A Place for My Papers

Overview of Coast Guard Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic Fiscal Year 2008 Unit Leadership Development Program Focus Groups

2008-10-14T17:00:00.000-04:00

Overview

During the early part of FY06, the ULDP committee conducted focus groups which included the gathering of both quantitative and qualitative data from a representative sampling of two dozen MLCA staff members. During the latter part of FY08, focus groups were again completed, this time with 21 staff members.

Results

The results from the FY06 focus groups were reported here: http://tinyurl.com/mlcafy06. Those survey questions which had the strongest support fell into two leadership competencies: “Self awareness and learning” and “Technical proficiency;” the weakest support was in the competencies of “Conflict management” and “Vision development and implementation.” Two themes became apparent in the analysis of the qualitative data, a stated desire to have answers and to be kept informed during periods of rapid change and a desire for conflict management and resolution within the workplace.

The results from the FY08 focus groups provide a much different pictures. Those survey questions which had the strongest support fell into four leadership competencies: “Accountablity and responsibility,” “Technical proficiency,” “Taking care of people,” and “Creativity and innovation.” The weakest support was in the competencies of “Management and process improvement” and “Vision development and implementation.” The greatest theme which was apparent across the focus group was, again, desire to have answers and to be kept informed during periods of rapid change.

One important note must be raised when looking at these FY08 results. The members of the focus group acknowledged much improvement in terms of vision devopment and implementation by theh MLCA senior leadership, but that work has been overshadowed by the Coast Guard’s modernization efforts.

Comparative Analysis of Weaknesses Identified in Fiscal Year 2006

When looking at the questions which provide input to the leadership competency of Conflict Management, it is clear that positive movement has certainly been made. The questions “People at my unit are comfortable bringing up controversial issues” and “Members of my unit minimize conflict by building strong work relationships with each other” both had much stronger agreement in the FY08 focus group than in the FY06 group. In FY08, both of these questions has better than 80% agreement. While this was not the 95% or higher agreement seen in the strongest FY08 questions, it is certainly a step in the correct direction.

Recommendations

Nearly every weakness revealed in the FY08 focus groups can be traced back to the Coast Guard’s modernization efforts. Certainly, the MLCA staff is crying out for additional answers to modernization, particularly as it relates not just to their own billets, but to the work of their teams, natural work groups, and divisions. Specific implementations to address this issue must include the develop and implementation of a comprehensive communication plan; a component of this initiative ought to be face time for segments of the staff with the commander and deputy commander.

Question Summary

FY06 Strongest questions:

I am given opportunities to improve my skills in my unit.
I have a safe workplace.
Supervisor/team leaders support members efforts to continue education after work.
The people I work with demonstrate technical expertise in their areas of responsibility.

FY06 Weakest questions/greatest opportunities for improvement:

People at my unit are comfortable bringing up controversial issues.
Supervisors let members know how their work contributes to the unit's mission and goals.
Members of the my unit minimize conflict by building strong work relationships with each other.
My unit has an inspiring, long-term vision that is clearly communicated, widely shared, and understand.

FY08 Strongest questions:

My supervisor/team leader recognizes and rewards good performance.
My supervisor asks for my opinions and input.
Supervisor/team leaders support members efforts to continue education after work.
The members at my unit are encouraged to explore alternative solutions to problems.
I am held accountable for my actions.
The people I work with cooperate and work as a team to accomplish the mission.
The people I work with demonstrate technical expertise in their areas of responsibility.
My supervisor motivates me to perform by directing, delegating, coaching, and mentoring as the situation requires.
The people I work for create an environment that supports diversity, fairness, dignity and compassion

FY08 Weakest questions/greatest opportunities for improvement:

I receive adequate mission-relevant info to do my job.
My unit follows a work schedule/plan to accomplish a task or mission.
New members receive adequate orientation to the unit.
My unit has an inspiring, long-term vision that is clearly communicated, widely shared, and understand.

Impact of a Leadership Development Program on Interpersonal Conflict Management within a Coast Guard Staff Command

2007-08-18T00:35:00.000-04:00

A Concept Paper as a part of an Applied Dissertation submitted to the Fischler School of Education and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Introduction

The purpose of this proposed program evaluation is to appraise the effectiveness of the Unit Leadership Development Program, a service-wide program in the United States Coast Guard, in terms of conflict management. The Unit Leadership Development Program was introduced in January 2005 and became mandatory for use by all Coast Guard units in June 2005 (U.S. Coast Guard, 2005). Outcome data for various indicators of leadership effectiveness have been collected for a number of years as a normal part of the Coast Guard's ongoing performance evaluation initiatives. In addition, qualitative data will be gathered and evaluated as a part of this program evaluation. The retrieval, analysis, and interpretation of this data for the purposes as outlined within this proposed program evaluation will be new for this initiative.

Statement of the Organizational Problem and Purpose

Coast Guard Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic, a staff command located in Norfolk, Virginia, has identified interpersonal conflict between staff members as a key problem. This problem was first identified by a mixed methods assessment conducted during the initial implementation of a leadership assessment (Stinson, 2005).

Interpersonal conflict can be defined in a number of different ways. Lulofs and Cahn (2000) note that interpersonal conflict situations include four distinct characteristics (p. 5). They note that people involved in an interpersonal conflict situation are interdependent, that they “perceive that they seek different outcomes or they favor different means to the same ends,” that “the conflict has the potential to negatively affect the relationship if not addressed,” and there is “a sense of urgency about the need to resolve the issue.” Wilmont and Hocker (2001) believe that interpersonal conflict is “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (p. 41).

Description of the Organization

The Maintenance and Logistics Command staff is located in downtown Norfolk in a commercial office building. The staff consists of approximately 450 employees; about half the staff is military. The other half of the staff is civilian employees and civilian contract employees. The staff provides program management and direct support to other Coast Guard units in the fields of naval engineering, civil engineering, electronic engineering, personnel services, health & safety services, and legal services. Some divisions – such as the civil engineering staff – are fairly small; the civil engineering staff has a dozen employees. Other divisions, such as the naval and electronic engineering staffs, are fairly large as they provide a variety of direct services to Coast Guard units east of the Rockies. The naval engineering staff, responsible for boat and cutter repairs and maintenance, has approximately 150 staff members. The Maintenance and Logistics Command is headed by a rear admiral – a one-star flag officer – and a deputy commander who is a senior captain.

Description of the Program that Addresses the Problem

The Unit Leadership Development Program is a service-wide program and was introduced in January 2005; all Coast Guard units – including operational units, support units, and staff commands – were required to have implemented the program by July 2005. The program mandates three specific actions by all Coast Guard units. Units are required to conduct an assessment to determine the perceived implementation of the Coast Guard defined leadership competencies at the unit; units are required to analyze the data; units are to prepare an action plan to close the gap.

Beyond these mandated activities, the Unit Leadership Development Program consists of a number of supporting components designed to assist the unit in assessing perceived leadership competency maturity. Many of these supporting components are Internet-based and found at the program’s website, http://learning.uscg.mil/uldp. The program includes the ability for the unit to arrange for a web-based assessment delivered to each member of the unit. The assessment is a survey of 36-questions which reflect the respondents' perceptions of leadership implementation and maturity at the unit (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004a). The assessment's results are provided to the unit point-of-contact as an aggregate; the results are presented according to the leadership competencies. At the present time, only the first 21 competencies, those related to leading self, leading others, and leading performance and change, are reflected in the assessment results. The competencies related to leading the Coast Guard have not yet been incorporated in the assessment tool or the program.

Beyond the assessment tool, the Unit Leadership Development Program's website provides suggestions of specific interventions for each leadership competency. For instance, for the leadership competency of conflict management, 12 interventions are listed as recommended interventions for increasing unit personnel’s competency of conflict management. If a unit wanted to close a perceived or actual gap in this competency, they would implement one or more of the recommended interventions. Another component to the Unit Leadership Development Program is the availability of trained coaches to assist units in developing their implementation plan of the program, in analyzing the assessment data, in choosing appropriate interventions, and in implementing the interventions. While the use of a coach is not required, the personal assistance a coach provides can help ensure the unit follows the program as designed.

While the Unit Leadership Development Program was designed to develop overall leadership within the Coast Guard across all defined leadership competencies, this program evaluation will look only at the leadership competency of conflict management:

Coast Guard leaders facilitate open communication of controversial issues while maintaining relationships and teamwork. They effectively use collaboration as a style of managing contention; confront conflict positively and constructively to minimize impact to self, others and the organization; and reduce conflict and build relationships and teams by specifying clear goals, roles and processes. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004b p. 4)

Evaluation Design to Determine Program Effectiveness

The Unit Leadership Development Program at the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff will be evaluated both formatively and summatively using a mixed methods approach. The formative evaluation will examine if the program has been implemented appropriately at the staff command. The summative evaluation will examine specific outcomes which are related to leadership and the leadership competency of conflict management. In addition, the summative evaluation will examine staff perceptions about conflict management through various survey assessments.

Research Questions to be Examined

This evaluation looks to answer five research questions:

1. What measures or indicators does the literature indicate serve as a barometer of interpersonal conflict?

2. Has the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff implemented the Unit Leadership Development Program according to the standards required by the program and in accordance with the mandate from the Commandant?

3. Does the Unit Leadership Development Program impact conflict management at a staff command?

4. What impact, anecdotally, has the Unit Leadership Development Program had on individual members of a staff?

5. What Unit Leadership Development Program interventions were, according to staff members, most helpful in their own development?

The first two research questions look at formative issues; the next three research questions addresses a summative evaluation. The second and third questions are quantitative in nature; the other research questions are qualitative.

Formative Evaluation

The formative evaluation will examine if and how the staff is completing the mandatory activities; the evaluation will also examine to what extent and how the staff used the other, non-mandatory components, of the program. The mandatory components consist of three activities: assessment, analysis, and action plan. Did the unit use the 36-question assessment provided with the program, or did the unit use another assessment tool or survey? How was the assessment delivered? Did the unit use the data from the survey – whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed – for an analysis of the current state? Was the analysis completed using the leadership competencies as a filter? Was an action plan developed that appears to address the gaps or chosen leadership competencies? Was the action plan completed? For each of these questions, the formative evaluation would show the program has been implemented as mandated if an assessment was made and the analysis of the assessment data was built around the leadership competencies. In addition, the program mandates the action plan be developed; the Commandant's mandate does not actually specify, however, that the action plan needs to be carried out.

Summative Evaluation

The summative evaluation is quasi-experimental in nature and is an interrupted time series design. The summative evaluation will look at outcome or result measures which serve as indicators to the success or failure – or maturity – of conflict management behaviors at the unit. The measures that will be examined are all currently collected by various program managers at the Maintenance and Logistics Command or higher authority as indicators of program activity or success. They have, to this point, not been analyzed as indicators of conflict management or leadership.

In addition, the summative evaluation will have a qualitative component, using focus groups and interviews to determine staff members’ thoughts and perceptions about the leadership development program and interpersonal conflict within the staff.

Quantitative Data to be Examined

Sutterfield, Friday-Stroud, and Shivers-Blackwell (2007) note that “interpersonal conflict deals with relationship tension” between people within an organizational context (p. 219). Indeed, this notion that interpersonal conflict happens within organizations is paramount to the assertions of Knapp, Putnam, and Davis (1988) who suggest that common conflict instruments measure intent or attitude rather than actual conflict; the instruments measure “abstractions of verbal styles – not actual verbalizations” (p. 420). They suggest that more appropriate measures must reflect “behavioral decisions in specific situations, characteristics of organizational conflicts, and models of fit between persons and environments” (p. 417). Knapp, et al suggests that appropriate measures will “examine person-context interaction” and may use “time series measures to examine cross-situational changes and consistencies in preference for conflict strategies” (p. 425).

Conflict, and the inappropriate or unhealthy resolution of conflict, is reflected in various outcomes or results. When the interpersonal conflict is not resolved either quickly or appropriately, the quality of the relationship between the people changes, as does the climate of the organization (Lulofs & Cahn, 2000, p. 14). These indicators include civil rights and equal opportunity complaints, employee churn rates, and disciplinary events. For each of these indicators, an increase in conflict would drive the metrics upward.

Three types of data will be examined in the course of this evaluation: civil rights data, employee retention data, and disciplinary data. Many civil rights and equal employment issues have, at their very root, conflict and conflict management as a cause. Research by Gallop has shown that leadership behaviors, specifically conflicts between employees and managers which are not managed appropriately, are a root cause for people leaving an organization (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Likewise, many incidents which become disciplinary in nature begin as conflicts between employees or conflict between an employee and some accepted norm, rule, or policy. The only measures which will be used in this proposed evaluation will be those that have at least three years of data before Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. Data, specific to the Maintenance and Logistics Command staff, must be available from at least FY 2002 and forward in order to be used for this interrupted time series evaluation. Data from FY 2005 and 2006 will also be used; the program intervention occurred during FY 2005. Results would be expected for FY 2006 and following. To determine if the effect of the Unit Leadership Development Program is long-term and does not diminish with several years, result measures would ideally be tracked for several years.

Civil rights data. The civil rights data will come from two sets of metrics. The Coast Guard tracks the number of informal complaints and formal complaints made with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) domain. EEO complaints, whether actually based on valid discrimination or not, nearly always have some sort of conflict at the root, and usually that conflict has been managed poorly or at least the aggrieved party believes the conflict management has been less than satisfactory. The EEO realm becomes the forum of last resort for many conflicts. A second set of metrics for the civil rights data comes from triennial comprehensive civil rights unit assessments. These assessments include a survey along with qualitative data obtained through interviews and focus groups.

Employment retention data. Employee retention data is available for three important populations. The Coast Guard places great importance, because they have been found to be strong indicators of leadership amiss, on: (a) re-enlistment rates for first term enlisted member, (b) retention rates of junior officers after their initial six-year obligation is over, and (c) civil servant retention or “churn.”

Staff disciplinary data. The final set of behavior data concerns conduct and disciplinary actions. The Coast Guard tracks the number of infractions to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including instances of “Captain's Mast” , known as Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) and Courts Martials, which are actual, legal trials similar to civil or criminal courts outside of the military. Most instances of NJP are caused by conflict or poor conflict management, often conflict between the subordinate and the supervisor. Captain's Masts and Courts Martials are actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justices and apply only to military members of the Coast Guard. Civilian employees, who are federal civil servants, receive disciplinary action through other means which is, most often, informal hearings and some punishment levied by an appropriate commissioned officer.

Other quantitative data from surveys. In addition to the behavior data measuring outcomes, the summative evaluation will look at staff member's perceptions about conflict management at the unit. The Coast Guard has used a number of survey instruments over the last ten years and continues to use assessments such as the Unit Leadership Development Program 36 question assessment. The data from each entire assessment will not be examined; rather, the questions relating to conflict management, as defined by the Coast Guard leadership competency, will be analyzed.

