selection process. Where you see conver- gence between the military and civilian leadership worlds is that we are seeing more and more pressure for unimpeach- able ethical conduct. Tis goes for the corporate world, where we see more and more early departures from the executive suite and boardroom, and it occurs regu- larly in the federal world. And, as we’ve seen very recently, we do hold—and we ought to hold—our appointed and elected officials to the highest standard of personal conduct. I believe that anyone who has the authority to commit others to combat has to have the highest pos- sible moral and ethical standards.
Q. As you know, the Army acquisition community is focused on being more
“agile,” more flexible and responsive. What does the “agile” concept suggest to you?
A. Tis is a tall order. Te word “agility” seems much in vogue. I suppose “agile policy” might help, but I don’t think the FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] or the oversight folks would agree! I think most behavioral
scientists, and we lay-
men, would agree that humans have different mental processes and attributes. Tere is an acknowledged neurological
“wiring” for how we deal with change … how quickly we move from one task to another. We’ve measured this for many years in leadership programs and classify people—which sounds dangerous—as
“adaptors” or “innovators” measured by the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inven- tory or [W. Christopher] Musselwhite’s Change Style Indicator (Conserver-Prag- matist-Originator). I can tell you that the data I’ve been a part of for more than a decade do show differences between mili- tary and civilian leaders in this domain.
Tink about it. We have an expectation that military leaders follow prescribed policies,
rules, and
have to. And those who are motivated for a military career tend to be those who understand this. Data from the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator
point
out a statistically significant difference between civilian and military leaders in the dimension that has to do with how information is gained (sensing-intuition). Senior leaders in the corporate world tend to be “intuitors,” while “sensors” prevail in the senior military leader ranks. Strat- egy development may be much tougher for a “sensor”—those who have to see, touch, taste, feel, hear, smell as a data- gathering source—and these kinds of conversations have to take place when you’re dealing with asymmetric warfare, insurgency, and counterterrorism.
Obviously, agility doesn’t have to be a natural attribute; if you know you tend to be pretty conservative, all you have to do is find someone who’s not like you and ask them for their input.
Finally, one of the sophisticated psy-
chological tests that has been used on senior military leaders shows that they score somewhat higher than their corpo- rate counterparts in every single metric except two: sensitivity toward others and flexibility, where their scores are mod- estly lower. Based on my experience, this
“self-awareness” piece is the foundation of effective leadership, and on a couple of important metrics I think it safe to say that it might even be tougher for military leaders to be naturally “agile.”
Q. What lessons from the Acquisition Leadership Challenge Program (ALCP) that you conduct for the Army and Air Force do you think apply to the concept of being more agile?
protocols. Tey
A. Just knowing your preferences is an enormous starting point. Until you know how you’re wired, while you know
others aren’t like you, having some actual data and understanding can be pretty helpful. We generally tell participants to take their instrumented feedback home with them and let their spouse or sig- nificant other read it. Tey’ll probably hear a comment like, “How much did the Army pay for you to hear that? I’ve been telling you this stuff for the past 15 years!” Tis goes across the ranks; I’ve heard it as high as the four-star level.
Q. How do those lessons play out in day- to-day work?
A. We know that some folks really like to have their day scheduled, planned, and organized. It’s always fun to ask a class, “How many of you have a to-do list?” Usually around 10 people out of 24 raise their hands. If you’ve served in any major headquarters, and particularly in the Pentagon, how often does someone drop a last-minute suspense on your desk and say, “Oh, we need this by COB today”? So much for the to-do list.
Some folks are fine with this. Tese are the same people who crammed for col- lege exams the night before. But if you drop this on a superorganized person, they are not happy.
We also see the lesson played out in how different people use influencing skills. Last year, we began testing this. If you tend to “assert” rather than “bridge” to get things done, you may run into prob- lems with your peers. If your primary conflict style is to “compete” when it might be better to “collaborate,” then you ought to have that information. We provide these data in our classes, along with a host of other data to amplify this self-awareness piece. After all, you can’t really understand me if you don’t under- stand yourself.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
145
CRITICAL THINKING
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212
