Posted on Nov 24, 2014
Relating Values and Leadership Competencies: How Can We Do Better?
26.3K
43
26
10
10
0
In reading a multitude of leadership books written for civilian organizations and business management, I have noted a trend for confusing a leadership competency with a leadership value. Ideally, one has core values, which lead to the development of leadership competencies and are then reflected in exceptional behavior. From the moment of entry into the Service, each member is treated as a leader in training. The goal is to create leadership competencies and inculcate institutional values so that regardless of rank, when finding oneself in a crisis, those competencies come to the fore and are reflected in ethical decisions and judgments.
As an example, numerous authors use "integrity" as a leadership competency. I argue one can be an extraordinary leader without integrity (the dictionary definition: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty). For example, Stalin and Hitler were effective leaders, but I would not bet a penny on them possessing integrity.
An example of a desired leader competency would be "decisive under pressure" (derived from Clausewitz's classic "On War" but is also listed in Wooten & James [2008]). Others could be “persuasive both up and down the chain of command,” “motivating,” and “energetic.” Wooten and James (2008) list “communicating effectively,” “promoting organizational resilience,” and “sense making,” among several others.
One's "character" is derived from the concepts that an individual consciously decides to value. If I say I value integrity but you catch me lying on a readiness report, then there is a disconnect between my values and my behavior, thus calling my character into question.
History is rife with military leaders who failed to uphold institutional values and it was reflected in their behavior, but there are differences between character failure and human error. Tom Ricks, in his book "The Generals", makes a persuasive case that the Army in particular has failed to train, educate, and promote good leaders which has led to mediocrity. I don’t completely agree with his assessment, for in my own career I didn’t meet any “donkeys” but I certainly witnessed “lions led by snakes” and “lions led by eagles.” I have also seen people stumble under pressure, stress, and loss and then be unmercifully sacrificed. Have we built a culture in our military which construes human error (which I argue can build knowledge and character) as character failures which become career ending?
So my question to the community is: which one value do you see as crucial to military leadership and what is its relationship to the leadership competencies that it underpins? How can we as a military community do a better job instilling that value or developing desired leadership competencies?
If you don’t mind me quoting you in future articles or discussions please be sure to add “can quote me” at the end of your reply. Thank you!
As an example, numerous authors use "integrity" as a leadership competency. I argue one can be an extraordinary leader without integrity (the dictionary definition: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty). For example, Stalin and Hitler were effective leaders, but I would not bet a penny on them possessing integrity.
An example of a desired leader competency would be "decisive under pressure" (derived from Clausewitz's classic "On War" but is also listed in Wooten & James [2008]). Others could be “persuasive both up and down the chain of command,” “motivating,” and “energetic.” Wooten and James (2008) list “communicating effectively,” “promoting organizational resilience,” and “sense making,” among several others.
One's "character" is derived from the concepts that an individual consciously decides to value. If I say I value integrity but you catch me lying on a readiness report, then there is a disconnect between my values and my behavior, thus calling my character into question.
History is rife with military leaders who failed to uphold institutional values and it was reflected in their behavior, but there are differences between character failure and human error. Tom Ricks, in his book "The Generals", makes a persuasive case that the Army in particular has failed to train, educate, and promote good leaders which has led to mediocrity. I don’t completely agree with his assessment, for in my own career I didn’t meet any “donkeys” but I certainly witnessed “lions led by snakes” and “lions led by eagles.” I have also seen people stumble under pressure, stress, and loss and then be unmercifully sacrificed. Have we built a culture in our military which construes human error (which I argue can build knowledge and character) as character failures which become career ending?
So my question to the community is: which one value do you see as crucial to military leadership and what is its relationship to the leadership competencies that it underpins? How can we as a military community do a better job instilling that value or developing desired leadership competencies?
If you don’t mind me quoting you in future articles or discussions please be sure to add “can quote me” at the end of your reply. Thank you!