The Coast Guard has used many assessment tools in the last ten years which may yield data related to conflict management. The Workforce Cultural Audit was a Coast Guard-wide survey examining cultural issues including civil rights, leadership, and discrimination. The Workforce Cultural Audit was completed once nearly a decade ago. The Coast Guard has completed two service-wide assessments using the Organizational Assessment Survey, an assessment developed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard intends to conduct this survey biennially. In addition, the Maintenance and Logistics Command staff has conducted several assessments during the last seven years which may yield appropriate data. One assessment tool used was the Q-12, a survey based on the work of Gallup as published by Buckingham and Coffman (1999). Another tool used more recently is the Unit Leadership Development Program is a 36 question assessment tool. Each of these assessment tools has specific questions about conflict management, and each assessment tool's results data can be analyzed at the staff level.

Methodology Weaknesses

One weakness with this methodology is that the behavior metrics are actions or results which are merely indicators of conflict management; they do not measure, for instance, the number of conflicts reported or noted. They are only indicators, and as such other things will impact these metrics. For instance, some reported civil rights incidents are exactly that: civil rights incidents; they are not indicators or interpersonal conflict. The Coast Guard does still have members and employees who do not treat people equally and fairly because of their race, color, gender, or other protected classification. Another impact on civil rights complaints is complaints which are resolved in the aggrieved party's favor and result in a large monetary award for the complainant. Nothing breeds formal and informal complaints through the civil rights and EEO system like rumors of employee success for complaints lodged earlier and just resolved. There is a sense of “I'll get mine, too” for some complainants. Other factors could also move the civil rights metrics. And, the same is true for the other two sets of measures, also. For instance, the Coast Guard's well documented response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will certainly have some impact on various performance and program measures; but, we will be unable to determine what actually had an impact on the various measures. Was it Katrina or the Unit Leadership Development Program or something else altogether?

Threats to Validity within the Program Evaluation

As noted above in discussing the weaknesses of this proposed program evaluation, a key weakness is the threat to internal validity through history or events. As constructed, the program evaluation does not isolate cause and effect. A number of forces or events – including or not including the Unit Leadership Development Program – could impact the various measures. While this threat cannot be removed entirely, perhaps it can be minimized, at least in the analysis of the data, with qualitative information. Staff members’ perceptions of what caused any changes could be polled during focus groups and interviews. While this would not remove the threat, it would – perhaps – provide data which can be analyzed and shown to minimize the threat.

A second threat to the validity of the proposed program evaluation is also discussed in the weaknesses: the measures do not actually measure conflict management. They may not provide a valid assessment or indication of conflict management. Additional review of the literature needs to be conducted to ensure an accurate representation of conflict is created.

Anticipated Outcomes

The Coast Guard staff that created the Unit Leadership Development Program certainly hoped that the use of the program would have a positive impact on leadership development and the use of leadership competencies throughout the Coast Guard. This program evaluation seeks to identify impact for a single leadership competency at a single organization. As to the formative research question, it is anticipated that the evaluation will show the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff has implemented the program according to the required standards of the program. As to whether or not the program impacts conflict management at a staff command, it is anticipated the data will show a reduction of civil rights cases, increased employee retention, and reduced disciplinary actions. From these anticipated data sets, it is hoped to show the implementation of the Unit Leadership Development Program has a positive relationship with regard to conflict management.

Timeline

With the bulk of the quantitative data already captured by the Coast Guard, and a supportive staff willing to participate in interviews and focus groups, progress in completing this study should be fairly quick. In addition, impending organizational changes throughout the Coast Guard, the Commandant’s strategic transformation initiatives, makes it imperative to complete the study before the Maintenance and Logistics Atlantic staff is thrust into a new organizational matrix.

The following benchmarks are proposed:
Acceptance of the concept paper:
08/17/2007

Completion of the IRB process:
09/10/2007

Submission of the proposal:
09/20/2007

Acceptance of the proposal:
10/20/2007

Quantitative data gathered from Coast Guard sources:
10/25/2007

Completion of interviews and focus groups:
11/05/2007

Submission of dissertation with results and conclusions:
11/30/2007

Acceptance of dissertation and completion of program:
12/30/2007

References

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules: What the world's greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Knapp, M. L., Putnam, L. L., & Davis, L. L. (1988). Measuring Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations: Where do we go from here? Management Communications Quarterly, 1(3), 414-429.

Lulofs, R. S., & Cahn, D. D. (2000). Conflict: From theory to action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stinson, P. A. (2005). Addressing the Need for Leadership Development as a Human Performance Issue in the United States Coast Guard: An intervention designed for MLC LANT. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from here.

Sutterfield, J. S., Friday-Stroud, S. S., & Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2007). How NOT to Manage a Project: Conflict management lessons learned from a DOD case study. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(3), 218-238.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004a). ULDP 36: A competency-based assessment instrument for leadership development. New London: Coast Guard Leadership Development Center

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004b). Leadership competencies. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from here.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2005). Commandant’s Priorities – People – Unit leadership Development Program Implementation. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from here.

Wilmont, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal Conflict (6th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Addressing the Need for Leadership Development as a Human Performance Issue in the United States Coast Guard: An Intervention Designed for MLC LANT

2005-12-01T13:44:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Developing the Organization's Human Capital” (Leadership 8530) in the Fischler School of Education & Human Services of Nova Southeastern University.

Introduction: The Case for Leadership Development as a
Human Performance Problem in the United States Coast Guard

The United States Coast Guard is unique among federal agencies in the United States. The Coast Guard defines itself as a maritime, military, multi-mission organization. The Coast Guard is maritime, in that all the service’s roles and responsibilities center around the maritime environment; the Coast Guard is military, in that it is a component of the Armed Forces and is composed primarily of military members; the Coast Guard is multi-mission in that, over the years, the roles and responsibilities bestowed on the service have grown to more than a dozen mission areas ranging from protecting living marine resources to homeland security to search & rescue.

The Coast Guard is unique also because it is the sole Armed Force of the United States which is both a military organization and a law enforcement organization. It is the only Armed Force which has the authority and tasking to regularly enforce laws, treaties, and international agreements within the boundaries of the United States. Another unique factor for the Coast Guard is that it is the smallest of the Armed Forces with 39,000 active duty members, just over 8000 reserve members, and fewer than 7500 civilian employees. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2005) By comparison, the United States Marine Corps is more than four times the size of the Coast Guard. (Department of Defense, 2005) These unique factors are, however, commonly known and commonly discussed. A unique factor which seldom arises when describing the service is the fact that the Coast Guard has no political appointees within the agency. Every position in the agency, including those which create or support policy, is filled by a military member or a civil servant from the competitive or special appointment authority. More than 3,000 civilian employees of the federal government are political appointees who serve at specific request of the President or other senior officials; none are with the Coast Guard. (A. Pippen, personal communication, November 18, 2005)

Coast Guard Culture and the Impact on Performance

That the Coast Guard does not have political appointees forms a fundamental cultural aspect of the agency. Gracey, the Commandant of the Coast Guard from 1982 to 1986, noted that the lack of political appointees impacted the service; he related a conversation with the department deputy secretary who told Gracey that the Coast Guard had to jump through hoops other agencies did not, “Because you’re the only agency that’s not headed by a political appointee. Therefore, you owe no allegiance to the President....Your loyalties are to the people within the organization, not to anybody outside.” (Gracey, p. 545-546) As Phillips (2003) notes, the Coast Guard has a set of cultural norms which form the basis of action within the Coast Guard. Phillips identifies 16 aspects of Coast Guard culture. While one of those aspects is not “has no political appointees,” there are norms such as “promote team over self,” “eliminate the frozen middle,” and “empower the young” which are, in a sense, strong because of the Coast Guard’s independence as an agency.

This independence was seen this past autumn in the Coast Guard’s response to the hurricanes which hammered the Gulf Coast region. Knight Ridder Newspapers reviewed official actions before and after Katrina’s ramrod attack on New Orleans; their research “reveals a depth of government hesitancy and lack of urgency that may have cost scores of peoples their lives.” (2005, para. 1) Knight Ridder also noted that “no senior official was given oversight responsibilities” until well after the storm winds and rains cleared the Big Easy. (para. 12) In addition, Knight Ridder makes the observation that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which “seemed unable to grasp the magnitude of the disaster,” was an agency whose “top ranks (were) filled by political appointees and its budget hit deep by cuts.”

In contrast to the analysis of FEMA’s performance, or the performance of nearly every other federal agency, the Coast Guard received accolades and was heralded as true, prepared, life savers. A Washington Post columnist called the Coast Guard’s response “a silver lining in the storm.” (Barr, 2005) National Public Radio praised the Coast Guard for its quick response. (Arnold, 2005) The Federal Times called the Coast Guard’s efforts a “beacon of excellence.” (Banco, 2005) And, all this response was accomplished by a service which has fewer total military members than the number of National Guardsmen who actually responded to Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. (Department of Homeland Security, n.d.) And the Coast Guard maintained ongoing operations around the nation, and, indeed, around the world, owing no allegiance to any person outside the organization other than the citizens of the United States.

Leadership’s Impact on Performance

Blazey (1997) states, “High-performing organizations outrun their competition by delivering increasing value to stakeholders and improving organizational capabilities.” (p. 61) He also notes that good leaders “convey a sense of urgency to reduce the resistance to change that prevents the organization from taking the steps that these values demand. They serve as role models by reinforcing and communicating the core values by their words and actions; words alone are not enough.” (p. 62) Banco (2005) notes the Coast Guard’s response to the Katrina “proved its leaders and rank and file were committed to the agency’s mission, vision and values.” He also notes the Coast Guard provides a “case study in how to manage change in an ever-changing world.” Scott (2003, p. 26) notes, “organizational performance is the result of a complex set of interactions among people; the methods, materials, and equipment they use; and the environment and culture in which they exist.”

Since the Coast Guard grows its own leaders, leadership development is a critical success factor for the entire service. Developing leaders will help the service with performance today while, at the same time, preparing the agency for the future. Tomorrow’s leaders are part of the Coast Guard today. The entirety of the Coast Guard’s senior leadership in 2020 is, today, serving as Coasties. The service must grow leaders, and today’s leaders recognize this critical success factor. In the last several years, the Coast Guard has begun several initiatives to develop leaders. The service established a leadership development center at the Coast Guard Academy; the mission of the center is to “improve the Coast Guard’s performance” through leadership development and, specifically “training members to demonstrate leadership competencies, providing leadership and quality development efforts, and identifying future needs through research and assessment.” (U. S. Coast Guard, n.d.) The Leadership Development Center seeks Coast Guard personnel to “grow in the practice of leadership.”

Another initiative implemented recently is the Unit Leadership Development Program, an effort to drive leadership training, education, coaching, and development to the “unit level.” A unit is the smallest organizational element with a commanding officer or an officer-in-charge and is the primary element in defining organizational membership within the Coast Guard.

A Perceived Need at Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic

One of the Coast Guard’s largest units is the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff in Norfolk, Virginia. More than 450 military members and civilians work in downtown Norfolk providing engineering, personnel, legal, and health & safety support and oversight to all Coast Guard units east of the Rockies. In addition to maintaining all the Coast Guard’s cutters and boats, the Maintenance & Logistics Command handles emergent issues such as disaster response to support Coast Guard units and supplemental staffing needs. Hurricane Katrina stretched the support community as much as it stretched the operational community.

While the Maintenance & Logistics Command provides support, resources, and assistance to the field, it is, first and foremost, a staff unit; nearly all employees, military and civilian, work in cubicle farms. Because of the nature of the office environment – which is significantly than operational, non-staff, Coast Guard units – the senior leaders believe that leadership development is more difficult than in other locations. They are unsure of the effectiveness of leadership development, a process which is a critical success factor for the unit and the entire Coast Guard.

Review of Related Leadership and Performance Literature

The Hay Group, an international management consulting firm, has completed research which indicates “a direct correlation between superior leadership and bottom line performance.” Their data shows that “up to 70% of differences in climate can be attributable to effective leadership and improvements in climate can impact performance by up to 30%.” (Hay Group, n.d.) Their longitudinal work with IBM from 1996 through 2003 showed that leadership competencies can be identified, that effective use of specific leadership competencies drive performance excellence for work groups and organizations, and that organizationally-needed competencies can change over time due to changing external environments, challenges, and opportunities. (Tischler, 2004)

The Impact of Culture on Organizational Performance

Rashid, Sambasivan, & Johari (2003) note that organizational culture – “a set of values, beliefs, and behavior patterns that form the core identity of organizations, and help in shaping employee’s behavior” – has an influence on the performance of the organization. Zenger notes organizational leadership is “ultimately all about results. If leaders do not produce good results for organizations, then they really aren’t good leaders. They may be a wonderful human being, very ethical and honest... I don’t think you could say they were very good leaders.” (Madsen & Gygi, 2005, p. 92) For Zenger, a positive impact on the organization’s results is paramount and an outcome of excellent leadership. Reid & Hubbell (2005) write that organizational excellence is driven by a performance culture which is shaped by organizational leaders.

Strategy and Organizational Performance

Bonomo and Pasternak (2005, p. 11) note that senior leaders must “establish and communicate their strategic priorities” in order to deliver high performance in complex organizations. Blazey (1997, p. 63) goes so far as to specify that a significant portion of senior leader’s time, as much as 60% to 80%, should be spent in visible... (certain) leadership activities, such as goal setting, planning, reviewing performance, recognizing and rewarding high performance, and spending time understanding and communicating with customers and suppliers.” Wongrassamee, Gardiner, & Simmons (2003) also suggest that performance must be measured by a set of “balanced” measures which are tied to an organization’s “strategy and long-term vision.” (p. 15) Schermerhorn & McCarthy (2004, p. 46) suggest “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes effective functioning of the organization,” impacts performance excellence.

Performance in the Federal Government

And finally, we return to an earlier topic: political appointees in federal employment. According to a study from Princeton University’s Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, “career managers deliver better program results than their politically appointed counterparts.” (Federal Times, 2005, para. 1) The research found a difference in performance of 10% as measured by the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool, which “assesses the effectiveness of a program’s design, goals, management, and results.” (para. 7) While the government’s response to Katrina is perhaps an extreme example, the fact that Michael Brown – former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a political appointee – was replaced by Thad Allen – a Coast Guard officer who had reached his position as the third senior officer of the Coast Guard based on his own merit rather than through a political appointment process – in his role as the principle federal official for the government’s response to Katrina.

In a similar vein to Gracey’s (2001) comments about political appointees, Breul, a former senior advisor to the deputy director of management for the Office of Management and Budget, states that “Without a political appointee, the agency would be adrift and have a lack of connection to the President.” Without a political appointee, an agency isn’t “represented” or “at the table.” (Federal Times, 2005) Not being at the table impacts budget and resources, but it doesn’t seem to impact performance, at least with regard to the Coast Guard’s response to Katrina.

