Response-Wallenberg

Create a response to each question (250 words): Question C: Tamika brings up a very intriguing scenario with the modern context of Gaza. In that context, I want to focus here on the traits and competencies from the Wallenberg example itself that could factor into such an incredibly complex scenario. In reading Tamika’s post, something comes to mind about exceptional individuals. One of the fascinating things about Wallenberg – and one of the reasons you are reading about him and not one of the hundreds/thousands of his contemporaries who exhibited the same attributes and ideals – is that he ultimately succeeded to a significant degree. He was able to apply the skills he possessed, within the conditions in which he operated, and achieved a remarkable goal. I am guessing that we have all, at various times, seen those exceptional thinkers, hard workers, and dedicated professionals who exhibited many (most?) of the same traits and competencies as Wallenberg, but who never seemed to accomplish much (i.e. what was their “cause”?). Why is that? At some level, one has to actualize the events that one conceives. How do you see Wallenberg able to translate these ideas into action? Or, better question, how can we apply the lessons we glean from his life into our own experiences and “make things happen,” particularly in the face of tremendous obstacles? Looking at SPECIFIC traits of Wallenberg, for example those that Tamika notes here, how can one actualize them to make a difference in such a serious contemporary issue as the conflict in Gaza? Thoughts? Question A: After reviewing the doctrinal aspects of leadership traits and principles from the different services branches, it is my assessment that the services leadership qualities between the service branches are remarkably similar and largely overlap. However, the service branches appear to find ways in doctrinal documents to amplify the leadership traits and principles that define, resonate with, and will guide the service culture. Each service has leadership principles which fall under the four categories denoted concisely in the Coast Guard’s Leadership Competencies: Leading Self, Leading Others, Leading Performance and Change, and Leader [the service] (U.S. Coast Guard, 2017). In terms of capturing the essential aspects of leadership, the Marine Corps principle sum up the historical aspects of leadership for small unit tactics up to the battalion or division level – a shortlist of eleven principles including know yourself and seek improvement, set the example, train as a team, and employ people to their abilities (U.S. Marine Corps, 1998). The U.S. Navy (2012), using the same eleven, expands on these with specific anecdotes of leadership of those principles in practice, including “delegate authority and avoid over-supervision, in order to develop leadership among subordinates” under “Set the Example.” To me, the most recent enumeration of these principles reflect the historical spirit of the USN and the USMC and align that historical fighting spirit with modern leadership techniques and current strategic priorities in preparation for the mindset of future war. While the Marine Corps captures the essence of unit leadership principles, in my opinion the best and most succinct leadership description is the U.S. Army’s Leadership Requirements Model (ADP 6-22). In three categories “Be,” “Know,” and “Do,” the Army expects Character & Presence (Be), Intellect (Know), Leadership, Develops, and Achieves (Do). The Leadership Requirements Model to me has the best chance of communicating numerous leadership principles in a way that can be consumed by leaders at all levels in a memorable way, whereas the other services may have to have a checklist to evaluate their entire service’s list. The Air Force and the U.S. Coast Guard are the most verbose in listing out their competencies, at nearly double the explicit list of the Marine Corps and Navy. Noticeable in the doctrine for Air Force, Coast Guard, and Army is the inclusion of the idea that diversity (whether of skill or experience) is a force multiplier. Also interesting is the listing in the Army doctrine of counterproductive leadership categories, i.e. leadership behaviors to avoid. Of all the services, the Air Force is the only service to mention service integration for a joint or coalition fight (U.S. Air Force, 2017, p. 19). The current strategic pressures necessitate that leadership in the future be as cohesive and interconnected as possible to achieve the most desirable effects. Doctrine may represent what is most pertinent to a service component, but perhaps the other services can add joint leadership as a principle in the coming future. References Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strength Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow. U.S. Air Force. (2017). Annex 1-1: Force Development. U.S. Army. (2022, November 1). FM 6-22: Developing Leaders. U.S. Coast Guard. (2017). Coast Guard Leadership Competencies. U.S. Marine Corps. (1998). Marine Corps Leadership Principles and Traits. U.S. Navy. (2012). Principles of Naval Leadership. One thing that strikes me when looking at John’s post: when I consider the multiple contexts of competencies and traits, the different services all provide leadership approaches that are reasonable and logical in their conception and execution of development. But, as John notes in his fourth paragraph, oftentimes they are either composed of or fleshed out by a series of broad “lists” of competencies and sub-competencies (e.g. 28 for the Coast Guard) that could, depending on one’s perspective, muddy the waters of what is really important (e.g. what the USAF core values really are). So, what is a young leader to do – does development utilizing the competencies just become a “check the block attitude” when