Values
Character
Leadership
Integrity
Command Post
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 9
Prudence to be able to see different perspectives and helping to make better decisions.Temperance in learning to control your emotions. Fortitude to be courageous and persistent And Justice to treat people fairly.
Without prudence you won't be able to collect evidence or information from knowledgable sources before making decisions or moving ahead. You need to be objective and reflective before choosing your course of action.
Temperance will help you avoid greed or lack of self control and to admit to mistakes and allow you to work on correcting them.
Fortitude helps you overcome your fears. You can't be courageous and worry about failure. You need the fortitude to carry on and be prudent in your decision making.
Justice in treating people fairly will also benefit you and help your success as well as benefiting society as a whole.
Without prudence you won't be able to collect evidence or information from knowledgable sources before making decisions or moving ahead. You need to be objective and reflective before choosing your course of action.
Temperance will help you avoid greed or lack of self control and to admit to mistakes and allow you to work on correcting them.
Fortitude helps you overcome your fears. You can't be courageous and worry about failure. You need the fortitude to carry on and be prudent in your decision making.
Justice in treating people fairly will also benefit you and help your success as well as benefiting society as a whole.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
We have already discussed Integrity and I like what SGT Kristin Wiley had to say about it. It IS doing the right thing when nobody is looking.
So far nobody has discussed "courage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage
Courage can be both moral and physical. Physical courage is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death, or threat of death, whereas moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement.
A Biblical example of courage is depicted in the story of David vs Goliath:
King David showed a great deal of physical courage when he volunteered to go and fight Goliath. He wasn't initimidated by Goliath's size and taunting threats. In fact, it angered him and provoked him to action. In his shepherd's mind, he likened Goliath to a lion or bear, whom he had engaged and fought off many times while protecting his flock. He recognized that if he got close to Goliath (within range of Goliath's spear and javelin), he would be at an extreme disadvantage (even with armor), so he opted to wear no armor (for better mobility) and use his sling, a longer range weapon with the lethality and stopping power of a .45 cal. He was confident in his ability to employ his T/O weapon accurately and knew where Goliath was most vulnerable. As for the rest of the story, it's history. ; )
So far nobody has discussed "courage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage
Courage can be both moral and physical. Physical courage is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death, or threat of death, whereas moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement.
A Biblical example of courage is depicted in the story of David vs Goliath:
King David showed a great deal of physical courage when he volunteered to go and fight Goliath. He wasn't initimidated by Goliath's size and taunting threats. In fact, it angered him and provoked him to action. In his shepherd's mind, he likened Goliath to a lion or bear, whom he had engaged and fought off many times while protecting his flock. He recognized that if he got close to Goliath (within range of Goliath's spear and javelin), he would be at an extreme disadvantage (even with armor), so he opted to wear no armor (for better mobility) and use his sling, a longer range weapon with the lethality and stopping power of a .45 cal. He was confident in his ability to employ his T/O weapon accurately and knew where Goliath was most vulnerable. As for the rest of the story, it's history. ; )
(4)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Thank you Capt Jeff S. . Courage is one of the foundational values but so many fail here...lack of courage to report superiors having affairs with subordinates, lack of courage to report contract fraud, lack of courage to stand up to verbal abuse or sexual harassment. I know for my service what others label as "ethical failures" generally boil down to foundational lack of courage. So what can we do to instill this value in those coming behind us when we have a culture that says "not my problem" or "be loyal to the person even when they are actively doing wrong"?
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
It would be nice if leadership training was something that you could break down like a math problem but unfortunately it is best modeled so that subordinates can pick up on its example by observing the conduct of their superiors. It can be taught, by sharing numerous examples of correct decisions being made and the positive outcomes they generated.
In the USMC, no sense me being modest, I believe that the leadership training is the best. Before the Marines let lieutenants loose on the rest of the Fleet Marine Force, the lieutenants spend 6 months learning the basics of being a Marine officer at "The Basic School." During that time, they are evaluated for leadership and those that display poor leadership are processed out. Part of leadership is being technically and tactically proficient and so failure to be able to qualify with the pistol and rifle, or failure to pass a block of training after remediation is ultimately going to ensure that the lieutenant is never placed in a position of leadership where troops are exposed to them. Their careers are necessarily short. It's the price you pay to have only good potential leaders leading.
