Professional Military Education

Exploring military history, strategy, and ideas through the lens of great books and an awesome podcast!

"The most important six inches

on the battlefield

is between your ears."

General James Mattis (USMC-Ret.)

leadership

Lying to Ourselves: An Interview with Dr. Leonard Wong

By on

My guest is Dr. Leonard Wong, a research professor at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. In February 2015, he co-authored a paper with Stephen Gerras called “Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession.” The interview explores how a culture of “ethical laziness” has spread throughout military branches like the U.S. Army. The essential question is whether the Army “system” has eroded virtues like integrity. Dr. Wong argues that through “overtasking” i.e. too many training requirements, military leaders will consciously report false or misleading information.

But, is this malicious? Is it a new phenomenon? What can military leaders do now to recover the core values that make the profession of arms so widely respected? This conversation will stir a lot of passionate debates and emotions, but that is a good thing. Dr. Wong takes on a difficult topic, and it will only challenge military leaders to think and improve their profession.

What has been created?

In his research of the U.S. Army, Dr. Wong tallied up 297 days of mandatory training. However, there were only 256 days of available training. He reported this in a study called, “Stifling Innovation.”

If one has served in the military, then they probably understand the extent to which an overwhelming number of training requirements persists. Many are specific to a certain job. For example, marksmanship training is an obligation for infantrymen. However, other less mission critical requirements like tobacco cessation training are also training requirements. Furthermore, in this case, both training requirements stand on equal footing. As a result, each year infantrymen are expected to have completed both their rifle qualification training and tobacco cessation training (note: there are many requirements similar to tobacco cessation i.e. required but not mission critical).

While tobacco cessation training is typically done on a web based program, most people quickly click through the training modules to get it done. The goal is to report compliance. This strips away the seriousness of the actual objective i.e. reducing tobacco use and promoting a healthier lifestyle. Thus, the training becomes comical and is treated as a “check in the box.”

Dr. Wong’s central argument is that these types of requirements are having a damaging effect on the ethical integrity of the military. While the training may be a positive initiative (tobacco use is not a healthy habit), it is not perceived that way at lower levels. Instead it is perceived as an obstacle to be overcome.

How did it get to this point?

Trust is crucial. It is vital to the effectiveness of any organization. Leaders must trust each other and trust the people they lead. But, if there is a lack of trust in leadership than a mandatory training requirement might be created to replace it. The message is, “We don’t trust you to look after the welfare of your troops so now we are going to make you do it by imposing XYZ training.”

What is the effect?

Typically, lower level unit leaders roll their eyes and figure out the quickest way to expedite the training. As Dr. Wong suggests this is where the ethical erosion begins to take place. So when a lower level leader “checks the box” to report compliance, it is rarely seen as morally suspect. When the answer is we are “good to go”, this is what higher up leaders want to hear. This is the essence of “lying to ourselves.” Dr. Wong argues that higher ups often understand that “good to go” may be satisfying the mandates of the system. In many cases, those same leaders have been brought up in the system and understand that the reporting may be exaggerated if not blatantly false.

A system of distrust can also be self-perpetuating. It becomes a vicious cycle. If a leader can’t accomplish all of the priority training requirements, then their higher ups may lose trust in them. Instead of relaxing the training requirements, it is likely they could impose more. Too often when there are leadership failures the response is often to apply new mechanisms and requirements to ensure that the failures don’t happen again. This is where leadership gets replaced with checklists. The system continues to become more robust. As it becomes more robust, it diminishes the importance of real leadership.

Leadership vs. Checklists?

Why have checklists replaced leadership? Dr. Wong claims leaders are imperfect. Leadership is a messy business. Its a people business, and people are imperfect. Not all leaders are created equal. But, systems and checklists “appear perfect.” Its this appearance of perfection that gives a sense of relief that lower level unit leaders are doing what they are supposed to be doing. It’s part of the “green light” mentality. Checklists can also be a way of “covering one’s ass.” For example, if some personnel are caught hazing, a leader can say, “Look, they received the hazing brief.” This leader can then point to a roster with signatures. Is that really leadership? Dr. Wong’s argument is no. It’s a system that has diminished leadership.

