Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Prediction Time, U.S. Army Edition
The end of the ban on gays serving openly in our armed services has arrived and will get plenty of media attention in the next few days. But I predict that the U.S. Army's introduction of 360-degree assessments (.pdf) will not get even one hundredth the level of media attention as the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell but will have a much greater impact on the effectiveness of our uniformed military. We need to give the U.S. Army a lot of credit here. This is a huge step toward the elimination of toxic leaders within the ranks of the officer corps, and this matters, in term of military effectiveness, a hell of a lot more than who one sleeps with.
Andrew- I'm not so sure
Andrew-
I'm not so sure 360degree reviews are always effective. They have to be very carefully managed to work. I'd be a little more hesitant to say they'll matter more or be helpful in eliminating "Toxic Leadership." Mark Horstman and Mike Auzenne have discussed (from time to time) the efficacy of the reviews in their podcasts, and the associated dangers. http://www.manager-tools.com/2009/05/360-reviews-providing-input They can be useful, if the Army can manage them correctly...
//Monkey
Another one:
Another one: http://www.manager-tools.com/2010/05/handling-360-degree-review-input
Really helpful links, Capt.
Really helpful links, Capt. Monkey. Many thanks for weighing.
Toxic leaders exist in all
Toxic leaders exist in all USG organizations. I'm speculating that his topic is part of the reason you left our beloved US Army? Sorry if that is the case Dr. Exum.
Being told to leave the military, because DCIS, NCIS, Army CID used illegal eavesdropping means (listening to phone calls) to find out that you were homosexual, probably a little more significant. Back in the 90's that kind of stuff went on all the time on military bases. Many gay's were processed out of the military, for being over-weight, having health issues, etc... rather than bringing up the ugly gay/lesbian topic in the newspapers.
Here's to hoping that our military organizations will evolve / improve and treat their personnel better than they have in the past.
Below is some good news on the pocketbook getting closed.
http://www.army.mil/article/63610/Secretary_of_the_Army_announces_effort...
What I find interesting, is that (right now) some high-level DoD contractors, are being offered full-time positions within the USG, in advance of the contractor cuts coming in the next 6 months and in advance of next year's elections. Everyone sees the writing on the wall.
The Secretary of Defense is getting ready to do some major budget cuts and what would be even better news, would be if we brought the troops home (with the exception of Special Forces) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama should slash contractor positions government wide. DoD making full time positions in SOCOM and other top priority offices, is the best solution.
I'm not sure I agree with you
I'm not sure I agree with you as much on the 360-assessments. The Navy has had them for a few years (since at least 2007), and while they certainly CAN be used to remove toxic leaders, it doesn't seem like they ARE being used. People still get shuttered through the system.
Like a lot of systems, it only works as well the people who own it want it to work.
People still get shuttered
People still get shuttered through the system?
Shuttered... or sheltered, hidden and even protected?
Like Capt. Owen P. Honors?
Typically the system only changes with grievance's and law suits
The Peter Principle of Management is still alive and well with plenty of idiots at the helm.
New tricks. 360 is not a new
New tricks.
360 is not a new concept, just a new name. Some researcher somewhere put together a productivity model where happy people do more. There is truth to that. Expect birds of a feather will flock together. Concepts like 360 tend to make organization flatter, people do not buck the system cause they do not want the system to attack them. You get your best solutions when you have conflicting ideas. It is how you sort them out can be the sticky part.
Major problem with 360 and other HR programs is that they do not apply past a defined level within the organization. The people that can not be fired make the same mistakes over again can have the most visible effect on productivity, those people usually get the best pay and golden parachutes.
How many Generals were discredited for the WOT, how many lost or had a penalized pension? They need to have some skin in the game. Especially when people's lives depend on it.
BTW.. When I did my work, it was done professionally. The HR stuff got the way, it was paperwork and more structure. Not the we did not cut up and throttle each other, it was a high energy environment, we always were productive and met our goals. We were all taught to sink or swim. Guess people are just more touchy feelly these days.
Military promotions are a
Military promotions are a classic Tragedy of the Commons. The guy that you want from the perspective of winning wars is really bright, imaginative, in love with the profession of arms and indifferent to the careerist incentives and disincentives, a Xenophon. On the other hand, the guy you want from the perspective of advancing your own career is moderately bright, not too imaginative, completely career-driven, and in general not prone to rocking the boat, having heretical thoughts or at least putting them into action, capable of spouting the party line with utter conviction for lack of superceding principles. A company man, a frat boy, capable of discussing Fox News and college football with total absorption for hours on end-an Eisenhower.