Data Collection and Analysis

All units in the Coast Guard are now required to implement leadership development and conduct periodic leadership development assessments. As a component of the Coast Guard’s new Unit Leadership Development Program, the Leadership Development Center created as assessment survey tool. This 36-question instrument (U. S. Coast Guard, 2004c) provides data points for 19 of the Coast Guard’s 28 leadership competencies. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004a) The 28 leadership competencies are segmented into four groups: Leading Self, Leading Others, Leading Performance & Change, and Leading the Coast Guard. The assessment tool covers all the competencies in the first three segments, only. The Deputy Commander of the Maintenance & Logistics Command tasked the Training & Education Manager with oversight and implementation of the early stages of the staff’s leadership development program and the assessment portion. The Training & Education Manager contracted with the an organizational performance consultant from the next higher echelon to provide guidance, counsel, coaching, and assistance. The Deputy Commander stated in an early alignment meeting that he did not want to survey all 450 employees using this instrument; the consultant suggested using a focus group process, and the Deputy agreed.

Focus Group Process for Data Collection

The Training & Education manager solicited for volunteers to serve on the focus group; the solicitation went to all personnel at the command. Twenty-four people indicated they wanted to participate and were available during the scheduled time for the focus group sessions. The participants were divided into two groups based on their stated availabilities; twelve participants attended a morning session, and twelve attended an evening session. The participants included enlisted military members (from third class petty officer to senior chief petty officers), chief warrant officers, commissioned military officers (lieutenant junior grade to commander), and civilian employees (from GS-5 to GS-14). While the groups were balanced in number, the afternoon session had several senior officers, and the morning session did not. In addition, in the morning session nearly 2/3 of the participants were people of color while the afternoon session had none. In addition, the afternoon session had several supervisor/subordinate pairs.

Both focus group sessions followed the same facilitated process. The sessions started with a brief introduction by Training & Education Manager followed by an introduction from the organizational performance consultant who served as the facilitator for the process. The introductions included an overview of the Coast Guard’s Unit Leadership Development Program as well as an assurance by the Training & Education Manager and the facilitator of non-attribution of all comments and input provided by the participants. Then, participants introduced themselves and provided an example of positive leadership they had experienced during their Coast Guard experience.

Following the introduction, the facilitator went through the ULDP-36 assessment questions; each participant indicated their agreement, disagreement, or neutrality to each question using a colored card voting system.

Following this, each participant selected the five questions which they believed was the strongest at the MLCA staff. They also selected those questions offering the greatest opportunity for improvement. The participants indicated their selection using secret ballots.

The results from this multi-voting provided a set of questions around which there appeared to be significant energy – in terms of votes either placing in the top, bottom, or both – with the participants. With this pared list, participants were asked to silently brainstorm comments – things the unit is doing well, things the staff is doing poorly, concrete suggestions of things which could be done, and general suggestions & comments – for each item. Participants provided these anonymously on sticky notes.

The facilitator then guided an open discussion amongst the participants, seeking clarification of some notes and additional input from the group.

The session concluded with comments by the facilitator and the Training & Education Manager, reiterating the non-attribution standard as well as the establishment of the participants of the focus group as being the initial members of a leadership development advisory group for the unit. Each focus group ran 2 hours.

Similarity of Data from Both Groups

Following both focus groups, the quantitative and qualitative data was analyzed to determine if there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of responses. Both groups' responses were similar. Of 432 votes cast (each participant casting one “vote” for each of the 36 questions), the morning participants agreed (by showing a green card) 63% of the time while the afternoon participants agreed 66% of the time. The qualitative data showed similar consistency in terms of anecdotal comments and participant reflections.

Analysis of Quantitative Data

In initially analyzing the quantitative data, we combined the data for the morning and afternoon groups and looked primarily at the agreed (or green) compared with the neutral and disagreed (red and yellow cards) combined together. Analyzing the percentage of participants who agreed or who disagreed (or were neutral), nine questions had at least 83% agreement and five questions had at least 63% disagreement. Then the segmentation of the “top” and “bottom” questions provided an opportunity for the participants to indicate their defined areas of strength or opportunities for improvement within the unit. Four questions had at least 8 participants who placed these questions in the top segment. Five questions were similarly placed in the bottom segment. Of these all the questions, four questions were in both the “agreement” and “top” lists, and four questions were in both the “disagreement” and “bottom” lists. These eight questions present the issues which are the greatest strength for the unit and present the greatest opportunity for improvement for the unit. Appendix A shows the 36 assessment questions; Appendix B shows the top strongest questions and the questions offering the greatest opportunity for improvement.

Each question on the 36-question assessment instrument is associated with one or more leadership competencies; each question is weighted in providing a numerical value on the assessment. Since the computerized assessment tool was not used, numerical values (reported out by the computerized analysis tool as the average, or arithmetic mean) were not generated. However, since each competency is created from inputs from one or more questions and percentages of the total value are known, it is possible to see which competencies are represented by the questions. In addition, it is possible to determine which competencies are most fully represented. Using the question/competency grid supplied by the Leadership Development Center, the top and bottom questions cover two-thirds of the makeup of two competencies and the full makeup of two other competencies. In addition, the top and bottom questions provide inputs to seven other competencies; those inputs range from a quarter to a half of the competency numerical value. Appendix C shows the linkages between the strongest and weakest assessment questions and the associate leadership competencies; Appendix D provides the Coast Guard’s definitions for these competencies. (U. S. Coast Guard, 2004b)

The strongest leadership competencies represented in the assessment analysis results are “self awareness & learning” and “technical proficiency.” Both of these competencies are in the “leading self” category of the segmented competencies. The greatest opportunities for improvement for individual competencies as represented in the assessment analysis results are “conflict management” and “vision development & implementation;” both of these competencies are in the third competency segment, “leading performance and change.”

Analysis of Qualitative Data

Nine pages of anecdotal comments and qualitative data – more than 300 separate comments – were collected during the focus groups. These comments were merged into a single document and scrubbed to ensure non-attribution when the comments were released. Two general themes became apparent when examining the qualitative data. The first theme was a stated desire to have answers and to be kept informed during periods of rapid change. The entire Coast Guard is facing an initiative to contract out “commercial activities” wherever possible. (Office of Management & Budget, 2003) This contracting initiative is especially problematic to the employees of the Maintenance & Logistics Command as much of the work done by the staff can be considered a commercial activity. Another initiative facing the Coast Guard is the “Deepwater” initiative, a long-term acquisition project to recapitalize the entire cutter and aircraft fleets. One key element of this initiative is the long-term support and maintenance of these platforms, a task the Maintenance & Logistics community currently handles. Both initiatives are wrapped in secrecy, rumor, and scuttlebutt, none of which provides answers as employees look to the future. The second apparent theme revolves around conflict management and conflict resolution within the workplace.

Intervention

The data from the focus groups provided a wealth of information, much of it actionable. Likely, a variety of interventions could be developed, focusing on any one of the 36 questions or the associated 19 competencies. Two general approaches are familiar to the Coast Guard personnel in terms of interventions following a business analysis: to focus on the “opportunities for improvement” in order to close the gap between current performance and desired performance or to focus on the “strengths” as Buckingham & Coffman suggest. (1999) . They note that if a person or an organization has a particular strength, working to make that strength even more powerful is easier than focusing on a weakness, will provide a greater pay-off, and will address other issues in a trickle-down or system manner.

Focus of Interventions for the Staff at Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic

In order to reduce the number of “balls in the air” and to work within the preferred Coast Guard paradigm, the focus of the interventions focus on the competencies of “conflict management” and “vision development & implementation.” In addition, the recommended interventions create a system for continuous leadership development and program improvement. The performance consultant made 14 recommendations to the Deputy Commander; he chose to move forward with four recommendations and to continue two current practices which he already does. While the other eight recommendations were not dismissed outright, their implementation was delayed. The interventions accepted included chartering three teams: a “guidance team” composed of several senior staff members, an “implementation team” chaired by the Training & Education Manager and assisted by an organizational performance consultant; and the focus group participants as an “advisory team” to ensure all actions and interventions make sense to the personnel at the deckplate level. In addition, the Deputy committed to talk at the next meeting with all 450 staff employees – an “all hands” session – about the leadership development program, the focus group process, the results of the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data from the focus groups, and the recommended interventions. The Deputy committed to continue challenging the Chiefs’ Mess to be proactive with regard to leadership development, and he committed to continue with informal group conversations with various segments of the staff. The focus of the first initiatives is to create a sustainable system for the implementation of further targeted interventions.

Immediate Interventions

Within framework of the recommended interventions, the Deputy proposed moving forward with the charters within four weeks (early to middle of December). He provided the all hands brief on 15 November. And, finally, he suggested that a vision statement, to include a desired outcome, be developed for the leadership development initiative. He proposed a three-point statement as a starting point: That within twelve months, the majority of staff members at the unit feel they can speak up & be heard, see how their work contributes to the unit’s work, and know the unit creates actual value for the Coast Guard.

Evaluation

The plan for evaluation is two fold: to conduct an evaluation in six months, focusing on the competencies of “conflict management” and “vision development & implementation” using the same focus group participants and the same basic focus group process. This will be followed six months later by conducting a new assessment with a new set of focus group participants, again following the same process. The second part of the evaluation process is to analyze certain unit performance data to determine the overall performance levels and trends of the staff and the staff’s work.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

References
Arnold, C. (September 9, 2005). Coast Guard Praised for Katrina Response. Washington: National Public Radio, Morning Edition. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from NPR.

Banko, S. (November 4, 2005). Coast Guard Shows Dedication to Changing Mission. Washington, DC: Federal Times. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from Federal Times.

Barr, S. (September 6, 2005). Coast Guard’s Response to Katrina a Silver Lining in the Storm. Washington, DC: The Washington Post. Retrieved November 18, 2005 from The Washington Post.

Blazey, M. (1997). Achieving Performance Excellence. Quality Progress, 30(6), 61-64.

Bonomo, J. & Pasternak, J. (2005). Unlocking Profitability in the Complex Company. The Journal of Business Strategy, 26(3), 10-11.

Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently. New York: Simon & Schuster

Department of Defense. (2005). Armed Forces Strength Figures for September 30, 2005. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms0.pdf

Department of Homeland Security (n.d.). Emergencies & Disasters – Hurricane Katrina: What the Government is Doing. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/katrina.htm

Federal Times. (October 10, 2005). Careerists Make Best Managers: Study Shows They Get Better Results than Political Appointees. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from Federal Times.

Gracey, J. S. (2004). The Reminiscences of Admiral James S. Gracy, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired). Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute.

Hay Group (n.d.). Leadership: Impact on Performance. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from here.

Knight Ridder Newspapers. (September 11, 2005). Government’s Failures Doomed Many. Seattle: The Seattle Times. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from here.

Madsen, S. R. & Gygi, J. (2005). A Conversation with John. H. Zenger: Leadership and Change. Organizational Development Journal, 23(3), 89-98.

Office of Management & Budget. (2003). Performance of Commercial Activities, Circular No. A-76 (Revised). Retrieved November 19, 2005, from here.

Phillips, D. T. (with Loy, J. M.). (2003). Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Rashid, M. D., Sambasivan, M., & Johari, J. (2003). The Influence of Corporate Culture and Organisational Commitment on Performance. The Journal of Management Development, 22, 708-728.

Reid, J. & Hubbel, V. (April/May, 2005). Creating a Performance Culture. Ivey Business Journal, 1-7.

Schermerhorn Jr., J. R., & McCarthy, A. (2004). Enhancing Performance Capacity in the Workplace: A Reflection on the Significance of the Individual. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 45-60.

Scott, W. (2003). Performance Improvement Interventions: Their Similarities and Differences. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 26(1), 26-30

Tischler, L. (November, 2004). IBM’s Management Makeover. Fast Company, 88. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from here.

U. S. Coast Guard. (n.d.). Leadership Development Center. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from here.

U. S. Coast Guard. (2004a). Assessment Questions and Competencies Matrix. Unpublished paper, Leadership Development Center, Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004b). Leadership competencies. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from here.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004c). ULDP 36: A competency-based assessment instrument for leadership development. New London: Coast Guard Leadership Development Center.

U. S. Coast Guard. (2005). Personnel Statistics. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from here.

Wongrassamee, S. Gardiner, P. D., & Simmons, J. E. L. (2003). Performance Measurement Tools: The Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), 14-29.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appendix A
Assessment Instrument: The ULDP-36

1. Leaders at my unit evaluate the impact of their decisions on people and the mission.
2. I am given opportunities to improve my skills in my unit/command.
3. I have a safe workplace.
4. I know who my important customers are. (Depending on your job customers may be the general public, other mariners, other Government Agencies, or other members of the Coast Guard.)
5. I know what my customers need and want.
6. I receive adequate mission-relevant info to do my job.
7. I receive useful professional/career guidance from members of my unit.
8. People at my unit are comfortable bringing up controversial issues.
9. Members at my unit cooperate with supervisors to ensure successful mission accomplishment.
10. Members at my unit identify and analyze problems to make effective decisions.
11. My Command cares about me.
12. My supervisor/team leader creates a work environment that helps me do my job.
13. My supervisor/team leader recognizes and rewards good performance.
14. My unit follows a work schedule/plan to accomplish a task or mission.
15. My supervisor follows up to ensure my work group is meeting its goals.
16. My work environment encourages creative thinking and innovation.
17. New members receive adequate orientation to the unit.
18. My supervisor asks for my opinions and input.
19. Supervisors/team leaders support member efforts to continue education after work.
20. The leadership at my unit manages and supports better ways to do work.
21. The members at my unit are encouraged to explore alternative solutions to problems.
22. The members at my unit are encouraged to maintain mental and physical well-being.
23. The members at my unit take pride in the unit.
24. The members of my unit align their personal behaviors with the CG Core Values (Honor, Respect, Devotion to Duty)
25. I am held accountable for my actions.
26. The people I work with cooperate and work as a team to accomplish the mission.
27. When making decisions, leaders at my unit consider and assess risks.
28. Supervisors let members know how their work contributes to the unit's mission and goals.
29. The members of my unit recognize and use the chain of command appropriately.
30. Members of my unit provide accurate and timely information up the chain of command so our leaders can make good decisions.
31. I seek feedback from others and look for opportunities to learn and develop.
32. The people I work with demonstrate technical expertise in their areas of responsibility.
33. My supervisor motivates me to perform by directing, delegating, coaching, and mentoring as the situation requires.
34. The people I work for create an environment that supports diversity, fairness, dignity and compassion
35. Members of my unit minimize conflict by building strong work relationships with each other.
36. My unit has an inspiring, long-term vision that is clearly communicated, widely shared, and understood.

(United States Coast Guard, 2004c)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appendix B
Strongest Questions and Questions Offering the Greatest Opportunity for Improvement

Strongest questions:

I am given opportunities to improve my skills in my unit.

I have a safe workplace.

Supervisor/team leaders support members efforts to continue education after work.

The people I work with demonstrate technical expertise in their areas of responsibility.

Weakest questions/greatest opportunities for improvement:

People at my unit are comfortable bringing up controversial issues.

Supervisors let members know how their work contributes to the unit's mission and goals.

Members of the my unit minimize conflict by building strong work relationships with each other.