On the appearance of perfection, I raise the idea of appearing to look good instead of being good. This makes sense. The military has drills and elaborate ceremonies. Its members sport sharp short haircuts, and wear nicely pressed uniforms. Appearance does matter. At the same time, there is a culture of competition and not wanting to look bad. As a result, leaders may not be truthful if they are trying to present an image of readiness and compliance rather than being honest about their readiness status. This can have negative effects. In certain cases, people have lost their jobs trying to keep up appearances.

Are we simply feeding “the system” what it wants?

What does it look like to “feed the beast”? How does lying to the system work? One example is Marines having to fill out Holiday Accident Reduction Program (HARP) forms before they go on leave and extended liberty. These forms are extremely detailed and take a lot of time to complete in their entirety. So the typical form gets filled out without a lot of thought or effort. However, the rationalization is that this is fine because the goal is to get the Marines on liberty. It is essentially “lying” under the guise of troop welfare.

Therefore, the irony is that a tool designed for troop welfare (e.g. HARP forms) is seen as an impediment to troop welfare. The HARP form does’t serve its intended purpose. Also, troops at the lowest levels know that their leadership does not fill out HARP forms. Therefore, they recognize it as a simple check in the box. Get it done i.e. “feed the system” then get the troops on liberty i.e. look out for troop morale.

Solutions

We don’t want to discuss problems without solutions. Dr. Wong offers a few of his own. Despite some resistance to his paper, he has noted changes since it was published. A lot of ethical leadership seminars now include his paper as a reference. Many officers and senior enlisted leaders have discussed the issues raised in it too. Also, Dr. Wong has delivered talks based on his research. Whatever people may think of the paper, it is making an impact. Here are some of the solutions he has proposed.

Admit there is a problem

The first step is to admit there is a problem. Dr. Wong argues there is a disconnect between higher and lower levels of leadership. Higher leaders are often unaware of the myriad of requirements that are placed on lower levels. He says that senior leaders need to recognize that there is a problem not deny it or be willfully blind to it. Also, it is rarely the case that senior leaders will remove any requirements. Typically, a senior leader is more likely to add another requirement rather than fight to take one away. This needs to change.

Exercising restraint

Too often leaders struggle to prioritize training. If everything is a priority than nothing is a priority. Additionally, at each level, leaders believe that what they are mandating is mission critical. It is important to be conscious of how a leaders actions might be perceived at lower levels. Leaders must prioritize and plan to mitigate these issues.

We did talk about the changeover in leadership that happens frequently in the military. For example, when units return from deployments, there are extensive leadership changes. As new leaders come in, they are ready to step on the gas and train full speed. At the same time, when returning from deployment, there are a lot of post-deployment training requirements and administrative actions that must take place. Thus, there is often a confluence of priorities as the new leadership steps in eager to train, but is often less concerned with the post-deployment training.

Lead truthfully

Dr. Wong provides an example from his time at the Army War College. There was a requirement to report certain things as “mission critical.” For example, sending employees to conferences. While the conferences were not mission critical, they were good for employee education and career enhancement. But, the requirement stood firm i.e. going to a conference has to be mission critical. In this case, Dr. Wong’s leadership expressed that it was not mission critical, but they still wanted their people to go, and they would report is as such simply to satisfy the requirement. The response was still that it must be “mission critical.” So they relented and said, “It’s mission critical.”

Dr. Wong says this example works because his superiors were transparent about the reporting. They were honest in explaining that they were saying “mission critical” only to get their people to the conference. They were straightforward about their use of words to satisfy the mandate. Eventually, the “mission critical” requirement was dropped. Perhaps the transparency and truthfulness affected this type of change. Dr. Wong suggests that this is part of the model for leading truthfully and fighting back against ethical erosion.

Conclusion

This paper has struck some nerves. But, it contains detailed research and thoughtful analysis. With full earnestness, Dr. Wong is trying to address some challenges within the military. Since the military prides itself as a learning organization, it is not unreasonable to expect Dr. Wong’s paper to continue to enhance positive leadership and promote values of honor and integrity. The military remains one of the most trusted if not the most trusted institution in America. The goal is to keep it that way by being honest with ourselves.