viewing the terms associated with these competencies? Depending on one’s answer, we will have to answer the question of why have the competencies at all, or what is their purpose? Conversely, we, as leaders will need to determine how we shape the development of our subordinates within the context we determine is most suitable. Will such a context be the same for all? I highly doubt it. As John alludes to, in some of these cases, the breadth of competencies allows for thoroughness and inclusiveness, and one can certainly make a point to support that perspective. But, at what point do these constant lists diffuse the very nature of what we are trying to do in terms of development (and potentially turn such a program into a never-ending series of “pithy statements”)? How do we draw the line between the need for specificity in what we, as a service, expect, and the realities of broad interpretation necessary for personal professional development? Such leadership within our organizations is much more difficult that it appears. Leading, in this context, is far more than just “teaching a list of words, values and competencies.” One must apply them in the right situations. Some of the readings may give the scientific solution, but the application will be all art! Question B: Critical thinking fosters better understanding and decision making by avoiding certain pitfalls but is difficult to teach to military leaders because of the emphasis on following orders at the formative onset of military careers and the inundation of information in the modern era. The ability to comprehensively analyze a situation including mitigating biases and assumptions, avoiding conceptual traps, and employing alternate points of view will lead to better decisions and wiser judgments (Guillot, 2016, p. 38-41). Many believe that the world is becoming more complex, however Dr Mountcastle insists that the world is no more complex now than it was for the majority of the last 100 years (Mountcastle, 2016, p. 48). He asserts that at worst, labeling the world as evermore complex is an excuse for not seeking to understand the world. Not seeking to understand the world is a recipe for failure, if not disaster. Critical thinking is difficult to teach to military leaders because at the onset of a military career, basic training reshapes undisciplined individual masses into a coherent, standardized, acquiescent team that can follow orders. There is professional development, mentorship, and empowerment in the military that mature the leadership and decision making of military leaders but the core element of “following the lawful orders of those appointed over you,” remains and can be an obstacle to thinking critically or creatively (Griffin, 2015, p. 109). Another reason it is difficult to teach critical thinking is the present-day inundation of trivial, biased, nonfactual, or intentionally misleading information. The mind-clutter of inert information and the danger of activated ignorance present serious obstacles to critical thinking in the information age (Guillot, 2006, p. 39). Additionally, the sheer volume of the flow of information and its ready access can easily lead to strategic indecision because leaders understandably believe that the perfect missing piece of information could fall into place at any moment, making the right decision abundantly clear. In conclusion, the importance and benefit of effective critical thinking necessitates that the military continue to work to overcome the obstacles to teaching critical thinking to leaders. The key lies in an emphasis on “thinking about one’s thinking while thinking,” or in other words a deliberately developed awareness of meta ideas such as purpose, assumption, and point of view, to name a few (Guillot, 2006, p. 37). -Deep Quick point on a theme that runs through Deep’s post on the abstract approaches and contexts of critical thinking application and development. He introduces a very interesting point here: the importance of decision making while acknowledging real conditions is tremendously important for leadership (going to Group C, Wallenberg certainly had that skill). In that regard, I’m struck by Deep’s inclusion of the informational-overload challenge here (and, please insert a lengthy discourse on the differences between intelligence and information for added context…). In the context of applying critical thinking skills, is this a “new” challenge, or just an old challenge “re-packaged?” And, carried further, how, then, can we link fundamental leadership competencies and traits (going to Group A) with the challenges of decision making in stressful situations? I do not think the answer is necessarily as clear as one might think. Part of this is due to what one might consider the differences between the “science” and “art” of leadership. How much of a leader’s ability to decide (quickly, under stress) is based on emotion and gut feeling, versus the result of a logical thought process? Or, does the act of deciding lie in the middle of this paradigm? To me, the challenge specifically involves how we define and approach critical thinking – certainly a key competency, but often an implied consideration of methodological, logical thought, difficult to achieve in the spur of the moment. What competencies best support this ability? Thoughts? Dr. B For context, here are the initial questions: • QUESTION A: Compare and contrast the different leadership traits and principles offered by the different services. Which service does the best job at capturing the essential aspects of leadership? Why? Are there any traits and principles missing from the lists offered by the different services that you would add? Why? • QUESTION B: Why is critical thinking so important and so difficult to teach to military leaders? • QUESTION C: Where in the military do we need a Wallenberg?