this will rarely succeed. As social constructs organization seem to fall into the trap of creating “executive suites”, “senior officer dining halls”, and the informal transfer (the one most likely to succeed) fail. Similarly providing formal mentorship programs are highly dependent on the specific individuals and organizational context can be lost.

[marct]

Hi Selil,

On most of what you said, I agree. I will, however, beg to differ with you on your final point.

For rapid transfer of context nothing can beat the smoking room. A bottle of whiskey, a thick cigar, and a few hours for old war horses to reminisce can provide context to a junior (learner) that is missing from most programmed instruction....

Unfortunately formalizing concepts like this will rarely succeed. As social constructs organization seem to fall into the trap of creating “executive suites”, “senior officer dining halls”, and the informal transfer (the one most likely to succeed) fail. Similarly providing formal mentorship programs are highly dependent on the specific individuals and organizational context can be lost.

I certainly agree that this is the most effective way of transfering contextual knowledge. Where I would disagree with you is when you say "formalizing concepts like this will rarely succeed".

A highly formalized model of how to organize this type of knowledge transfer exists and has for quite a while. The problem with knowledge of the model is that it comes out of a rather obscure part of Anthropology and the core theoretical texts are written in a manner that would make any manager throw up her hands in disgust.

If you're interested, the model is the classic "Rites of Passage" model produced original by Van Gennep and modified by Victor Turner, Edward Bruner, Charlie Laughlin and some others. Operationally, the model tends to be poorly understood and misapplied outside of Symbolic Anthropology and, to a lessor extent, Performance Anthropology. The reason I disagree with you is that the model was built based on observations in the field of how many cultures actually formalized this type of knowledge transfer.

There are, however, several rather serious operational problem with the model - at least in terms of applying it in large organizations. First, the model relies quite heavily on the use of certain types of ritual structures that have been banned by law in most jurisdictions (it's not drugs, it's a form of psychological manipulation). Second, in order to do it properly, it is both time and person intensive.

Marc

[zenpundit]

"The keys of knowledge skills and abilities as educational objectives hinge on the key process of context. Context is built through learning objects that the student or learner can internalize and then recall in environments where appropriate. A computer text session can provide some of that context through the stories and sharing between entities in an organization, but often the deeper sense of presence is lacking and context is diluted by the non-transactional or asynchronous communications model"

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

IT-based CoP's are a good sight better than not sharing knowledge except through direct instruction in a classroom or autonomous self-study.

[selil]

If you're interested, the model is the classic "Rites of Passage" model produced original by Van Gennep and modified by Victor Turner, Edward Bruner, Charlie Laughlin and some others. Operationally, the model tends to be poorly understood and misapplied outside of Symbolic Anthropology and, to a lessor extent, Performance Anthropology. The reason I disagree with you is that the model was built based on observations in the field of how many cultures actually formalized this type of knowledge transfer.

You learn something new every day.

Thank you for adding to my reading list.

[marct]

You learn something new every day.

Thank you for adding to my reading list.

No probs .

Try The Ritual Process and The Forest of Symbols by Turner, Turner and Bruner's The Anthropology of Experience. For Charlie's work, check out http://www.biogeneticstructuralism.com/

Marc