Feel free to reach out to Dr. Wong via e-mail: leonard.wong.civ@mail.mil

Also, check out his page at the U.S. Army War College.

Be sure to read his paper, Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession

 

 

Wake Up Early, Eat, Exercise: It’s The Power of Habit

By on

It’s 5 am and an alarm is buzzing in your ear. What do you do? Slap the snooze button? Or wake up ready to workout. Most people opt for the snooze button although they may want to run the track or hit the weight room. So why can’t the second choice be as easy as the first one? The answer might lie in something called a habit loop. It turns out there is a lot of science behind this early morning decision. The answer may not simply be because of tiredness. Power of Habit implies a much stronger force is at work.

Charles Duhigg’s book The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business digs into the tricky science behind these habits. As a Marine, I find habits and the development of good, powerful habits to be interesting. The Marine Corps tries to instill habits of thought and habits of action into the young men and women who join its ranks. According to Duhigg, the Marine Corps is on to something significant. It turns out that habits do begin in the mind in the form of mental feedback loops. These loops are incredibly powerful.

Individual Habits

There is a cue. The cue triggers a routine. The routine is followed by a reward. With this feedback loop comes the formation of both good and bad habits. For example, a good habit might be an alarm goes off (the cue), the gym  clothes go on (the routine), then a person gets a good workout in (the reward). As Duhigg notes, the power of habit isn’t always the reward. Instead the power of habit can be the anticipation of the reward.

On the negative side, take a bad habit like smoking. Smokers have a difficult time quitting not because of the nicotine but often because of routines that have been built around the anticipation of nicotine. For example, consider a smoker who has a cigarette every morning at 9 a.m. after driving to work and finishing their morning coffee. It becomes extremely difficult for that smoker to quit unless they stop driving to work every morning at 9 a.m. and drinking their morning coffee. The reason is because the cues trigger the anticipation of the reward i.e. the morning cigarette.

As a Marine, I found this portion of the book valuable. It helped me to understand why certain habits that the Marine Corps standardizes are so powerful. Moreover, they have long lasting impacts on the individuals who join the organization often breeding life long skills of discipline and hard work.

The Power of Keystone Habits

Before reading the book, I expected to find more value in the section on individual habits. I was wrong. Part Two on organizations and the keystone habits chapter made the book worth the purchase. I learned a lot as a leader from this part. Duhigg did an excellent job explaining some fascinating business case studies.

In particular, the story of Paul O’Neill was outstanding. Paul O’Neill became CEO of Alcoa (Aluminum Company of America) in the late 1980’s. When he got to the company, he decided to focus solely on workplace safety. At the time that he announced this initiative, Wall Street investors panicked. Duhigg says that they thought, “Who put this crazy hippie in charge?” But, what the shortsighted investors didn’t get was that Paul O’Neill was creating what Duhigg calls a “keystone habit.” As it turns out, focusing on the keystone habit of workplace safety was immensely profitable. In fact, by the time O’Neill left Alcoa, the companies stock value had gotten five times bigger and the company had achieved a valuation of $27 billion.

The keystone habit of workplace safety was the cue that caused multiple second and third order effects throughout Alcoa. Communication channels improved through timely and accurate reporting. Old equipment and manufacturing parts were replaced. Waste was cut in daily operations. As a result, profitability soared through improvements across the organization.

As leaders, we can look at our own organizations and find certain “keystone habits” to focus on. Perhaps in the military it is focusing on specific unit SOPs. Although what seems to be overlooked by Duhigg is the fact that O’Neill as a leader prioritized safety as a keystone habit. Alcoa had a safety program prior to O’Neill, but it wasn’t a priority. For leaders, we don’t always have to look at adding something new or reinventing the wheel in a dramatic way. Sometimes prioritizing the basics is what matters. In fact, the Marine Corps likes to call this “brilliance in the basics.” Being good at doing the little things right can itself be a keystone habit.