During that six months, not only are the lieutenants evaluated by their senior officers, but they also evaluate each other and they are judged on how well they evaluate their peers. Some of what goes into their evaluation is how well they do on things like the Reaction Course, where they are given tasks to accomplish, limited resources and then are evaluated on how well they succeed in accomplishing their mission. It requires quick thinking and a fair amount of creativity and those that contribute ideas and are able to effectively convince others to follow their ideas naturally are viewed more favorably by their peers.
Since Quantico is located adjacent to the FBI Academy, several times during training the lieutenants are exposed to guest speakers (including former Commandants, POWs like CWO Durant, others who distinguished themselves in combat, etc.) who discuss their experience and the decisions they made which either helped accomplish the mission or kept them alive. I particularly liked those lectures. The Lieutenants are also given a list of books to read that are considered part of their professional reading and they are required to read so many books while there. The requirement to continue reading does not stop when they finish school. This concept worked so well for officers that it was mandated for enlisted just before I left the service back in 2000.
Those Lieutenants that are fortunate to be selected as an aide have an opportunity to get noticed by senior officers as well as pick up on their leadership styles. Those that are not that lucky can still gain a lot if they are fortunate to have good senior officers and SNCO's that can take them under their wing and mentor them. And if they're smart, they'll chew on what the other officers and their senior enlisted tell them and learn from it. Sometimes you will find it necessary to change from what has been done in the past and you have to walk a fine line between alienating your SNCO's whose recommendations you are not taking, and holding them responsible to do as you ask as if it were their own idea. If they respect you enough, they will do what you ask and they might even discover that there is a more efficient way to accomplish a task.
When I was the N-2 in Cuba, I had to brief the base CO and Marine Barracks CO weekly at the SCIF where I worked. Before our brief, they would go up the hill and get a brief from the SIGINT folks and I noticed that at times there was a difference between what they were saying and what we were. I suggested that before the SIGINT brief we get together with them and iron out the differences. My Intel chief was against that idea because he felt that we would look better if they were wrong. I didn't see that as being particularly constructive and besides, why should the two CO's have to sit through a brief at two different places, be exposed to conflicting info and have to sort out which is right, when they could go to one place and get everything there. The SIGINT folks had a nice conference room and so I decided that we should have the brief there. We had to courier our brief but it really wasn't that much trouble to do so long as procedures were followed. The benefit of my idea was that it would take less time out of the CO's day and insure everyone was on the same page. My Intel Chief tried to turn the shop against me and in the end I had to fire him. The CO's appreciated what I did, but I'm not sure if my replacement continued the practice after I left.
I felt that the benefit of insuring that we were on the same page with the SIGINT folks (oft times what you hear isn't necessarily what is happening), the elimination of redundant information briefed, and the time saved for the CO's having to travel [and then wait for two different briefs to get started] outweighed the risk of transporting our classified brief over to the SIGINT site in advance of the brief, which was just a short distance away. We had a portable safe which was not that much trouble to move and I even worked things out so that we briefed the SECRET portion of the brief, so that we didn't have to courier TS info. If something came up that was that important, I would call the CO's and brief them at our SCIF. It wouldn't be info that we would want to sit on for several days anyway...
Part of leadership is seeing possible ways to improve things, being a team player, and having the balls to stand up for what you believe even if at first it isn't well received by the troops.
In the USMC, no sense me being modest, I believe that the leadership training is the best. Before the Marines let lieutenants loose on the rest of the Fleet Marine Force, the lieutenants spend 6 months learning the basics of being a Marine officer at "The Basic School." During that time, they are evaluated for leadership and those that display poor leadership are processed out. Part of leadership is being technically and tactically proficient and so failure to be able to qualify with the pistol and rifle, or failure to pass a block of training after remediation is ultimately going to ensure that the lieutenant is never placed in a position of leadership where troops are exposed to them. Their careers are necessarily short. It's the price you pay to have only good potential leaders leading.
