Observer

Sometimes the problem is deeper than you can see

This week’s newsletter is, once again, more military focused. But I am very curious to hear how my civilian readers relate to my observations here. Having very little experience in the private sector, it is hard for me to make a definite argument but based on some things that I have heard from my private sector friends, much of what I write here is paralleled by people’s experiences with consultants. I am eager to hear from you private sector folks if you can relate to what I write here.

Thanks for reading The Distro!

---

GOAL!!!!!

As I mentioned last week, the best processes aren’t designed and implemented from the top-down, they emerge from groups of people working together to solve problems that they encounter. Unfortunately, not all groups are equally skilled or motivated to solve problems. A great place to see the difference between Army units is at Combat Training Centers (CTCs) and Warfighter Exercises (like the one my unit recently did). Here, neutral Observer-Coaches (OCs) watch the units as they go through a war fighting scenario and then give them feedback.

But when an OC watches a team fail, they often mistakenly attribute their failures to bad processes, rather than poor individual performances, poor organization, or under-utilization of tools. They usually just jump right to process. They do this because critiquing a process is impersonal (they don’t have to say “you failed because you’re S2 sucks at analysis”), and it is easy to depict a process on a white board and ask questions about it.¹ But this kind of feedback is often unhelpful or counterproductive.

Imagine you are a football (soccer) coach and your team is really struggling. Your boss decides to hire a consultant to go observe the team and coaching staff during games and give feedback as to how the team can improve. After a few weeks the consultant says to you,

“The problem is that you are not scoring enough goals. If we look at your process for goal scoring, we can find where the problem is. You aren’t scoring enough goals because you are not taking enough shots on goal. You aren’t taking enough shots on goal because the other team is stealing the ball from you before you can get close enough to score. That’s happening because your players are making bad passes. So, just focus on making better passes in practice and you’ll be good to go. Here are 10 different drills you can do to improve your players’ passing.”

Of course, if someone told that to a real coach, they probably wouldn't be a consultant very long. Because the coach would know that the problem isn’t that the team is bad at passing, it’s that the key players on offense are too old and slow, and they hate each other because they all came from rival teams and are trying to prevent passing to players they don’t like. The players are also really risk averse because they are old, so they don’t get physical or take chances. And the team has old players because the management doesn't want to pay for better younger players because their consultants told them that the name recognition for the older players is higher and will lead to more butts in seats and more eyeballs on screens watching the team. Of course, those same consultants are brought back in when revenue falls off a cliff because the team can’t seem to win any games. So yeah, the real problem isn’t bad passing.

When we bring this forward to military organizations, the exact same behind-the-scenes problems exist but are often not wholly visible to OCs. The first order problem manifests itself as a problem with process. But as I’ve hammered home, processes tend to emerge. If they are observing a bad process, simply slapping a new process on top will do nothing to solve the problem. If you want a better process to emerge, then it is all the behind-the-scenes problems that have to be fixed first. But these are often the hardest to see.

---

Justice

I don’t want to come across as being too hard on OCs, they play an important role for the Army and it is a tough job. OCs often do a great job listening to the deeper concerns of the people in the unit, but they will constantly return to some version of, “well, we can’t control what those other sections do, so let’s just focus on what you can do better.” But that’s not how systems work. if my outputs rely on inputs from someone else, and those inputs either never come or come substandard, there is only so much I can do. It’s enormously frustrating to hear, “just focus on what you can control,” while simultaneously being held accountable for the ultimate outcome.

One thing I think OCs could do better (and maybe they do this already), is force sections that don’t like each other to talk about it.

One of my cousins did Teach For America and worked in a struggling school for several years. At school, conflicts between students can run deep and lead to persistent, disruptive behaviors that can impede learning if not addressed. One of the practices she told me about was “restorative justice” or “RJ”.  Trained facilitators bring together all parties affected by wrongdoing to address needs and responsibilities, and to begin the process of healing harm. In an “RJ circle” the facilitators guide the parties in conflict to a resolution through perspective building and work toward a modus vivendi that will allow them to coexist.  Restorative justice emphasizes conflict resolution skills and creates a climate where conflict is less likely to occur. I think I heard a story about it on NPR about a decade ago and, from my recollection, this practice can have a major impact.

Oftentimes I think that what units need more than slideshows and whiteboard drawings about process, is a big ’ole RJ circle. Interpersonal and inter-section conflicts can be insanely destructive to a unit’s performance, and if it isn’t dealt with, good processes will never emerge. If two shops don’t work well together, fixing that relationship is paramount. All the bad things that happen as a result of that failed relationship are simply data points that help support the importance of mending the relationship. If you fix the relationship, the process is likely to follow all on its own.

But teachers go through highly specialized training, and sometimes rely on outside experts, to facilitate RJ circles. OCs simply don’t have the skills or experience to be able to facilitate an RJ circle. And it’s unlikely that any leader is going to pay for that training. Imagine going to the Commanding General of a CTC or the MCTP and saying, “Well, sir, what our OCs really need to make units more effective is to train them in Restorative Justice.” I doubt that would go very far. If anyone wants to try to experiment with this, I suggest a heavy dose of rebranding. You might suggest the creation of a Mutli-Domain Lethality and Cohesion Assessment and Training Team (M-LUCATT).

---

Liaison

This problem is much worse when you have whole divisions or corps not trusting each other, or when units at different echelons distrust each other. Most people have been in the position of saying, “What the hell are those idiots at headquarters thinking!” Or they’ve been at headquarters thinking about the lower echelon unit, “Those idiots don’t know what they hell they are doing!

Good liaisons can help deal with this problem. But that is a topic for another newsletter.

Have a great week!

1. This is less the case at lower echelons. If platoon leader is really bad, OCs have no qualms about saying so to the chain of command. I imagine that this is less true when dealing with a division operations officer or chief of staff. If it were true, we would likely see more people getting relieved at high levels, but we almost never do.