My unit has an inspiring, long-term vision that is clearly communicated, widely shared, and understand.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appendix C
Linkages between Identified Questions and Associated Leadership Competencies

Click here for the appendix material.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appendix D
Competency Definitions for Areas Identified as Strongest and Greatest for Improvement

The competencies most associated with the strongest areas identified by the focus group participants both fall under the Leading Self category.

SELF AWARENESS AND LEARNING

Coast Guard leaders are self-objective. They continually work to assess self and personal behavior, seek and are open to feedback to confirm strengths and identify areas for improvement, and are sensitive to the impact of their behavior on others. Successful leaders use various evaluation tools and indicators to assist in this process of understanding themselves. Coast Guard leaders understand that leadership and professional development is a life-long journey and always work to improve knowledge, skills and expertise. To that end, they seek feedback from others and opportunities for self-learning and development, always learning from their experiences. Leaders guide and challenge subordinates and peers, encouraging individuals to ask questions and be involved. Leaders are open to and seek new information, and adapt their behavior and work methods in response to changing conditions.

TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY

Coast Guard leaders’ technical knowledge, skills and expertise allow them to effectively organize and prioritize tasks and use resources efficiently. Always aware of how their actions contribute to overall organizational success, leaders demonstrate technical and functional proficiency. They maintain credibility with others on technical matters and keep current on technological advances in professional areas. Successful leaders work to initiate actions and competently maintain systems in their area of responsibility.

The assessment questions identified by the focus group as being the greatest opportunity for improvement (or weakness) are associated with two competencies in the category of Leading Performance and Change.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Coast Guard leaders facilitate open communication of controversial issues while maintaining relationships and teamwork. They effectively use collaboration as a style of managing contention; confront conflict positively and constructively to minimize impact to self, others and the organization; and reduce conflict and build relationships and teams by specifying clear goals, roles and processes.

VISION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Leaders are able to envision a preferred future for their units and functions, setting this picture in the context of the Coast Guard’s overall vision, missions, strategy and driving forces. Concerned with long-term success, leaders establish and communicate organizational objectives and monitor progress toward objectives; initiate action; and provide structure and systems to achieve goals. Leaders create a shared vision of the organization; promote wide ownership; manage and champion organizational change; and engineer changes in processes and structure to improve organizational goal accomplishment.

(U.S. Coast Guard, 2004b)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appendix E
Recommended Interventions as Presented to the
Deputy Commander, Coast Guard Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic

Specific recommendations to move forward:

Name a ULDP Oversight Team (Deputy, one O-6, one senior civilian, CSC)

Charter the ULDP Implementation Team (Dr. Nash, OPC, one O-5, one E-7/8/9, one GS-13/14)

Charter the ULDP Advisory Team (focus group members)

Deputy provide brief at next all-hands (high-level overview of process, results, interventions, future plan; can use this brief sheet as notes)

Distribute weekly read-ahead to all users; periodically include information on hot topics & leadership issues. Make this the place/way written information is passed.

Challenge the Chief's Mess to meet regularly & be proactive with regard to leadership and other issues in the building.

Sponsor monthly “leadership lunch & learn sessions” ala LANT/D5, FINCEN, and others (this could be jointly sponsored by the Deputy and the ULDP Oversight & Implementation teams).

Dust off and use MLCA mission and vision statements.

Establish working groups to work on the Deepwater and A-76 issues, developing and implementing a plan for getting information to all staff personnel; can use the weekly read-ahead as mode of communications.

Continue with current initiatives in on-site courses and HR/soft-skills training (Dr. Nash to link all to specific leadership competencies)

Continue to encourage supervisors to support & encourage their staffs to learn and grow through formal & informal programs.

If not already doing so, institute “Deputy Talk Time” with various segments of the staff, perhaps one a month covering all segments in a year.

Other initiatives as proposed by ULDP Oversight, Implementation, and Advisory teams.

Follow-up focus groups in May 2006; have focus groups use the same process to provide reliability.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Appendix F
Evaluation Plan

Evaluation Plan
1. Conduct follow-up focus groups in April 2006. Follow same process; focus on previously identified areas for improvement.
2. Conduct new focus groups in October 2006. Follow same focus group process. Begin to track quantitative data from the assessment survey.
3. Track unit performance (external outcomes and internal critical success factors) using available metrics. Possible metrics include the following:

Number of staff using tuition assistance (pursuing educational opportunities)

Number of course credits taken by staff members

Number of discipline actions within the unit

Number of formal and informal complaints filed by staff members through the civil rights process

Number of “lost cutter days” as a measure of naval engineering effectiveness

Number of cutter equipment casualties

Cost of dockside maintenance & repair over-runs

Percentage of growth for drydock maintenance & repair periods

Number of days processing medical payments

4. Look for correlation in the quantitative data between leadership development, outcome measures of effectiveness, and critical success factor measures.

A Virtual Team-Building Workshop: Meeting the needs of leadership development coaches in the United States Coast Guard

2005-10-17T07:57:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Developing the Organization's Human Capital” (Leadership 8530) in the Fischler School of Education & Human Services of Nova Southeastern University.

The United States Coast Guard traces its roots back to the Revenue Cutter Service; The Revenue Cutter Service was founded in 1790 by Alexander Hamilton, the country’s first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton realized both the need for the young United States to “suppress smuggling and ensure duties and taxes were paid” (U.S. Coast Guard, 2002, p. 20) and the need for the officers of the infant Revenue Marine to be wise leaders. He had sought authorization from Congress to build cutters to help generate revenue for the United States, and, more importantly – at least for this discussion – Hamilton provided crystal clear leadership direction, in the form of a letter, to the first officers of that service. (Hamilton, 1791) Thus began a tradition of strong leadership in the Coast Guard; for more than 200 years, the service has grown leaders. That strong tradition from our nation’s infancy continues to the present day. Earlier this year the Commandant of the Coast Guard mandated a unit-level leadership development program, building on the strengths of other initiatives employed to increase performance through leadership and management. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2005a) With the advent of the Unit Leadership Development Program, the service is now attempting to institutionalize leadership development at all levels of the organization.

Overview of the Unit Leadership Development Program
The Coast Guard’s Unit Leadership Development Program – commonly referred to by it’s acronym, ULDP – is an overarching framework for unit-level leaders to develop and implement an ongoing leadership development program. The primary feature of the ULDP is a website – see http://learning.uscg.mil/uldp – which has a list of resources for training and non-training leadership interventions, all segmented by the Coast Guard’s defined leadership competencies. More than a decade ago, the Coast Guard developed a list of leadership competencies all military members and civilian employees were expected to be able to demonstrate. The service believed, and still believes, these competencies can be taught, and they can be learned. The Coast Guard now has 28 leadership competencies segmented into four categories: leading self, leading others, leading performance and change, and leading the Coast Guard. (U. S. Coast Guard, 2004a)

The ULDP website also offers unit leaders the opportunity to generate a web-delivered survey instrument, again based on the Coast Guard’s leadership competencies, to determine the unit’s leadership development strengths and areas for improvement. The assessment instrument has 36 questions (U. S. Coast Guard, 2004b), most of which were originally published in the “Organizational Assessment Survey” developed by federal Office of Personnel Management (n.d.) for the Coast Guard or in the “Are We Making Progress” survey developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (2004) for the Baldrige National Quality Program. Once at least 50% of the possible respondents have completed the survey-–commonly called the ULDP-36-–the unit’s responsible person can see the results. The survey results are aggregated by leadership competency; the mean average of the response is provided for each competency. No demographic information is collected with the instrument, so there is no method for segmenting the data to determine response rates for sub-groups such as women at the unit, enlisted members at the unit, or first-term members at the unit.

A third part of the ULDP is a “coach” component. Some 40 Coast Guard civilian employees and military members have received certification as a ULDP Coach. Unit leaders who want personalized assistance as they develop their implementation plan, review their survey results, choose appropriate interventions or resources, or implement their overarching leadership development programs, partner with a certified coach. A list of all the coaches is available on the ULDP website; unit leaders can directly contact a coach, or they can contact a coach coordinator for a referral based on their needs and situation. At the initial beta introduction of the ULDP, specific individuals were invited to attend a one-week training session and become a coach; the invitees were senior noncommissioned officers serving in full-time Command Master Chief billets, faculty and staff from the Leadership Development Center, and internal Organizational Performance Consultants. Since that initial training session in January 2005, the leadership development program manager has opened the rolls of coach to any military member, civilian employee, or volunteer Auxiliarist who has the interest and skills in being a coach and has the appropriate professional experience. The process for certification includes an interview with a coach coordinator, a lengthy application, and a two-part certification test which includes a knowledge portion as well as an application/simulation portion. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2005b)

Statement of Problem
With more than 60,000 full and part-time military members and civilian employees – and another 30,000 volunteer civilians in the Coast Guard Auxiliary (a uniformed volunteer organization similar to the Air Force’s Civil Air Patrol) – spread across the United States and, now in our post-9/11 world of early intervention, across the world, implementing a program like the ULDP has a host of challenges. That nearly every Coastie is attached to a unit – some as small as half-a-dozen people – is one reason for relying on unit leadership for leadership development of members and employees. The “unit” is the smallest consistent measure of membership and provides every assigned person with opportunities to both lead and follow. With units spread across the states and the globe, so, too, are the coaches. In a sense, they are like missionaries; they have been prepared during their certification process to go out into the world and “do good things.” Unlike missionaries from the Church of Latter Day Saints, these coaches work alone. They are geographically dispersed and they have little, if any, contact with other coaches.

While the ideal coach is a seasoned Coastie with an excellent understanding of the Coast Guard culture, organizational development, and leadership development, they often are faced with issues for which they may be ill prepared to provide coaching. Many of the first coaches were solo professionals; a major staff command will have one command master chief and the service’s organizational performance consultants are generally paired but usually work alone. The opportunities for informal give-and-take, for face-to-face interactions, are limited. And, while the various communities might meet yearly for a conference – for instance the command master chiefs gather several times a year – there is little, if any, time set aside for talking about their leadership development coaching roles. Sadly, the program manager for the ULDP – the Leadership Development Center – does not have the funds to sponsor a regular face-to-face conference. While the Leadership Development Center’s staff is available to provide long-distance assistance, for the most part, coaches, once certified, are left to swim, tread water, or flounder. Certainly, the Coast Guard would like to see the coaches swim. The question remains: how can the ULDP program manager best support these coaches?

Literature Review
Given the constraints of geographic dispersion and solo practice within a larger community, the coaches – a virtual team – are linked to each other through technology. As Houser (2000, p. 61) notes, “The Internet is changing the way people live, work, and conduct business.” The Coast Guard has not been immune to this change, adopting Internet and Intranet technologies to facilitate communication with customers, share information among members and employees of the Coast Guard, and provide immediate and direct communication within the service. Using these technologies, the Coast Guard has embraced the use of matrix and virtual teams for a variety of issues and projects.

Wong & Burton (2000, p. 341) argue that virtual teams have five characteristics. Virtual teams are composed of “culturally and organizationally differentiated members” who are “grouped together temporarily” and “physically dispersed.” Group members are “connected by weak lateral ties” and, finally, they perform “non-routine tasks.” Wong & Burton also suggest that most virtual teams are not “pure;” the teams are virtual by degrees. In the case of the leadership development coaches, however, the team is nearly 100% virtual. The team context is “characterized by low team history, novel tasks, and physically distributed members.” (Wong & Burton, p. 341) The team members are “characterized by the heterogeneity of their cultural and organizational backgrounds.” (Wong & Burton, p. 342) And finally, the connections between the team members are “lateral but weak.” Had the program decided to only use command master chiefs or only use performance consultant, or to only use staff co-located at the Leadership Development Center, perhaps the coaching team would have been less virtual. As constructed, however, the coaching team is very virtual.

Given the virtuality of the coaching team, a key challenge to team building is “creating avenues and opportunities for team members to have a level and depth of dialogue necessary to create a shared future.” (Holton, 2001, p. 36) Ratcheva & Vyakarnam (2001, p. 514) suggest that effective teams – whether virtual or not – are “engaged simultaneously and continuously in three functions.” Effective teams are involved in producing work (which includes solving problems and performing work tasks), supporting colleagues and team-mates, and ensuring group well-being. According to Mohamed, Stankosky, & Murray (2004, p. 128), effective teams are collaborative in nature and depend on the same pillars on which the field of knowledge management is built: “organization, leadership, technology, and learning.” For Mohamed, Stanksosky, & Murray, effective teams will have processes and systems in place which ensure each of these pillars is adequate; the nature of the system in which the team works will determine how strong each of these pillars must be. Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson (1998, p. 20) note virtual teams are “only possible” due to advances in technology. They state, “Because these technologies define the operational environment of the virtual team, it is critical to examine how these technologies come together to form the infrastructure of virtual teamwork.”

Workshop Design
Given the constraints of the Coast Guard’s system – including not having the financial resources to bring all the coaches together to the same geographic location for a team building session – a virtual team-building workshop provides a reasonable compromise. The workshop must address the key challenge of team building – creating a shared future – and provide opportunities for all participants to demonstrate work production, teammate support, and team health. And, the entire workshop must be conducted using current, accessible technology available at all coach work sites.

Learning Objectives

At the conclusion of this workshop, the participants will be able to identify available resources, including teammates, which can provide assistance as they provide leadership development coaching services to unit leaders. In addition, the participants will be able to identify the elements which make a successful coaching interaction or experience. And, finally, the participants will be able to model appropriate coaching skills and behaviors when presented with a scenario, case study, or role play event. All these tasks will be completed in the normal work environment; a standard Coast Guard computer workstation connected to the Coast Guard’s Intranet and to the World Wide Web will be available for use, if the participant wishes to use such a resource.

Instructional Materials

Participants must be logged onto the Coast Guard Intranet through a standard computer workstation. They will need to have a browser open with the Unit Leadership Development Program website up; using a second browser, each participant will need to be logged into Coast Guard Central – the Coast Guard’s intranet portal – and the ULDP Microsite in CG Central. While all necessary resources are available on the ULDP Internet site and the ULDP CG Central Microsite, participants may want to have a hard copy of the Coach Manual and the Coach Certification Simulation Scoring Sheet.

Presentation Format

The leadership development coach team-building workshop will be presented in a synchronous, “distant” – or “on-line” – format. The workshop facilitator will also be on-line. There will be no advantage to coaches who happen to be in same geographic vicinity to come together for this workshop; the expectation is that each coach is participating “solo” and has a computer and a phone at hand.

Team members will log on to the Coast Guard Intranet and into the “microsite” for the ULDP Coaches. The primary method of direct communication will be the built-in “chat” function available through Coast Guard Central, the service’s Intranet portal. The workshop facilitator will pose questions to the group using the chat function; participants will respond. In addition, the facilitator and participants may upload or download documents, including scenarios in Microsoft Word format or presentations in Microsoft Powerpoint format. The CG Central site has the ability for the upload and download of electronic documents.