Power Habits from Starbucks

I found this chapter extremely valuable. According to Duhigg, Starbucks has created many powerful habits. In fact, Starbucks has created a system for its employees to deal with disgruntled and rude customers. One of the techniques is called: LATTE. Listen to what the person is saying. Acknowledge their concerns. Take action. Thank them. Explain what happened. Duhigg’s point is that Starbucks has sought to give their employees a habitual tactic to maintain a kind and positive customer service.

Before reading this book, I didn’t expect to learn self-discipline techniques from Starbucks baristas. But, Duhigg brought me there. In the military, we focus on things called immediate action drills. There is a natural crossover between business practices and the military procedures in this case. Starbucks employees have their own immediate action drills. They train to use these drills when dealing with the challenge of unruly patrons. This becomes habit with time and ensures that the employee can fulfill the Starbucks mission of quality customer service. In the same way, Marine units train to use immediate action drills so that certain actions become a matter of habit. For example, taking contact from the enemy or reacting to sniper fire. Each action from the enemy triggers a trained response from the unit. This powerful habit allows the unit to regain initiative and accomplish its mission.

Power of Habits in Societies and Groups

The final section of Duhigg’s book focuses on societal habits. In one chapter, he tells the story of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement. He also intertwines the experience of Rick Warren, who built a megachurch known as Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. Duhigg focuses specifically on the social habits that allowed Civil Rights marchers to successfully boycott the Montgomery buses and eventually set the conditions for civil rights legislation. In the case of Saddleback, a socialization process developed around small groups in church members homes. This helped Saddleback grow from one man and his family into a congregation of over 20,000 people.

The key takeaway from this section was the importance of peer pressure in creating powerful habits. Network effects can bring about sweeping social change. In thinking about the Marine Corps, I reflected on the recruiting process. Often we see Marines that are second or third generation Marines. They are not the first in their families to join. Also, a lot of Marines have siblings that joined too. Families create a natural social pressure for an individual to join. However, for a recruiter to get individuals to join with no prior connection to the Marine Corps, focusing on trying to get a group of friends committed seems to be the best method. The peer pressure from one or more members of a social group creates a powerful incentive for commitment.

Duhigg’s writing style is entertaining and informative. There is a lot of good cocktail party conversation in it. Specifically, the chapter on retail giant Target predicting when a woman is pregnant was very interesting. If someone is looking for a book to better understand personal habits, then the Power of Habit is a solid read. I also highly recommend it to military and business leaders because of the organizational habits part. In particular, the keystone habits chapter stands out as a must-read in what is, overall, a very enjoyable book.

 

Extreme Ownership: The Perfect Mindset for Successful Leadership

By on

How do Navy Seals lead and win? Jocko Willink and Leif Babin explain in their book, Extreme Ownership. The authors are former Navy SEALS and combat veterans. After multiple deployments to dangerous places like Ramadi, Iraq, they have valuable leadership principles to share. In Extreme Ownership they bridge lessons from the battlefield with challenges in the business world. The result is a leadership book accessible to both military and civilian leaders.

Broken into three parts and twelve chapters, each chapter focuses on a core leadership principle. For example, Jocko’s first lesson about a friendly fire incident in Ramadi leads to a principle of accepting personal responsibility. In fact, this is the central lesson of the book. Leadership is about assuming personal responsibility for everything that takes place in an organization. Jocko hammers this point repeatedly. Taking ownership for problems is a leadership imperative. Furthermore, leaders should be quick to credit their subordinates for success.

Extreme Ownership Part I: Winning the War Within

Reading this part of the book, I was reminded of the line from the New Testament, “First remove the beam from your own eye and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). Too often in a bureaucratic organization like the military, it becomes easy to shift blame. With a chain of command, one can get mad at a subordinate for failure. Is this good leadership? Extreme Ownership argues no. Extreme Ownership says that the leader sets the subordinate up for success or failure. This is a radical lesson on servant leadership. It underpins and reflects the mantra of “no bad teams only bad leaders.”

In order to “win the war within”, a leader needs to look inward and figure out what he or she should do to make the organization successful. For example, this may take the form of belief. When tasked with a seemingly insane mission- taking poorly trained Iraqi troops on missions- Jocko writes about taking ownership of it and trying to believe in the mission. He does this by putting himself in the shoes of his higher commanders. He looks several levels above his narrow field of view.