During that six months, not only are the lieutenants evaluated by their senior officers, but they also evaluate each other and they are judged on how well they evaluate their peers. Some of what goes into their evaluation is how well they do on things like the Reaction Course, where they are given tasks to accomplish, limited resources and then are evaluated on how well they succeed in accomplishing their mission. It requires quick thinking and a fair amount of creativity and those that contribute ideas and are able to effectively convince others to follow their ideas naturally are viewed more favorably by their peers.
Since Quantico is located adjacent to the FBI Academy, several times during training the lieutenants are exposed to guest speakers (including former Commandants, POWs like CWO Durant, others who distinguished themselves in combat, etc.) who discuss their experience and the decisions they made which either helped accomplish the mission or kept them alive. I particularly liked those lectures. The Lieutenants are also given a list of books to read that are considered part of their professional reading and they are required to read so many books while there. The requirement to continue reading does not stop when they finish school. This concept worked so well for officers that it was mandated for enlisted just before I left the service back in 2000.
Those Lieutenants that are fortunate to be selected as an aide have an opportunity to get noticed by senior officers as well as pick up on their leadership styles. Those that are not that lucky can still gain a lot if they are fortunate to have good senior officers and SNCO's that can take them under their wing and mentor them. And if they're smart, they'll chew on what the other officers and their senior enlisted tell them and learn from it. Sometimes you will find it necessary to change from what has been done in the past and you have to walk a fine line between alienating your SNCO's whose recommendations you are not taking, and holding them responsible to do as you ask as if it were their own idea. If they respect you enough, they will do what you ask and they might even discover that there is a more efficient way to accomplish a task.
When I was the N-2 in Cuba, I had to brief the base CO and Marine Barracks CO weekly at the SCIF where I worked. Before our brief, they would go up the hill and get a brief from the SIGINT folks and I noticed that at times there was a difference between what they were saying and what we were. I suggested that before the SIGINT brief we get together with them and iron out the differences. My Intel chief was against that idea because he felt that we would look better if they were wrong. I didn't see that as being particularly constructive and besides, why should the two CO's have to sit through a brief at two different places, be exposed to conflicting info and have to sort out which is right, when they could go to one place and get everything there. The SIGINT folks had a nice conference room and so I decided that we should have the brief there. We had to courier our brief but it really wasn't that much trouble to do so long as procedures were followed. The benefit of my idea was that it would take less time out of the CO's day and insure everyone was on the same page. My Intel Chief tried to turn the shop against me and in the end I had to fire him. The CO's appreciated what I did, but I'm not sure if my replacement continued the practice after I left.
I felt that the benefit of insuring that we were on the same page with the SIGINT folks (oft times what you hear isn't necessarily what is happening), the elimination of redundant information briefed, and the time saved for the CO's having to travel [and then wait for two different briefs to get started] outweighed the risk of transporting our classified brief over to the SIGINT site in advance of the brief, which was just a short distance away. We had a portable safe which was not that much trouble to move and I even worked things out so that we briefed the SECRET portion of the brief, so that we didn't have to courier TS info. If something came up that was that important, I would call the CO's and brief them at our SCIF. It wouldn't be info that we would want to sit on for several days anyway...
Part of leadership is seeing possible ways to improve things, being a team player, and having the balls to stand up for what you believe even if at first it isn't well received by the troops.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Dennis F.
Capt Jeff S. Regarding Courage. This is something that I have borrowed a few times. He really nailed it.