Evaluation Strategies

Three different evaluations of the workshop will be completed. The first will be a “reaction” evaluation to see how the participants liked the workshop. This survey will be conducted online using survey software managed and supported by the Coast Guard Academy. The second evaluation will look at the participants’ learning based on the stated learning objectives. This evaluation will be completed a week after the workshop and will be conducted online. The emphasis for this evaluation will be the first two learning objectives: identification of available resources and identification of the elements which create a successful coaching interaction or experience. The third evaluation will be conducted four to six weeks after the workshop; this evaluation will take the form of a structured phone interview conducted by each coach coordinator. The interviewer will ask the participants to indicate how they would respond to a specific scenario. Each participant will be presented with five scenarios to respond to.

Conclusion
Rather than allowing the leadership development program coaches to flounder, capitalizing on the characteristics which make them a virtual team and providing them a team-building workshop in a virtual setting, will allow the coaches to better serve their clients. The work of the coaches – including the virtual workshop – appears to be heading down the road predicted by Hauser (2000) as she looks at the future of knowledge workers. The workshop allows the disparate members of the virtual coaching team to belong and create a shared future. (Holton, 2001) And, the Coast Guard’s culture dictates the needed strength of organization, leadership, technology, and learning (Mohamed, Stanksoky, & Murray, 2004) as the service continues to institute leadership development at all levels of the organization.

References

Coast Guard Leadership Development Center. (2005). Unit Leadership Development Program Coach Manual. New London, CT: Author. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from URL.

Hamilton, A. (1791, June 4). Letter of instruction to the commanding officers of the Revenue Cutters. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from United States Coast Guard Web site.

Holton, J. A. (2001). Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team. Team Performance Management, 7(3/4), 36-47.

Houser, E. (2000). The future of cyperwork. Employment Relations Today, 26(4), 61-71.

Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M, & Murray, A. (2004). Applying knowledge management principles to enhance cross-functional team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 127-142.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2004). Are we making progress? Retrieved October 12, 2005, from URL.

Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Organizational assessment survey. Retrieved October 14, 2005, from URL.

Phillips, D. T. (with Loy, J. M.). (2003). Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Ratcheva, V., & Vyakarnam, S. (2001). Exploring team formation processes in virtual partnerships. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, 512-523.

Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-29.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2002). U.S. Coast Guard: America’s maritime guardian (Coast Guard Publication 1). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004a). Leadership competencies. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004b). ULDP Assessment Questions. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2005a). Commandant’s Priorities – People – Unit leadership Development Program Implementation. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2005b). Unit leadership development program: Coach application package. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from URL.

Wong, S., & Burton, R. M. (2000). Virtual teams: What are their characteristics, and impact on team performance? Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 6, 339-360.

Appendix: Virtual Team-Building Workshop Agenda
This team-building workshop is designed for a three to four hour block of dedicated time. Team members will participate in the workshop from their own workspace or another adequate location. Each team member must be logged onto a Coast Guard standard computer workstation, connected to both the Coast Guard’s Intranet and the World Wide Web. In addition, each team member must be logged into Coast Guard Central, the service’s Intranet portal, with the chat function up and running.

Activities

The primary activities of the team building workshop will involve on-line brainstorming, a sharing of ideas and responses. The participants will often select some responses they believe are more important, segmenting out the wheat from the chaff in the responses. The topics will include defining the elements of a successful coaching interaction or experience; identifying the benefits of a unit leader working with a coach; identifying what the ULDP program ought to look like in four to five years; and developing alternate ways to respond to difficult scenarios when working with a unit leader.

Instructional Resources

The standard ULDP resources – including the Coaches’ Manual (Coast Guard Leadership Development Center, 2005) and the ULDP website – will be available to the workshop facilitator and participants.

Workshop timeline

The following is an outline of the entire workshop, including time suggestions. This workshop is designed for 12 to 18 participants; the times allotted are for 18 participants.

Table
Click here to view the table.

The Lesson of the Sadhu: A case study in organizational ethics

2005-07-03T06:37:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Creating and Leading an Intentional Organization” (Leadership 8520).

The Case of the Sadhu

Bowen McCoy's (1997) “Parable of the Sadhu” gives us the tale of McCoy's journey walking through Nepal. Half-way through his 60-day trip through the Himalayan Mountains, McCoy and his anthropologist friend along for the journey, Stephen, encounter a near dead, almost naked, barefoot, Indian holy man suffering from hypothermia and exhaustion. They found the the Indian holy man, a Sadhu, above 15,500 while on one of the most difficult summit climbs of their entire trip. Climbing the mountain in the vicinity of McCoy and Stephen, and their assorted porters and Sherpas, were three other climbing parties representing an international flavor from New Zealand, Switzerland, and Japan. While representatives from each climbing party provided some assistance to the Sadhu, in the end, the Sadhu was left behind – with clothing, food, and drink – more than two days journey from the nearest village. The climbing parties all pressed on and made the summit, their goal for that particular climb; the fate of the Sadhu was left unknown. Both Stephen and McCoy supposed that, in the end, the Sadhu died. McCoy's dilemma was simple, at least on retroflection: should he have done what he did – provide some assistance and then press on to complete his goal – or should he have done more. As McCoy suggests, “Real moral dilemmas are ambiguous, and many of us hike right through them, unaware they exist.” (1997, p. 58)

Encountering the Sadhu

On our journey through life, all of us encounter our own Sadhus, people who come into our lives and seem to need some help and yet, if we provide that help, we will be pushed from our path toward our goals. Often, if we are even conscious of the dilemma and not just “hiking through it,” we will believe that providing help to the Sadhu will keep us from our goal. Often, we are so focused on the intended goal that we see nothing else. As McCoy (1997) notes, the hikers at 15,500 feet were under stress and oxygen deprived; their decisions were made under duress with the goal of attaining the summit within sight. To turn back, to provide true aid to the Sadhu, would have been to give up the goal of the summit. McCoy also notes that his most interesting experience in Nepal involved living in a Sherpa home for a five days while recovering from altitude sickness; Stephen's most interesting experience was participating in a Nepalese funeral ceremony. Neither of these “most interesting experiences” involve attaining the summit; as a matter of fact, both of them are about taking the unplanned route. Some people would suggest that life is about the journey, not the destination; McCoy's observation seems to support this assertion, although his essay provides clear evidence he is not convinced.

What then, should I do when I encounter Sadhus on my journey through life? Do I stay on the path toward my goal, or do I deviate and provide aid and comfort to the Sadhu? Using Brown's (2000) standards and ethical bases, the answer is simple: it depends. As McCoy notes, “Not every ethical dilemma has a right solution. Reasonable people often disagree; otherwise there would be no dilemma.” (1997, p. 59) Brown's mental model, the decision making diamond, would have us use three steps, or bases, in making a decision (observations, value judgments, and assumptions) to do one proposal or another. (p. 32) Brown suggests we filter the decision-making diamond process through three possible paradigms, examining the proposed action against our purpose for being, against some moral principle, and against the consequences of the action.

McCoy's (1997) analysis of his encounter with the Sadhu shows that only after the encounter did he run the decision making process; his friend Stephen was quicker. On the mountain, the over-riding purpose – attaining the summit that very morning – was paramount for McCoy and all the other climbers but Stephen. Judging their actions against a moral principle or against the consequences did not come into play at all, aside from Stephen's grappling with the issues while in an oxygen-deprived state. While I cannot easily compare my own sense of being and my own decision-making process to those of the climbers on that fateful morning, in quiet of my book-lined study, I believe I would side closer to Stephen than McCoy. In this particular case, it was a likely life-or-death situation. My sense of who I am – and my reason for being on this earth – and my own grounding in Judeo-Christian values (fired with the glaze of progressive philosophical and political bent), leads me to think I would put aside my personal goal to help another. Who we are, suggests Elkins (2000), creates our personal ethics, that which drives our actions.

The brotherhood of the derelict and the Sadhu

While I live in the city, not the suburbs, and I drive a little Kia sedan, not a sport utility vehicle, I do see people in need on the street. Perhaps because I live and work in the city, I see them more than daily. If, as I note above, I would put aside my personal goal and help another, should I (and do I) stop to help the needy and homeless each time I pass? With more than a little hesitation, then, do I admit, “No.” But, more than once, I have stopped. And, frankly, I probably stop and help more than most of my colleagues and friends. On the one hand, this is not a fair comparison to the Sadhu, however. The Sadhu was near-death; no intervention on the part of the climbing parties meant certain death. Most of the homeless and needy people in my city – and in the cities to which I frequently travel – are not near-death. On the other hand, how focused I am on some goal – such as getting to work on time or getting home to spend time with my wife and sons – does impact my actions. Like the climbers, the more focused I am on some goal, the less likely I am to take time out to help.

The nature of responsibility

What are we responsible for if we consider ourselves to be ethical persons? McCoy (1997) noted that often we do not even realize we are faced with an ethical situation; we hike on past, missing the moment and the opportunity. Barlow, Jordan, and Hendrix (2003) suggest a fundamental part of character is “moral knowing.” (p. 566) Moral knowing includes knowing when a situation is one which demands an ethical examination. Moral knowing is realizing the person at the side of the trail needs help; it is the acknowledgment of dilemma. This, then, is the first step to being an ethical person. This “knowing” is only the first step, however. The next step would be to move beyond the knowing and actually do something about it. At this point, Brown's (2000) framework would provide a reasonable process toward ethical decision making. Perhaps fundamental with Brown's three philosophical paradigms is actually knowing the purpose, knowing moral principles, and being able to maturely and appropriately predict the consequences of an action.

McCoy's (1997) anthropologist friend had a strong sense of knowing his greater purpose, being in touch with moral principles, and being able to see how actions would lead to particular consequences. McCoy describes Stephen as a “committed Quaker with deep moral vision.” (p. 56) Stephen's moral fiber was so strong it was able to cut through the oxygen deprivation and provide him with the compass to go in the right direction, to make a decision in alignment with his values. We could see Stephen as exhibiting the “Be, Know, Do” model of leadership (Campbell & Dardis, 2004), although he fell down on the do because he did not receive any support from those around him. Had he acted alone, had he returned with the Sadhu to the village at the foot of the mountain, he might have lost his own life.

What, then, are we responsible for? At the very least, we are responsible for aligning our actions with our values, for ensuring we maintain our overall purpose (which may, or may not, be aligned with the near goal), and for creating the most positive of consequences. We can second guess the actions of those climbers high in the Himalayans, but it is only second guessing. Even McCoy's own musings are second guessing, a philosophical discourse attempting to find both the right answer for the situation and some meaning for his own life. He does not find the right answer, acknowledging that often a dilemma is just that, a dilemma; it cannot be soused out with ease. In terms of meaning, however, McCoy comes closer. For McCoy, a man whose professional life is dedicated to business and organizational development, detecting meaning in terms of group interaction, does bring about some closure. In McCoy's mind, the message is not so much what did the individual do, but what did the individuals do in respect to the overall group.

Guiding a Group Down the Road Less Traveled

For McCoy (1997, p. 64), the lesson of the Sadhu is that without corporate support, the individual is lost. Says McCoy, “In a complex corporate situation, the individual requires and deserves the support of the group.” (p. 64) There is, I believe, a difference between the ad hoc group hiking to the mountain summit – four disparate groups who happen to be on the mountain at the same time – and a true group or team, an intentional organization. In McCoy's scenario, there is no leader. There are guides, professionals who know the mountain, but they are not leaders of the entire group. There are likely formal or informal leaders within each national team, but there is no single person recognized as the overarching leader. And, perhaps understandably, no one steps forward. They are travelers headed in the same direction, voyagers with the same destination, but their coalition is not a coalition; merely coincidently do they travel together that early morning. To judge them against a notion of corporate responsibility or leadership is heavy handed. Where we dealing with a corporate – as in collective – group, the situation would be different.

We expect groups created intentionally – be it a club, a team, a corporation, an organization, or a community – to have shared values, to have a shared sense of purpose, and to have formal and informal leaders. As McCoy (1997) tells us, “It is management's challenge to be sensitive to individual needs, to shape them, and to direct and focus them for the benefit of the group as a whole.” (p. 64) It is not our role to change the values of a group, but then it is also not our role to remain a part of a group whose values are in conflict with our own. McCoy asks “When do we take a stand?” (p. 60) For him, this is the basic question of the case. Our own values, our own moral principles must align with the organization's values and moral principles. McCoy writes,

We cannot quit our jobs over every ethical dilemma, but if we continually ignore our sense of values, who do we become? As a journalist asked at a recent conference on ethics, "Which ditch are we willing to die in?" For each of us, the answer is a bit different. How we act in response to that question defines better than anything else who we are, just as, in a collective sense, our acts define our institutions. In effect, the Sadhu is always there, ready to remind us of the tensions between our own goals and the claims of strangers. (p. 60)

When we come upon a ditch we are willing to die in, it is time to dig in and attempt to change the values of the group. The question remains: how can we change the values of a group? Harter, Edwards, McClanahan, Hopson, and Carson-Stern (2004) suggest success in using “feminist principles of organizing as a backdrop” in changing values of individuals and groups. Barlow, Jordan, and Hendrix (2003) offer a focus on character as key in moral development of individuals within a group. Campbell and Dardis (2004) would join Barlow, Jordan, and Hendrix in relying on shared values as fundamental within any group. Humphreys, Weyant, and Sprague (2003) suggest leader behavior and follower commitment play a large role in organizational commitment, including adjusting values which drive choices. In short, there are a multitude of approaches a person can take. One key element in impacting the value structure of a group is the role the individual plays. A leader can approach a values discussion with more ease then a group member or subordinate. Key in any change attempt, however, is a need for the agent of change to act in alignment with the values. Actions and behaviors must align with values. When a leader or a group member's actions are not in alignment with stated values, their credibility becomes nil and their impact on positive change falls dramatically. This is, perhaps, the most important lesson for anyone who wants to take responsibility to change the values of a group: let actions speak as loud as words.

In McCoy's (1997) parable, Stephen acts in alignment with his values, at least so far as he is physically able. For him, the ethical purpose, principle, and consequence is clear, and he works not only conversationally, but through action, to attempt to bring the group around to his way of thinking. When he realizes he will not change the group's value system, he does what he can for the Sadhu and then heads up the mountain, following his lifeline carried on the backs of Sherpas and porters.

In the “Parable of the Sadhu,” McCoy (1997) offers up a tale which provides a purposely ambiguous story, allowing for ample discussion about the ethical decisions made and not made by the characters. (p. 60) Knowing one's greater purpose and role in life, aligning actions to a that purpose and moral principles, and performing actions which create the best positive consequences, are all important decision points in the Sadhu story. And, they are important in real life, also, providing a framework for each of us in our personal and corporate life.

References

Barlow, C. B., Jordan, M., & Hendrix, W. H. (2003). Character Assessment: An examination of leadership levels. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 563-584.

Brown, M. T. (2000). Working Ethics: Strategies for decision making and organizational responsibility. Oakland, CA: Regent Press.

Campbell, D. J. & Dardis, G. J. (2004). The “Be, Know, Do” Model of Leader Development. Human Resource Planning, 27(2), 26-39.