In this case, the Navy Seals of Task Unit Bruiser did not want to conduct operations with Iraqi soldiers. Who could blame them? The Iraqis were poorly trained, ill-equipped, and lacked motivation. But, Jocko communicated to his team that if they took Iraqi soldiers with them, they would be authorized more missions. Furthermore, if they were able to train the Iraqis to defend their own country, the Navy SEALS would be able to set successful conditions for U.S. troops to leave the country for good. This simple logic was enough to get his team to believe, which they did.

Extreme Ownership Part II: The Laws of Combat

Laws of combat include decentralized command, prioritization and execution, and simplicity. With the example of simplicity, this lesson was magnified through the lens of a unit’s first patrol in Ramadi. In this case, the patrol unit leader, a young Lieutenant, had trained Iraqi soldiers for a patrol into enemy territory. After reviewing the Lieutenant’s plan, Jocko convinced the officer that the plan was too complex and underestimated the dangers on the battlefield. Reluctantly, the patrol leader took Jocko’s advice. The patrol took contact after 12 minutes outside friendly lines and sustained multiple casualties. Consequently, the patrol leader learned a hard lesson about simplicity. Jocko points out that the situation could have been much worse if not catastrophic had the Lieutenant gone with the original plan. Thus, the old adage- a plan breaks down on first contact- means that plans need to be simple to mitigate the inevitable chaos and confusion. The other saying, “the enemy gets a vote” means that leaders can’t anticipate everything that will happen when they step outside the wire.

In the business world, complexity can create chaos too. For example, Jocko uses the example of a company with a confusing employee bonus plan. The intricacies of the system made sense to management. But, to the employees? Head scratching all around. But, how are problems like these mitigated? Understanding that “people take the path of least resistance” is important. People need to have simplicity embedded into the way they work. With simple plans, employees can be flexible when faced with challenges in dynamic workplace environments. Flexibility in operations will ultimately drive productivity. Employees will have clear expectations and a baseline upon which to effectively operate.

Extreme Ownership Part III: Sustaining Victory

In the final part, Jocko and Leif include some harrowing examples of close calls in Ramadi, Iraq. Specifically in the chapter on “uncertainty”, Leif relates a story of working with Chris Kyle, the famed Navy SEAL sniper and author of American Sniper. Leif tells of how Chris decided not to take a sniper shot until he got positive identification (P.I.D.) on a possible target. Leif was put in a position in which another unit of Army soldiers was pressuring him to take out the possible enemy sniper. Ultimately, Leif decided not to let Chris take the shot. The decision proved prescient when the potential target turned out to be an American soldier.

Leif explains how this incident “scared the hell out of him.” If Leif had ordered the shot, it would have meant the end of his career. The lesson is clear. Leaders need to be decisive even in the midst of uncertainty. Logic must trump emotion. In this case, the emotion was tied to soldiers, who had been taking fire from enemy snipers. Leif had to resist the emotion of a unit that desperately wanted to kill the enemy. The military tries to empower its leaders to employ logic through training, doctrine, standard operating procedures (SOPs) as well as simple, executable plans.

In business, chaos abounds too. Perhaps no better example of this exists than in the stock market. No one can predict the direction of stocks on a given day. One must have a disciplined and well-thought out investment strategy. This strategy can be simple too. For example, an investor can buy index funds and hold them long-term. With this type of strategy, investors can maintain confidence in the face of market uncertainty.

Learning from Others

Extreme Ownership is an extremely valuable book for leaders at all levels. I wish I had read this book a long time ago. It quickly became a call to action for me in my current leadership role. I found myself taking the leadership lessons and immediately figuring out ways to apply them.

Finally, Extreme Ownership is a great book to read with a team or organization. The book provides a strong platform for productive conversations. Team members and leaders will benefit from each principle as they are simple, timeless, and supported through tough experience. As leaders, we are called to learn from what others have gone through. With Extreme Ownership, Jocko and Leif are exceptional teachers.