Courage
“Courage, stripped away from the poetry, is no more than performance in a situation or environment in a way in which others within that same situation or environment admire, because they feel it to have been beyond their capabilities. Sometimes it means no more than just “keeping cool”, when others can’t. Sometimes it means a little more, like staying in control of your and their environment when they lead themselves to believe that same environment is in control and they are now in effect its victims. Environments or situations span the spectrum from the battlefield to the office-from fighting as a member of a team to facing certain death alone, from having to stand by unable to help while loved ones die, having to accept the responsibility for anything and everything that occurs within your environment.
No one is ever solely a victim. In the worst of most damaging of situations each man has a variety of ways in which he can act or go. The outcomes are therefore the result of actions and not the result of being forced by the situation to react in the only way still possible. Where one man drowns, another man enjoys a swim, because he has learned a skill. Learn then, those skills which are important to your survival. Courage is. And courage can be learned.
Right now stop. Convince yourself of a truth we banter about lightly without ever taking the time to understand. Take the time now. Really consider and think about this next sentence. “Everyone has to die.” It’s true. It’s really so. Every one of us are truly, without question, going to die. Get it into your head. Convince yourself. Take the time now and actually convince yourself of that one important fact of your life-You Are Going To Die. The only questions remaining are “When” and “How”.
When? No one knows. It could occur at any time. How? It can be with courage or in fear. You cannot control the ‘When” But you can the “How” just make sure you are not caught unaware. Don’t get caught dying a coward when you can go with even less difficulty as a hero. So don’t put off being brave. Teach yourself now. Begin to be courageous now, and continue to be; each time as if it’s the last chance you’re ever going to get to go out in a blaze of glory. Try it. It doesn’t take long. And before long it will become habit. If you’re going to die, and you are, then why the hell not take advantage of the situation and play out the “How” as your choice instead of as if it where someone else’s. Make up your mind to die when the time comes and you’ll begin to live like a man. Right then……..” (Col Anthony Herbert was America’s most decorated soldier and where ever he is I thank him for his extraordinary service and his words.).
Courage
“Courage, stripped away from the poetry, is no more than performance in a situation or environment in a way in which others within that same situation or environment admire, because they feel it to have been beyond their capabilities. Sometimes it means no more than just “keeping cool”, when others can’t. Sometimes it means a little more, like staying in control of your and their environment when they lead themselves to believe that same environment is in control and they are now in effect its victims. Environments or situations span the spectrum from the battlefield to the office-from fighting as a member of a team to facing certain death alone, from having to stand by unable to help while loved ones die, having to accept the responsibility for anything and everything that occurs within your environment.
No one is ever solely a victim. In the worst of most damaging of situations each man has a variety of ways in which he can act or go. The outcomes are therefore the result of actions and not the result of being forced by the situation to react in the only way still possible. Where one man drowns, another man enjoys a swim, because he has learned a skill. Learn then, those skills which are important to your survival. Courage is. And courage can be learned.
Right now stop. Convince yourself of a truth we banter about lightly without ever taking the time to understand. Take the time now. Really consider and think about this next sentence. “Everyone has to die.” It’s true. It’s really so. Every one of us are truly, without question, going to die. Get it into your head. Convince yourself. Take the time now and actually convince yourself of that one important fact of your life-You Are Going To Die. The only questions remaining are “When” and “How”.
When? No one knows. It could occur at any time. How? It can be with courage or in fear. You cannot control the ‘When” But you can the “How” just make sure you are not caught unaware. Don’t get caught dying a coward when you can go with even less difficulty as a hero. So don’t put off being brave. Teach yourself now. Begin to be courageous now, and continue to be; each time as if it’s the last chance you’re ever going to get to go out in a blaze of glory. Try it. It doesn’t take long. And before long it will become habit. If you’re going to die, and you are, then why the hell not take advantage of the situation and play out the “How” as your choice instead of as if it where someone else’s. Make up your mind to die when the time comes and you’ll begin to live like a man. Right then……..” (Col Anthony Herbert was America’s most decorated soldier and where ever he is I thank him for his extraordinary service and his words.).