Elkins, J. R. (2000, February). Practical Moral Advice for Lawyers: Scene 4 – Sadhus we meet along the way. Retrieved July 3, 2005, from: West Virginia University Web site

Harter, L. M, Edwards, A., McClanahan, A., Hopson, M. C., & Carson-Stern, E. (2004). Organizing for Survival and Social Change: The case of Streetwise. Communication Studies, 55(2), 407-424.

Humphreys, J. H., Weyant, L. E., & Sprague, R. D. (2003). Organizational Commitment: The roles of emotional and practical intellect within the leader/follower dyad. Journal of Business and management, 9(2), 189-209.

McCoy, B. H. (1997). The Parable of the Sadhu. Harvard Business Review, 75(3), 54-64.

Leadership Development Plan: A program for implementation of the Commandant-mandated Unit Leadership Development Program for Coast Guard MLC Atlantic

2005-06-26T23:45:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Creating and Leading an Intentional Organization” (Leadership 8520) in the Fischler School of Education & Human Services of Nova Southeastern University.

Introduction and Problem Statement
The United States Coast Guard is one of the five military services of the United States. The Coast Guard is, by far, the smallest of the five services – which also includes the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps – with just 39,000 active duty military members, some 8,000 reserve military members, and just 7,000 civilian employees. The Coast Guard traces its roots back to the early days of the Nation to the founding of the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790. Today, the Coast Guard is on the front lines in the protection of the United States as the maritime component of the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard's missions are diverse and include maritime search & rescue, marine environmental protection, and national defense; the Coast Guard's eleven mission areas all revolve around the maritime environment. As the Coast Guard's fact file tells us,

Its core roles are to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk, including international waters and America's coasts, ports, and inland waterways....The Coast Guard provides unique benefits to the nation because of its distinctive blend of military, humanitarian, and civilian law-enforcement capabilities.

While the Coast Guard faces many challenges, one of the key internal challenges identified over the last several years is leadership development. Within the last decade, the Coast Guard has established a Leadership Development Center housed on the campus of the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. The Leadership Development Center is responsible for providing leadership development to all “Team Coast Guard” members: every military member and every civilian employee. The Coast Guard has generally approached leadership from a perspective of “situational leadership,” at least in providing leadership development training to military members and civilian employees. The Leadership Development Center, until recently, has taught Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership II model; due to a copyright infringement, the Coast Guard has moved to another, but similar model which still provides a situational approach. The Leadership Development Center ensures that all courses, whether taught to cadets or officer candidates, to students in basic and technical training, to mid-level personnel through “road show” training sessions, or to more senior personnel at longer classes at the Leadership Development Center, receive leadership content which is in alignment throughout so that members and employees in the Service can all “speak the same language.” In addition to the situational approach to leadership, the Coast Guard uses a competency-based approach. The service has identified 29 leadership competencies necessary for Coast Guard leaders, including military members and civilian employees, which can be grouped into four clusters: leading self, leading others, leading performance & change, and leading the Coast Guard. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004b)

Beyond the Leadership Development Center, the Coast Guard just recently created a leadership institute at the Coast Guard Academy, not as a part of the Leadership Development Center but, rather, as a part of the academic departments for undergraduate, cadet education. Within the last six months, the Commandant of the Coast Guard – the Service's senior officer, reporting directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security – approved a recommendation by the staff of the Leadership Development Center to institute a Coast Guard-wide, web-based, leadership development program. Contrary to the staff's initial recommendations to have this program offered as an optional, adjunct initiative, the Commandant decided that, to ensure deployment throughout all of the Coast Guard, he would mandate the program. Announced just several months ago, the program became mandatory for all Coast Guard units at the start of June 2005.

The Unit Leadership Development Program is composed of three main parts. A primary component is the program's website, found at http://learning.uscg.mil/uldp. A conscious decision was made to place this site on the Intranet, accessible to anyone on the World Wide Web, rather than on the Coast Guard's own Intranet, accessible only inside the Coast Guard Data Network. The website has two primary parts: a listing of leadership interventions for each of the Coast Guard's leadership Competencies, and an assessment tool which unit leaders can deploy electronically to receive feedback on members' and employees' perceptions on the overall deployment of the leadership competencies within the unit. A second primary component of the Unit Leadership Program is a corps of “coaches” who assist unit leaders in deploying the Program. These coaches are based throughout the nation and coordinated by regional “coach coordinators.” Coaches include performance consultants, who in their normal world of work focus on leadership and management issues and who programmatically fall under the Leadership Development Center, and command master chiefs, senior enlisted members who are designated advisors to flag officers and serve as advocates for the enlisted force. The third primary component is the Leadership Development Center staff who support the entire program including web site maintenance and coach training.

The Coast Guard's Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic, based in Norfolk, Virginia, is responsible for a wide range of maintenance and logistics services at all Coast Guard units east of the Rockies. While the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic community has more than 4000 military members and civilian employees spread throughout 40 states, more than 450 personnel are located at the staff in Norfolk. These personnel include program managers, as well as direct service providers, in the fields of administration, law, naval engineering, civil engineering, electronic engineering, health & safety services, and logistics. The staff's home is a modern office building in downtown Norfolk where they moved in 1996 following the closure of Governor's Island in New York City. The staff occupies seven floors of this tower in the heart of downtown. Roughly half the employees are civilian employees, and half are military members. A challenge for the Maintenance & Logistics Command staff is the deployment of the Unit Leadership Development Program. While it is easy to define the staff, it is not so easy to get them all on page; all-hands sessions are cumbersome while division meetings are both sometimes too large and also too unique for adequate standardization. A mid-grade staff member, Kathy Nash – who happens to be a doctoral graduate of the Fischler School of Education and Human Services – has been designated as the project officer for the deployment of the Unit Leadership Development Program for the entire staff. Her primary function is the Training and Education Officer for the staff. She has tapped the performance consultant detailed to the staff to provide counsel; this consultant serves as the coach coordinator for the mid-Atlantic region and is, coincidently, a current student at the Fischler School.

At all levels of the Coast Guard, and at every unit of the Coast Guard, there is an acknowledgment that every military member and every civilian employee is different. Leadership development must be crafted for the individual. Certainly, there are universals, skills and knowledge that applies across the board, but in developing each leader, the Service cannot take a cookie-cutter approach. Development of the individual can truly only be created one person at a time. (Rossicone, n.d., p. 1)

Mission of the Professional Development Plan
Nash's task is simple to define, but not so simple to implement. The Commandant's direction is three-fold. All units must complete a “command assessment” every six to nine months. Each command is to then review the results of that assessment. Following the review, each command is to develop an action plan to specify the unit's senior leaders' direction and initiatives to bridge the gaps within specific leadership competencies. These expectations are similar to other Coast Guard initiatives including implementing a leadership and management framework based on the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This direction for the Unit Leadership Development Program is, however, focused on the leadership competencies. Interestingly, while the program's website has a computer-aided assessment tool, that tool is not mandated in the Commandant's direction. Many units have for the last several years been using either a regular assessment tool taken from Buckingham & Coffman's research with Gallop – using an assessment tool commonly referred to at the “Q-12” – or an assessment tool developed by the Office of Personnel Management which measures similar items but with questions in the public domain; this tool is referred by many to as the “Crew-11.” The assessment included with the Unit Leadership Development Program, sometimes referred to as the “ULDP-36,” was developed using questions from the Crew-11, a Baldrige-based assessment called “Are We Making Progress,” and other questions which provide organizational data based on the leadership competencies.

The task for the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff is to implement the mandated program and at least minimally meeting the three required taskers. More broadly, the task is to increase the level of leadership competencies for all members of the staff.

Outcomes and Goals for the Leadership Development Plan
In implementing the Commandant's mandates Unit Leadership Development Program, the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff will work to satisfy four things. The first goal is the staff-wide assessment using a single tool which allows for analysis by leadership competencies. The second goal is the completion of an analysis of the assessment results. The third goal is the development of an action plan to provide specific initiatives to the staff. The fourth goal is to raise the level of leadership competency throughout the staff.

One of the issues with the first goal is deciding what assessment tool to use. The ULDP-36 tool, while easy to set up and administer, does not provide the ability to collect any demographic information. It is possible to set up several assessment sites and provide the unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to different segments of employees. However, the data would be segmented in large chunks; certainly smaller chunks than providing a single URL to the entire command, but large chunks nonetheless. Fairly easily, the staff could be broken down to civilian employees and military members, or men and women; using the current ULDP-36 tool, however, there would be no way to segment military women in one cut and minority civilian employees in another cut. The point here is that the ULDP-36 tool provides no demographic information allowing for analysis. While this may be satisfactory in a small Coast Guard unit of a dozen or two dozen members and employees, it is likely not satisfactory for a large staff with 450 military members and civilian employees. A second issue with the ULDP-36 is that with its current format, the results are not kept for tracking purposes. When a unit starts the second assessment, the data from the first assessment is cleared from the database. The only way to maintain assessment results for tracking is to print a hard copy of the report. The report, however, only provides the score for each specific leadership competency based on a formula taking into account the arithmetic means of questions associated with that particular competency. The tool does not allow to drill down to the specific question; nor does it allow for an analysis based on the mode of responses for a particular question in the ULDP-36. A third issue with the ULDP-36 is that the assessment instrument, while it uses some questions from assessment tools currently used by Coast Guard units, it does not use all the questions from any single tool. Units which have used the Crew-11 and have been tracking trends using this tool, will not be able to convert to the ULDP-36 and continue tracking all questions and results; units will either need to drop current assessment tool data and transition to the ULDP-36, create their own assessment tool based on two or more current assessment tools, or use a tool other than the ULDP-36 and analyze that data through the prism of the leadership competencies.

In a unit the size of the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic, being able to segment responses during the analysis is paramount. Data from 450 individuals, without being able to determine statistically significant differences between key segments of employees and members, will not serve the leaders well. In addition, the staff has more than five years of trend data which has been analyzed and acted on; moving to a new tool will push that work and that initiative through the scupper, making it disappear for good. A possible solution is for the staff to add certain questions to the current tool which is used, questions which allow for analysis through the leadership competencies paradigm. The Leadership Development Center can provide information on how each of the 36 questions relates to each leadership competency so that a valid assessment tool can be developed.

Leadership Development Activities
One of the strengths with the Unit Leadership Development Program is the library of interventions. For each leadership competency, the Leadership Development Center has identified interventions which would help build up that particular competency. Most of the interventions are in the public domain and can be assessed by anyone on the Unit Leadership Development Program's website. Some of the interventions are copyrighted material for which the Coast Guard has purchased a license. For those materials, only registered Coast Guard users – usually the designated unit point-of-contact – may access the materials. While most of the interventions are training interventions, usually short hour or two sessions, the Leadership Development Center is working to create interventions which are not training-based, such as proven practices. Many of the training-based interventions involve discussions or exercises around books or movies; some interventions are video productions from firms such as CRM Learning, a video-training firm which develops films for business and government settings. Development of non-training interventions is an acknowledgment that learning doesn't just happen in a training or education environment; learning can happen in nearly every setting. (Banks, n.d., p. 2)

All interventions should be tied to a specific leadership competency or set of competencies. The mode of delivery is difficult since the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff is large and diverse. Interventions which might work in a smaller command – such as all hands-meetings or brown bag learning lunch sessions – are difficult in a larger command such as the staff. They're difficult if the goal is to reach every employee and member; the staff has too many personnel to provide those sorts of interventions and expect to reach every staff member. November (n.d.) would suggest the use of electronics, such as the Internet, to deliver content to a wide variety of employees. Using some form of electronic delivery would help ensure consistency of message, but it would not delivery personalized content to participants.

Another program in wide-spread use throughout the Coast Guard is the use of the Individual Development Plan. Individual Development Plans are Commandant-required for junior service members; some commands use them for every military member and civilian employee. The Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff uses Individual Development Plans throughout the staff. While not required, most staff members have Individual Development Plans; the plans help align individual desires with organizational needs. Supervisors review and approve plans for individual members and employees; approved plans help align resources to specific initiatives as defined in the plan. For instance, a collateral duty Equal Employment Opportunity counselor might want to develop mediation skills; once listed on an approved Individual Development Plan, the organization can move resources to help the employee attain that shared goal.

One possibility for the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff would be to mandate the use of Individual Development Plans for all personnel, and to ensure that each plan has a leadership development section, allowing each employee to focus part of their development on specified leadership competencies. With a staff-wide use of Individual Development Plans, the organization could then provide a menu of opportunities for leadership development, such as the brown bag learning lunches, which are targeted in nature and would appeal to a targeted group.

In order to accomplish this, a menu of options would have to be available to all staff members. Johnson & Johnson (n.d., p. 10) suggest that partnerships are critical; partnerships bring disparate people together for a common purpose. The common purpose here would be to provide variety and diverse opportunities for leadership development throughout the building and for all staff members. The ideal set of options would be created in partnership between key staff members and leaders from every division and every floor. Some possibilities include monthly leadership videos, off-the-shelf courses of various lengths including the Coast Guard's own 5-day Team Leader & Facilitator course and FranklinCovey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. A centralized calendar could be maintained whereby anyone could offer to sponsor an event intervention as listed at the Unit Leadership Development Program web site's resource listing.

Assessment Plan
The deployment of the Unit Leadership Development Program at the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic staff can be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Qualitatively, the training staff can track the trends in the assessments used for the Unit Leadership Development Program rollout. Once a single, reliable, and valid assessment tool is chose, the staff can track progress over time. A second qualitative approach, which should not be used alone, would count the number of interventions scheduled, completed, and attendees. In addition, the staff should assess against the mandated activities: completion of the command assessment, analysis of the assessment results, and the completion of an action plan. Qualitatively, the staff could interview random staff members throughout the building to gather qualitative comments and reflections on the leadership development program and it's effectiveness and impact.

The assessment should be spearheaded by the staff Training and Education Officer, as she is responsible not only for the deployment of the program but also other similar assessment initiatives. Ideally Dr. Nash would use her collateral staff as well as tapping into readily available consultant services.

Summary and Reflection
Certainly, the deployment of the Unit Leadership Development Program is, in some form or another, not only feasible; it is required. If the senior leadership of the Maintenance & Logistics Command Atlantic truly wants to succeed at leadership development, one method of bringing this initiative into the forefront, as well as ensuring tracking over time, would be to add the Unit Leadership Development Program to the organization's strategic plan. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004a). Adding a leadership development component would ensure that senior leaders keep a focus on the initiative and track the progress over time, making organization-wide decisions based on the ongoing assessment of the program. This aligns with Schlechty's (n.d.) recommendations that change comes about when senior leaders create, build, and maintain vision and focus. By placing the leadership program in the organizational strategic plan, the leaders are putting focus on what they determine to be important: creating leaders for today and tomorrow's Coast Guard.

References

Banks, D. (n.d.). “Realizing the Vision.” Retrieved June 13, 2005, from Nova Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Web of Support/The National Perspective on Leadership Web site at URL.

Johnson, S. P., Johnson, K, & Dias, L. (n.d.) “Living the Dream at Thurgood Marshall Academy for Learning & Social Change.” Retrieved February 17, 2005, from Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Web of Support/The National Perspective on Leadership Web site at URL.

