by Jacob Loftice
I recently had a conversation with an NCO regarding his frustrations with the plan for a certain event. His points had merit, but were diminished by how he conveyed them. Offering a critique coupled with a diatribe about a staff agency’s incompetence rarely achieves a favorable outcome. In speaking with him and helping him refine his pitch, I started thinking of similar examples. In the past 18 years. I have observed and been guilty of various leadership mistakes. These are rarely intentional, often the product of uncertainty, and in many cases avoidable. What follows is my attempt to explain common missteps with examples and recommended approaches to avoid these mistakes. This discussion does not include exposition on blatant disregard for law or regulation. Rather, it treats subtler cases where leaders might be correct in certain ways but risk undermining their rectitude by their attitude or actions.
Assuming You Know Everything
Everybody brings different levels of experience and perspectives to a situation or problem. In many cases, there is not a single correct answer. Most situations allow for various solutions. Leaders do each other a disservice when they assume that actions deviating from their preferred solution only deserve criticism. When we assume that our understanding of a situation is complete, and only our interpretation of events is correct, we can create unnecessary tension. When faced with such situations, my recommendation is to ask questions. I have found that most of the time tension stems from certain parties lacking information possessed by others.
As a battery commander I received a “be prepared to” mission from division-level staff to exchange my fleet of logistics vehicles for a similar but less capable variant. The suggested replacement had approximately four tons less hauling capacity. The switch would require us to double the number of crews and vehicles required for our larger logistics operations and would disallow concurrent operations. My initial reaction was to be combative. It was obvious to me that higher headquarters had no regard for my mission or my Soldiers.
A leader suggested that I reach out to gain some perspective on the purpose of the exchange. As a result, I learned that the Army was short of the vehicle I currently had and sought opportunities to cross-level equipment Army-wide while at the same time minimizing disruption. What higher headquarters actually wanted was an impact statement from my unit. With a better understanding of the situation, I tailored our concerns into an impact statement, and we kept our fleet.
By taking the time to better understand the situation, I was able to see the problem from a different perspective and explain how losing my vehicles impeded what the Army sought to accomplish.
That’s Not My Job
The more complex an organization or operation, the more implied tasks accumulate. These are tasks that need to be accomplished; however, assigning responsibility is not always clear or straightforward. Soldiers can be quick to deflect implied tasks, especially when they see the tasks as tangential to their primary mission. My second recommendation is, as a rule, if a point of friction develops and you are postured to help without interfering with your primary responsibilities, then help. You can AAR the incident to see if a better permanent solution exists later.
In a previous assignment I oversaw a team that provided tactical training and technical advising in a Central American partner nation. Nowhere in the team’s described duties was a statement regarding interpreting for other US organizations. However, we discovered during a planning conference with US Army South (ARSOUTH) that only one of four ARSOUTH attendees spoke Spanish fluently. I knew from experience the difficulty in participating in discussions while also translating for others. Relying on one fluent team member posed a problem for ARSOUTH’s efforts.
Because we had the bandwidth to help, I assigned one of my NCOs to translate for one ARSOUTH member, and I translated for another. The remaining non-fluent ARSOUTH teammate understood Spanish well enough and passed his questions or feedback through his fluent compatriot. This teamwork resulted in establishing a basic framework for engagements between ARSOUTH and that partner nation for the following two years.
This conference occurred when we had no active training events. Because we had flexibility, we could support without neglecting our primary mission, even though it was not our job.
Monday Morning Quarterbacking
It is far easier to proclaim a solution that “would have worked” after an event occurs. Itemizing the failures of another organization or leader and proclaiming what you would have done in their place might identify some learning points. However, doing so in a way that attempts to aggrandize yourself or doing so more publicly than the situation demands is petty. I recommend whenever you raise points that are critical of another person or organization you do so charitably.
I have seen this most often when someone attempts to demonstrate technical acumen by criticizing a predecessor’s actions. This does not include instances where bona fide negligence or criminal activity was uncovered. Instead, it usually highlights past actions that failed to meet the new leader’s preferences.
For instance, I once heard a battery first sergeant state that his predecessor did not have a field artillery qualification program, and he would have to build it from scratch. He made this statement in an open forum with his predecessor present. What caught my attention was that his assessment occurred a few weeks after the battery had successfully completed qualification. What his ”lack of a program” statement boiled down to is that he wanted more emphasis on the fire direction portion of the qualification process. His desire to inject greater rigor was positive, but the manner in which he highlighted it suggested that his predecessor was negligent. A better approach would have been to simply state that he reviewed the qualification program and identified an opportunity to add more complex fire direction training.
Admiring the Problem
During hand-to-hand combat training, I observed medics treating a Soldier for a neck injury. One NCO standing off to the side shared that he thought the Soldier and his training partner were too aggressive. He went on to say something along the lines of, “I knew someone was going to get hurt.” However, he shared this insight after the opportunity to intervene had passed. He chose to do nothing. Thankfully, the injury was a muscle strain that healed in a couple of days, but that Soldier could have easily suffered a spinal injury. The NCO recognized the potential for an avoidable negative outcome, but he was wrong because he did nothing to address the situation.
Admiring a problem is different from allowing someone an opportunity to learn. Allowing someone to struggle in a controlled environment with the aim of teaching a specific lesson or to gain experience is different. Making a young medic triage the wounded from a simulated mass casualty event is an example. In that case, the stress will be heightened, and he may not make optimal decisions, but he is learning how to prioritize care in real time. With the opportunity to reflect and learn from trainers and leaders after the event, he has gained experience that stands to save someone’s life in the future.
When we fail to intervene to correct a problem or confuse a failure to act with providing a training opportunity, we invite situations where issues become more severe. If you recognize a bad situation you have the expertise and opportunity to improve, do so.
Conclusion
This is not an exhaustive list of categories. The examples provided could easily fall into a multitude of categories. The intent is not to provide a taxonomy to catalog missteps but point out some observed tendencies and practical recommendations to avoid these types of mistakes. While the examples included are somewhat benign, they impact command climates, mission accomplishment, and in more serious contexts, bring people to harm. Learning about and avoiding the obvious mistakes allows us to spend less time cleaning up situations and more time capitalizing on opportunities to grow and develop as leaders.
Jacob Loftice is a US Army Field Artillery Officer with recent experience as a brigade and battalion Operations Officer and Executive Officer. He currently serves as the Operations Officer for the Army Multi-Domain Targeting Center.
Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash