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Ma'am,
You can be an effective leader without integrity. Instead of winning the hearts and minds of our troops some leaders such as Stalin and Hitler use fear and violence to be 'effective'. My definition of integrity isn't 'honesty', but closer to 'being honest for the right reasons.' If you are going to be an extraordinary leader you need to win the hearts and minds of your troops, and with integrity you will have the strength to say what needs to be said and to without hold information when it needs to be withheld. Integrity earns you trust, trust earns you loyalty and respect. In my life, integrity is more of a lifestyle than a value. Having integrity means you have the morale compass to do the right thing on and off duty, unlike some individuals who only do the right thing when someone is looking.
You can be an effective leader without integrity. Instead of winning the hearts and minds of our troops some leaders such as Stalin and Hitler use fear and violence to be 'effective'. My definition of integrity isn't 'honesty', but closer to 'being honest for the right reasons.' If you are going to be an extraordinary leader you need to win the hearts and minds of your troops, and with integrity you will have the strength to say what needs to be said and to without hold information when it needs to be withheld. Integrity earns you trust, trust earns you loyalty and respect. In my life, integrity is more of a lifestyle than a value. Having integrity means you have the morale compass to do the right thing on and off duty, unlike some individuals who only do the right thing when someone is looking.
(3)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Thank you SGT Kristin Wiley . I also like the less commonly used definition of integrity which is that of "wholeness" or "complete." So if I value integrity (which is one of my personal favorites) then the competencies that flow from that value include consistency of belief which become reflected through my character and are manifested in my behavior. If I am "hearing" you correctly (please correct me if I don't get this right) you are stating that when troops see an inconsistency in values, character and behavior then leaders are unable to connect to them through their "hearts and minds" and I agree and think this is especially true of the generation now coming into the military. I like the way you state it is "more of a lifestyle" but would argue that it is because you have chosen to make it your number one value.
What are some of your thoughts on how we instill that "moral compass to do the right thing" even if no one is watching in our incoming troops and those that currently are not quite there?
What are some of your thoughts on how we instill that "moral compass to do the right thing" even if no one is watching in our incoming troops and those that currently are not quite there?
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
PS you also brought up trust SGT Kristin Wiley which is crucial component to leadership and followership...any ideas on how we can do a better job creating trust in the military?
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
Ma'am,
Leaders need to instill trust through their actions. If you, as a commander, have to make a tough decision that you know your troops aren't going to like, then after you make that decision you need to be talking with your troops and ensuring them you care and have their best interests in mind. Many individuals see President Bush as a more sympathic President because he visited the soldiers and the wounded quite frequently. He made a tough call on sending us overseas, but him sacrificing his time on his busy schedule to visit us instilled more trust in him. He was by no means a perfect leader, but his small gestures of appreciation meant a lot. Trust comes with being trustworthy, which also happens to be a lifestyle. Many of the current leaders in the military are not trustworthy and never will be. It's a sad fact, but if we can't have trust in our leaders their leadership capabilites our limited. A better question is how do we rid ourselves of these untrustworthy leaders and inspire new soldiers to be the trustworthy leaders we need?
Leaders need to instill trust through their actions. If you, as a commander, have to make a tough decision that you know your troops aren't going to like, then after you make that decision you need to be talking with your troops and ensuring them you care and have their best interests in mind. Many individuals see President Bush as a more sympathic President because he visited the soldiers and the wounded quite frequently. He made a tough call on sending us overseas, but him sacrificing his time on his busy schedule to visit us instilled more trust in him. He was by no means a perfect leader, but his small gestures of appreciation meant a lot. Trust comes with being trustworthy, which also happens to be a lifestyle. Many of the current leaders in the military are not trustworthy and never will be. It's a sad fact, but if we can't have trust in our leaders their leadership capabilites our limited. A better question is how do we rid ourselves of these untrustworthy leaders and inspire new soldiers to be the trustworthy leaders we need?
(4)
(0)
SSG Selwyn Bodley
SGT Kristin Wiley Great and refreshing answer! Would work for a leader like you any day!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google