November, A. (n.d.). “The Power of Leadership.” Retrieved November 20, 2004, from Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Web of Support/The National Perspective on Leadership at URL

Rossicone, J. (n.d.). “Together We Can Do More.” Retrieved June 13, 2005, from Nova Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Web of Support/The National Perspective on Leadership Web site at URL.

Schlechty, P. (n.d.). “Breaking Ranks – Revisited: Chapter 12 Expert Analysis.” Retrieved November 20, 2004, from Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Breaking Ranks Revisited at URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (n.d.). Coast Guard Unit Leadership Development Program. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (n.d.). U.S. Coast Guard Fact File. Retrieved June 26, 2005, from URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004a). Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic Strategic Plan 2004-2008. (MLCLANTINST 16000.1H, February 26, 2004). Norfolk: Author.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004b). New U.S. Coast Guard Leadership Competencies. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from URL.

U.S. Coast Guard. (February 3, 2005). Commandant's Priorities – People – Unit Leadership Development Progrm Implementation. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from URL.

Tackling Violence in the Military: A leadership intervention (A Prospectus)

2005-06-13T13:57:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Special Topics in Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9630).

Members of the armed forces serve in particularly stressful jobs whether they are in combat situations, training situations, or peacetime situations. Unlike most jobs, being a member of the military is a 24-hour a day, 365-day a year job. As Artiss (2000, p. 33) states, each member of the military is “owned for the full 24 hours of every day.” The five branches of the U.S. Armed Forces – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard – each serve a unique function and have a unique place in the defense of the country. While each service serves a unique purpose and has a unique culture, common elements exist across the different services. All members of the military wear uniforms and operate within the chain-of-command; everyone has a place. All members of the military are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the penal code for the U.S. military, every hour of every day while a part of the military. Each service has, to one degree or another, a warrior ethos: members of the military are trained to kill other human beings. Unlike police officers, whose role is to “protect and serve,” members of the military exist for the sole purpose of implementing political policy by means of force or a show of force. All of these bits create a baseline level of stress in military members; this baseline stress is occupational stress. As Pflanz (1999, p. 401) notes, there are a “variety of arenas in which military life can adversely affect the mental health of military personnel.”

Review of the Literature
Stea (2002, p. 944-945) notes that the shared risk factors for suicide, unintentional injury, and physical violence indicate a susceptibility for military members. He also notes that people who are prone to physical violence are more apt to show symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. (p. 946) Certainly, specific traumatic events, along with occupational events, can provide the stressor which propels a person toward depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress. However, Berwin, Andrews, & Valentine’s work (2000) shows that individual vulnerability factors play a large role in post-traumatic stress disorder among trauma-exposed adults. Their research shows that factors in existence before the traumatic event – such as psychiatric history, previous trauma, childhood adversity, and education – had some predictive effects, but that factors operating during and after the event – trauma severity, lack of social support, and additional life stress – had a somewhat stronger risk effect.

Begic (2001) observed significantly greater occurrence of aggression in veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder than those without. He noted aggression focused inward – such as suicide – and aggression focused outward – manifesting itself as verbal aggression, physical aggression, sexual aggression, and vehicular aggression. Veterans exposed to physical or sexual mistreatment before experiencing the military-related traumatic event developed post-traumatic stress disorder more frequently than those who had not had prior physical or sexual abuse. (p. 674) And, stunningly, veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder act aggressively nearly seven times more often then veterans without post-traumatic stress disorder. (p. 674) Stevenson (2000, p. 422) notes the “high prevalence of severe anger among combat veterans diagnosed with PTSD.” Another study (McCarroll, 2000, p. 41) determined “the probability of severe aggression was significantly higher for soldiers who had deployed” compared to those who had not deployed. A pre-9/11 study (Pearn, 2000, p. 434) showed that as many as 8% of all service members deployed on combat operations, peacekeeping, or disaster/humanitarian aid missions, show signs of post-traumatic stress disorder within 3 years of the deployment. Deployments provide an opportunity for both typical military occupational stress and traumatic-stress; traumatic events are never far from those who are in a combat zone. Castaneda (2005) reports that for troops deep inside the supposedly secure “green zone” of Baghdad, “violence relentlessly creeps up” on members of the military.

Pflanz (1999, p. 401) notes that perhaps as many as 48% percent of all U.S. workers will suffer from a psychiatric illness during their lifetime. Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (p. 402-403) are the most common forms of psychological illness. He notes that occupations with “low autonomy and little personal control over their work place individuals at a higher risk for mental illness;” this may have relevance for the military since the armed forces are founded on “discipline, following orders, and deference to those of higher rank.” (p. 403)

Both men and women in the military are subject to stressors and the possible mental illness stemming from those stressors. Merrill (2001, p. 621) notes that “a considerable percentage of women enter military services with histories of being victims of abusive behavior during childhood.” Abuse, and particularly sexual abuse, does not just happen in the civilian world. One study (DeRoma, Root, & Smith, 2003, p. 399) showed that nearly 10% of female veterans reported being raped while in the military. Another study (Rosen, 2002, p. 959) showed that nearly 40% of men and women on active duty had experienced physical partner violence in the past year. A third study (Rosen, 2000, 710) indicated that 85% of the female military members and 74% of the male military members had experienced some sort of sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the previous year.

Problem Statement and Research Questions
As Stea (2002) notes, recognition of stress and the impact stress – be it occupational or traumatic in nature – is a leadership issue. Leaders should “recognize stress and its potential global impact on individuals.” (p. 947) He goes on to state, “the goal is to increase the rate and level of adaptive behavior and well-being and to decrease the rate or level of disruptive processes.” (p. 947) From a leadership perspective, “stress-related disruptive behavior and emotional problems that become evident in the work place serve as a means for early detection, intervention, and prevention” of negative behaviors. (p. 947) The question for leaders becomes one not only of identification of these stress-related behaviors but interventions which assist the individual, the military unit, and the chain-of-command.

The course of this research intends to answer the following three questions.

1. How can military leaders identify individuals likely to commit violence either within the military unit or at home?

2. What interventions can the military leader use to minimize stress and its potential global impact on individuals and the military organization?

3. What role does organizational conflict resolution play in the increase of the rate and level of adaptive behaviors and well-being and the decrease of the rate and level of disruptive processes?

Additional Research Issues
In the course of this research, a more definitive link must be drawn from occupational stress and traumatic stress to mental illness (depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress) to violence. In addition, the research presented thus far does not draw any linkage between conflict and violence. This is a weakness in the current review of literature which must be addressed during the remainder of the research conducted.

In addition, the focus on all five branches of the military is perhaps too broad and consideration should be made to narrow the scope to a single service with a definable culture.

Conclusion
Military members are faced with both occupational and traumatic stressors which can cause a variety of mental illness which lead to violence and aggression. While these stressors perhaps “come with the territory,” the result of violence and aggression does not. Violence and aggression reduce unit effectiveness, injure service members, and negatively impact families and communities. Military leaders are responsible for all that goes on within their commands. Military leaders, then, must have effective methods and interventions to address the stressors and mitigate the impact on military members.

References

Artiss, K. L. (2000, January). The combat soldier. Military Medicine , 165(1), 33-40.

Begic, D. (2001, August). Aggressive behavior in combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Military Medicine, 166(8), 671-676.

Berwin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Valentine, J. D. (2000, October). Meta-analysis of risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 748-766.

Castaneda, A. (2005, June 10). Soldiers seek respite from Iraq violence. Yahoo! News. Retrieved June 10, 2005 from URL.

DeRoma, V. M., Root, L. P., & Smith, Jr., B. S. (2003, May). Socioenvironmental context of sexual trauma and well-being of women veterans. Military Medicine, 168(5), 399-403.

McCarroll, J. E. (2000, January). Deployment and the probability of spousal aggression by U.S. Army soldiers. Military Medicine, 165(1), 41-44.

Merrill, L. L. (2001, July). Trauma symptomatology among female U.S. Navy recruits. Military Medicine, 166(7), 621-624.

Pearn, J. (2000, June). Traumatic stress disorders: A classification with implications for prevention and management. Military Medicine, 165(6), 434-440.

Plfanz, S. (1999, June). Psychiatric illness and the workplace: Perspectives for occupational medicine in the military. Military Medicine, 164(6), 401-406.

Rosen, L. N. (2000, October). Personality characteristics that increase vulnerability to sexual harassment among U.S. Army soldiers. Military Medicine, 165(10), 709-713.

Rosen, L. N. (2002, December). Gender differences in the experience of intimate partner violence among active duty U.S. Army soldiers. Military Medicine, 167(12), 959-963.

Stea, J. B. (2002, November). Behavioral health force protection: Optimizing injury prevention by identifying shared risk factors for suicide, unintentional injury, and violence. Military Medicine, 167(11), 944-949.

Stevenson, V. E. (2000, May). Premature treatment termination by angry patients with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Military Medicine, 165(5), 422-424.

Connective Leadership: Existentialism, conflict resolution, and leadership development

2005-05-29T23:22:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Creating and Leading an Intentional Organization” (Leadership 8520).

Nearly a decade ago, Lipman-Blumen (1996) published her seminal study tying together her more than a quarter-century of study in the field of leadership. Lipman-Blumen posits that in order to succeed in today’s changing world, leaders must adopt models of leadership which tackle the “tensions between interdependence and diversity” (p. xi) as these tensions continue to escalate and impact personal, professional, organizational, and communal relationships. Lipman-Blumen suggests that we are entering a new era. Previously, we were in the physical era, where physical boundaries – such as rivers and mountains – formed the barriers between groups of people. Leaders in the physical era used these barriers both offensively and defensively. Slowly there was a shift to what she calls the geopolitical era, where geopolitical boundaries and ideologies defined differences. She suggests we are now moving into the connective era where “the connections among concepts, people, and the environment are tightening,” (p. 8) where physical and geopolitical boundaries no longer define us or prevent us from moving from place to place, and where – at the same time – diversity, differences, and interdependence are more important and more vital than they were in previous eras.

Lipman-Blumen (1996) suggests that in order to succeed in this new connective era, leaders must adopt a new model, a model she calls the “connective leadership model.” (p. 113) This model

describes three general categories or sets of behaviors … used by individuals for achieving their objectives…. Each set encompasses three (specific) styles, resulting in a full complement of nine achieving styles…. Connective leaders comfortably use the full palette of connective leadership styles in various combinations. (p. 119)

Using Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) construct of the world, a number of issues rise to the surface. Three key issues revolve around the question of meaning, resolution of conflict, and leadership development. As we examine leadership, leadership models, and leadership development, the fundamental existential questions of meaning become crucial; as we look at leadership in Lipman-Blumen’s third stage of the world – the connective era – the idea of how leaders help resolve conflict in a world defined by diversity and interdependence becomes pivotal; and, as we look at Lipman-Blumen’s 9-fold model, the question of leadership development becomes primary.

The Existential Question of Meaning
How does Connective Leadership answer the existential question of meaning? Lipman-Blumen (1996) suggests that at the core of the human experience lies an existential uncertainty.

At the very core of our human condition lies the immutable reality that we can neither predict nor totally control our destiny. This reality, which I call “existential uncertainty,” is the first of a pair of such demons we fend off with all our might. (p. 36)

She goes on to suggest that the second demon is existential anxiety.

The realization of how little we can do to reduce the uncertainty associated with human life provokes the appearance of that demon’s mate: a pervasive, deep-seated dread I’ll call “existential anxiety.” Always hovering just below our consciousness, existential anxiety silently colors every aspect of our lives, troubling our working hours and haunting our dreams as we sleep. (p. 36)

For Lipman-Blumen, “the most common method for dealing with existential dread is to seek protectors outside ourselves.” (p. 38) She suggests, “we seek human leaders whom we endow with godlike qualities.” (p. 38) Leaders impact both the existential uncertainty and the existential anxiety. “We trust our leaders to keep the world on an even keel, even if we ourselves cannot. We attribute events, both good and bad, to leaders’ intervention or control.” This is, Lipman-Blumen acknowledges, a devil’s bargain: we must play by the leader’s rules, and we must overlook the leader’s weaknesses. This “leads to the profound ambivalence many of us feel about our leaders – and about leadership itself.” (p. 39) But, all is not lost. For Lipman-Blumen, that ambivalence does not hold us firm, it does not freeze us, it does not bring about inaction. “The ongoing excavation of the leadership concept is part of the deeper search for the meaning of life, a search for how each of us mere mortals fits into the larger picture.” (p. 325) She goes on to suggest, “In some inchoate way, we sense that despite our Odyssean search leadership remains an immanent, mysterious process.” (p. 325)

Lipman-Blumen (1996) goes on to suggest that this Odyssean search is linked to our pervasive fear of death, an ever present theme for existentialists, and that we thus search for four things. First, we search for leaders, gods, and belief systems to protect us. (p. 328) Second, we search for life’s meaning (and she suggests this is an endless search). (p. 328) Third, we seek “life expanding experiences” which will deaden the existential fear. (p. 328) And, fourth we search for a way to transcend our own mortal death by leaving something permanent, a “permanent footstep in the shifting sands of immortality.” (p. 329) This is similar to the needs Covey (2004) defines as being universal for every human. Covey suggests every person has four innate human needs: to live, to love, to learn, and to leave a legacy. (p. 21)

For Lipman-Blumen (1996), the connective leadership model provides a way – a method, a roadmap – for the existential search. Succeeding at leadership through the model allows for melding interdependence and diversity in a world that craves systems which address the needs of organizations and groups: short-term coalitions, flexible and fast-moving organizations, and connections and relationships between and among peoples. (p. 10)

Conflict in a Changing World
In what ways does the model of Connective Leadership address conflict and conflict resolution? Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) model for connective leadership has three general sets of behaviors. Instrumental behaviors maximize interactions; direct behaviors ensure mastery of one’s own tasks; relational behaviors contribute to other’s tasks. (p. 112) One of the relational behaviors is collaboration. “Collaboration turns out to be an important tool for resolving conflicts,” states Lipman-Blumen. “Collaboration incorporates two related processes for solving complex problems in an interdependent world: resolving conflicts and advancing shared visions.” Wilmot & Hocker (2001) state, “Collaboration demands the most constructive engagement of any of the conflict styles.” (p. 161) In addition, they note collaboration “provides a constructive response to the conflict” and in a variety of contexts results in “better decisions and greater satisfaction with partners.” (p. 161) Bolton (1979) states, “Collaborative problem solving requires the use of listening skills, assertion skills, and the conflict resolution method.” (p. 240) We see, then, that collaboration, fundamental for success in today’s world according to Lipman-Blumen’s model, provides also the fundamental building block for successful conflict resolution.

Another necessary element in conflict resolution is “a special form of empathy.” (Lipman-Blumen, 1996, p. 207) She notes that the “capacity to discern an ally within an opponent” is the same talent which helps “understand the other party’s point of view.” (p. 207) Covey (2004) places empathic listening, listening “within the other’s frame of reference,” as the highest form of listening on the listening continuum. (p. 192) This empathic listening, vital to conflict resolution (Bolton, 1979, p. 269; Lulofs & Cahn, 2000, 219; Moore, 2003; 468), is a fundamental aspect of Lipman-Blumen’s personal achieving style, one of the three styles of the instrumental behavior set.