As you go up the chain, there are always going to be less and less of the former and more and more of the latter. There's simply no percentage in promoting the Xenophons-the odds that they will do something brilliant which will make you look good are about the same as the odds of them doing something heretical and make you look bad. Eisenhowers will just do as they're told, and you can pencil whip the results to make you look as good as you would if you had a Xenophon under you. Look at the bullets of any good OER-"conducted x raids against the insurgent network in y province, resulting in the killing or capture of z insurgent leaders," "led an automation effort resulting in the streamlining of intelligence collection, allowing blah blah blah"-does any of that show the difference between Eisenhower and Xenophon?
360 ratings are not gonna change any of that. The structural incentives opposing change are too great in a semi-peacetime military.
I believe that the 360
I believe that the 360 assessments are a step in the right direction of gathering information and I am interested in looking into this topic a bit more. If the 360 assessment is completed prior to the rater and senior rater comments and is made avaialble to both raters as a way to frame their thinking, than I think that this is a right move. The safeguard from both a poor rater and senior rater abusing their power is the 360 assessment being part of the permanant record and being available as one more data mark in the OER review/appeal process should the rated officer contest it. If the 360 assessment is not available for the rater or senior rater, than it is just one more document and does not offer anything to the process beyond being a benchmark for self-assessment. I can see two potential problems ahead is that 1) Without objective standards in the 360 tied to OER measures of performance, than you run the risk of their being no true rigour to the comments and 2) How do you protect against the 360 merely being a popularity contest amongst peers and subordinates? These are some things that I imagine we are going to have to iron out but that being said, I am a mid-career MAJ who believes that the previous system of ratings was stagnant, moribund and not always a good indication of who was quality and who was not. I am at least gratified to see the Army doing something concrete to address the problem rather than say there is a problem and not do anything.
One additional point that has been lost on some. A quick perusal of the new standard show that it is no longer required to mark initial and quarterly counselings on the OER Form. I am appalled at the lip service paid to mentoring and counseling our junior Officers (I just came out of being a BN XO, I know of what I speak here) exhibited by many and am unhappy to see that we further reinforced our institutional failure by removing this requirement. Definite fail on this point.
The Army's focus on toxic
The Army's focus on toxic leadership is goin pretty full bore now. It is taking up a large part of professional officer education to try and identify it in organizations and in leaders. The slight push back that is being voiced comes from those that think that it is all politically correct non-sense. In the end the Army made a pretty good desicion in implementing it the way it did for BN and BDE commanders so that those who are being required to provide info as subordinates are, in theory, mature and experienced enough to provide valid feedback. At the lower levels it can be used as an enhancer to leader development but should not be seen as a true indicator of the capability of a Team Leader or Squad Leader as the maturity level of the subordinates can be an issue.
The above posting is not an official position of the US Army or the US Government. It is solely the personal opinion of the writer.
Leonard Della-Moretta
CPT, LG
27SEP11
Thank you for such a
Thank you for such a fantastic web site. On what other blog could anyone get this kind of information written in such an insightful way? I have a presentation that I am just now working on, and I have been looking for such info.
Toxic leaders survive and
Toxic leaders survive and thrive for one simple reason. They get dramatic results in a very short time. Unfortunately, we have all seen the damning effects of a toxic leader plague an organization for years after their COC ceremony. The true trouble is, those who were looking for those results, often at the BDE level, will be long gone before those negative effects begin to clear out. The Army's focus on this is a step in the right direction, but Chris Otero brings a valid point that deserves to be underscored. How do you put teeth in the process, without making it a popularity contest?
The Army Times article on this discusses the command climate survey as having been in place for some time. However, these surveys are pitched to the respective commanders. Good commanders take them seriously. I would venture to say that those who take them personally are probably not effective commanders. Conversely, the toxic leaders usually dismiss them with little thought, particularly with the knowledge that they are producing results for their senior leaders that are very popular. I draw a comparison here to the corporate leader that opts for the quick financial return in favor of more sound, long term business practices. I would have to conclude then, that toxic leaders will continue to grace the ranks of our military as long as there is a need for quick, dirty results among more senior leaders, and be damned with the long term effects it has on the unit and the servicemen and women.
In years past, there has been many similar initiatives. I will never forget, during the zero tolerance years, hearing my Brigade Commander state, "if you have a Soldier seriously injured or killed in training, IT RUINS YOUR CAREER." By that, he stated, in word and deed, that "I" will destroy your career if that happens. The benefits of this attitude was to bring a highlight on safety (not a bad thing). The Army senior leaders at the time, were correct in making that a priority. However, we know now the result of that zero tolerance policy, just on safety alone, was a nonpermissive environment that crippled our training capabilities. Soldiers couldn't handle a rifle on the range properly, let alone be expected to engage an enemy. So were I king for the day, I would proceed very, very cautiously and with a degree of realism as we rid our ranks of toxic leaders, and focus heavily on residual effects of ill concieved policy and cultural swings.
Add your comment