Leadership Development in a Hierarchical Organization
What does Connective Leadership tell us which can provide a foundation or input to leadership development in the U.S. Coast Guard? In many respects, the U.S. Coast Guard is an organization created and enmeshed in Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) geopolitical era and trying to pull its way out of the muck of this era and dive into the connective era. The Coast Guard is currently undergoing a radical shift along its most fundamental ideologies. For years, longer than anyone currently in the Coast Guard has served, the Coast Guard has had two divisions at the delivery of services level: operations and marine safety. These two stovepipes have provided services to the public in overlapping geographic areas, each with its own ideology and culture. Following 9/11 and the new port-level needs demanded by new mission areas, the Coast Guard’s senior leadership decided to merge these disparate entities into single port-level organizations which provide all Coast Guard services in a given area. The service is finding itself entering an era when “connections among concepts, people, and the environment are tightening” (Lipman-Blumen, p. 8) and her predictions of “short-term coalitions, changing kaleidoscopically” and “flexible, fast-moving organizations” in a world in which connections and networks “take on new importance as major discontinuities server the links” to traditions seem to be on the threshold. (p. 10)

The Coast Guard’s 28 leadership competencies (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004) provide Coast Guard personnel with a set of competencies which the service believes will ensure successful leadership during and beyond this time of change and uncertainty. The 28 competencies are divided into four broad categories: leading self, leading others, leading performance and change, and leading the Coast Guard. While these are not exactly similar to Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) model, there is substantial overlap.

Perhaps, however, the most applicable application of Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) model is her notion that leadership and organizational styles ought to match to succeed in this new world view. The challenges she suggests organizations will face include creating a sense of motivation and belonging amid alienation and diversity (p. 258), new organizational structures based on alliances (p. 259), succession planning which ensures leaders at all levels of the organization (p. 262), and dealing with a rapid pace of change through innovation and discontinuity. (p. 264) She suggests in order to be successful, organizations must align their cultures, values, rewards, and discontinuities with connective leadership achieving styles. (p. 274) To succeed, not only must people – both leaders and subordinates – change, but organizations must change to, aligning their processes and systems to support and encourage the new leadership sets. For the Coast Guard, this will be one of the most trying of initiatives; more than 200 years of culture pull back.

Conclusion
Lipman-Blumen (1996) provides a mental model which is certainly useful as we move into the 21st century. While this work is nearly a decade old, the material is perhaps more relevant today than it was when it was first published. Her connective leadership model lays out the behaviors and achieving styles which address what she sees as the shifting tides in the world today: a world which is more connected, more interdependent, and more diverse than the world of yesteryear; the world of today and tomorrow demands new behaviors to ensure effectiveness. The connective model – based on years of qualitative research (interviews of leaders), quantitative research (results from two survey instruments), and literature research (historical, biographical, and autobiographical sources) (p. xiv) – addresses a variety of issues including three key questions. Lipman-Blumen’s model provides a framework which helps leaders, and subordinates, answer the pressing existential questions – particularly in a world which, as it becomes more connected and diverse also becomes more fragmented, leaving the individual more alienated and anxious – providing a framework to connect, find protection, and take on heroic responsibilities. The model also provides behaviors which are necessary for conflict resolution. As the world becomes more diverse and more connected, conflicts will be inevitable. The leader of today and tomorrow must be able to resolve conflicts effectively; Lipman-Blumen’s leadership behaviors achieve that end. And finally, the model provides a framework for leadership development in organizations which, until now, have been grounded in the industrial, geopolitical paradigms of yesterday.

References
Bolton, R. (1979). People Skills: How to assert yourself, listen to others, and resolve conflicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (2004). The Eighth Habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Connective Leadership: Managing in a changing world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lulofs, R. S. and Cahn, D. D. (2000). Conflict: From theory to action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Moore, C. W. (2003). The Mediation Process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. Coast Guard (2004). New U.S. Coast Guard Leadership Competencies. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from website

Wilmot, W. W. & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal Conflict (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been: Synthesis and self-evaluation of leadership learnings

2005-04-21T09:26:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Leadership to Shape the Future: Theory, Research, and Practice” (Leadership 8510)

Quite frankly, this has not been my finest time, academic or personal or professional. As a matter of fact, in many respects it reminds me of freshman year in college, some 25 years ago and a string of months I’d sometimes rather forget. All is not lost, however, in that as I reflect back on the last 15 weeks, I see that I did learn something, albeit not perhaps what I set out to learn. Certainly, I have a firmer understanding of leadership from an intellectual perspective, and I have a greater realization of my personal relationship with leadership. As the fog of the weeks lifts, even so slightly, I see four keys. First, leadership is built on systems thinking. Second, relationships are pivotal in any leadership discussion or experience. Third, communication is fundamental in terms of effective leadership. Fourth, character and competence form a solid foundation for effective leaders.

Systems Thinking
Leadership is multi-faceted and related to nearly almost every discipline of the study of human behavior. Yukl notes, “Systems thinking involves the use of mental models that acknowledge complex inter-relationships and cyclical causality.” (2002, p. 296) As Yukl suggests, systems thinking acknowledges that everything is connected to everything and that mucking about in one area has an impact on another area. Leadership – human behavior and organizational behavior – is so complex that without systems thinking and the mental models that systems thinking forces us to create, the study of leadership would be nothing more than a morass from which no explorer would ever escape.

This learning is important for me for several reasons. First, in my work as a performance consultant, I am reminded that while I might intervene in one particular area of the organization, the ramifications can be felt a great distance away. Second, my life – like everyone’s, I suppose – is a system with inter-related roles and responsibilities. Mucking about in one role – such as adjusting to newly married life or feeling like a social service organization for extended family – impacts other roles – such as work completion or timeliness and quality of academic study. Compartmentalizing, while it may work in the short-term, is not a long-term answer. Third is the realization that if, indeed, all is a system, than I can develop a mental model to help me analyze the system. I can, in a sense, conquer it still; I’ll add the development of the mental models to my ever-lengthening to-do list.

Relationships
Following directly on systems thinking, the notion that relationship are key seems over-simplistic: of course relationships are key. Is not that the whole point of systems thinking? Yes. And more specifically here I am talking about relationships between people. Relationships between suppliers and customers; relationships between stakeholders. I’m talking about the human side of relationships. When interviewing my key customer, Rear Admiral Pearson (C. I. Pearson, personal interview, April 1, 2005), I was struck by his passion for relationships, a passion for the connections between people. I suspect his passion is more than just culture speaking (see Phillips, 2002, 45-72), and more than some model of leadership practice (see Kouzes & Posner, 2002), but rather some innate acknowledgement that it is the relationships between people that makes organizations work.

These last many weeks, I have not cultivated relationships to ensure effectiveness from a personal, professional, or academic perspective. Without cultivating relationships – as we might cultivate a garden – relationships will whither and die. Like a garden left to nature’s own devices, relationships between people, will become choked with weeds and bear no fruit. I am dangerously close to bearing no fruit, my entire life overgrown with weeds.

Communication
What is it that helps build relationships? Communication. Communication is fundamental. In the space of the last ten days, I have taken a 20-hour seminar about mediation, taught a two-day course about crisis intervention, and facilitated a four-day seminar based on Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Last week, I had a sudden realization: each of these courses put communication skills – and specifically listening skills – as fundamental to the success of the human interaction within the discipline. The material is, I realized, all the same. And why? It is the same because communication – understanding the other person’s words and meanings – is at the basis to each discipline, be it mediation or crisis intervention or human effectiveness. And the fruit of that basis is relationships. Through relationships, things happen and work gets done.

Character and Competence
Of course, each of us must know our job in order for things to get done. That is competence, the technical knowledge and understanding and skills necessary to perform the required task. Without competence, a person cannot fully contribute. More than competence is needed, however, to be effective in leadership and life. Character is based on integrity. I have, these last many weeks, demonstrated competence. I can string words together, and I can write coherent essays. I can facilitate a group or a meeting. I can coach and mentor fellow consultants. My character, however, has been less fulfilled. Undone work assignments, chores at home not completed, assignments for school and work turned in late or at the very last moment before the deadline have all filled my months. I have said I am a certain type of person, but I my actions have not followed through.

When critiquing those who lead me, I often compare their words to their actions. Did the leader say what he was going to do? And, did the leader do what she said she would do? These past weeks have found my words not matching my actions.

Next Steps
What are the next steps for me? The next steps seem clear, at least in the light of day. I need to re-examine my mission and purpose and, then, align my actions to that mission and purpose. In support of this action, I will also develop – or find – a mental model to help me step out, to help define the place I find myself as well as show the route to where I want to go. And, I will focus on enhancing relationships, truly communicating, and exhibiting not just competence but character in what I do.

References

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phillips, D. T. (with Loy, J. M.). (2003). Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A View from the Eighth Floor: An interview with Rear Admiral Clifford Pearson

2005-04-19T23:11:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Leadership to Shape the Future: Theory, Research, and Practice” (Leadership 8510).

We settled into the leather chairs of Rear Admiral Pearson’s well-appointed office on the eighth floor of an office building in downtown Norfolk, Virginia. Nautical knick-knacks are discretely in place around the room; his massive wooden desk would serve as a focal point of the room were it not for the wall of windows looking outward, windows framed by four flags: the Flag of the United States, the Coast Guard flag, the Department of Homeland Security Flag, and Pearson’s personal flag, a deep blue emblazoned with a single white star and the Coast Guard insignia and trimmed in gold fringe. Between the two neighboring towers, one can see a slice of the working harbor, the skyline doted with cranes, the far shore crowded with dry docks, and the placid water stirred up by an occasional tug and barge or naval security boat. This is a maritime-influenced town and home to the world’s largest naval fleet. The Coast Guard is well-represented here, too; from Pearson’s office one can see the federal building housing the offices of the Coast Guard’s Atlantic Area Commander, the fourth ranking officer in the service.

Pearson serves as the Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic, and is ultimately responsible for all maintenance and logistics support to Coast Guard units east of the Rockies. A staff of nearly 500 military personnel, civilian employees, and contract employees conduct the work of the Command in Norfolk; more than 2,700 other personnel are spread across 40 states, providing direct services to Coast Guard customers. Pearson sits at the helm of a fairly large organization, and as he settled into the leather covered chair in his crisp and neat blue uniform, he looked quite at home.

Living by Example
Having served on active duty for more than 30-years, Pearson has seen his share of leadership examples, both of the positive sort and the negative sort. He cited as one of his examples of learning the “proverbial screamer,” a leader who screams and yells and raises his voice in order to be heard and followed (C. I. Pearson, personal interview, April 1, 2005). Two key, personal leadership competencies he identified were to “not be the proverbial screamer” and to “not squash others’ input.” Interestingly, Pearson seems to have drawn the greatest learning from examples of negative behavior. He cited a desire to “treat people fairly” and to “seek ideas and participation” in his role as a leader. At the most basic level, he is building a personal how to for, as Kouzes & Posner (2002) would say, “modeling the way.”

Executive Competencies
Yukl (2002) identifies strategic leadership by executives as a key competency for leaders of large, complex organizations. Pearson mirrors this notion; he offered three key, important competencies for senior leaders: systems thinking, personal relationships, and understanding people. Pearson noted that a leader in a complex organization must “see the big picture” and understand the relationships between organizational elements; a leader must “understand the full nature of what they have responsibility for and must understand the broader goals and environment.” Leaders must see linkages and understand systems. Yukl identifies systems thinking as key when leading change within organizations; systems thinking, “acknowledging complex inter-relationships and cyclical causality” are necessary in order to bring about positive organizational change. (p. 296) Pearson’s second, noted competency was personal relationships; he cited customers and stakeholders – both internal and external – as key constituents with whom a senior leader must develop relationships. Stakeholders will often have conflicting interests, and it is the senior leader who must sort through those interests to determine the organization’s route. (Yukl, p. 407) And finally, Pearson noted that “understanding the people component of the organization, and of stakeholder organizations, is key… a leader must have more than just a technical understanding or component, but also understand the needs of the crew and people.” For him, leaders must have more than technical competence, but a character which shows an understanding, and a sense of caring, for people. As Covey would say, they must show “trustworthiness.” (Covey, 2004, p. 146) Altogether, these three competencies come down to one thing: “The truth is that everything in leadership comes back to relationships.” (Phillips, 2003, p 55) Relationships with respect to leadership are multi-faceted; they are the relationships between people, between organizations, between systems, between processes, between cultures, and between stakeholders.

Pearson indicated demonstrating leadership competencies are not a “one-time” thing. Indeed, for Pearson, demonstrating positive leadership competencies – such as “coaching, setting standards, defining expectations” – is a constant in both action and word. For Pearson, setting standards and defining expectations is something he does on a daily basis. His interactions with subordinates routinely set out expectations for organizational behavior and organizational outcomes.

Interestingly, Pearson’s interest in relationships and the “people side” of things appeared strong during the interview, but his professional background is in the technical realm of the Coast Guard as an electronics systems engineer. His earlier flag assignments were as the Coast Guard’s Chief Information Officer and as the Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computers & Information Technology. Perhaps he has succeeded in these senior positions because of, and not in spite of, his understanding of the importance of the “people side.”

Conflict and Leadership
When asked what role conflict has played in his experiences as a leader, Pearson did not provide specific examples, but he did provide some clear-cut ways to deal with conflict within an over-riding caveat: “Conflict is counter-productive. Focus on mission.” The Coast Guard has a bias for action which comes out even when putting conflict into perspective. (Phillips, 2003, p. 73) Pearson’s rules for conflict are fairly clear: don’t let it get personal; address issues, not personalities; and, seek positive resolutions. He also noted that, if the result is not illegal or immoral, “let the leader make the call.” In a sense, even this response is shaped by culture, a culture steeped in chains-of-command and military structure. His rules, however, are not so steeped; addressing “issues” and not “personalities” is similar to mediation’s call to look to “interests” instead of “positions.” To successfully resolve conflict, we must pull away from that which we are bound and focus on true needs, or interests, or issues.

Pearson noted that people in conflict often find themselves in an emotional state. Conflict leads to stress which often increases the conflict; this cycle leads to a spinning-up that is often difficult to stop. Breaking the cycle can reduce both conflict and stress. Reducing conflict lowers stress; reducing stress lowers the conflict level. At smaller organizations than the Maintenance & Logistics Command, morale events – such as picnics or softball games or community service projects – can involve the entire crew and help relieve stress. Stress reduction is a “responsibility of the commanding officer.” Sometimes, however, the leader adds to the stress; a good leader understand himself and sees when he is adding to the organizational stress.

Pearson also noted that a leader must have skills to not only “identify early signs of conflict” but have skills to “keep the conflict from escalating.” Interestingly, in his current role, the conflicts Pearson comes into contact with are generally either stakeholder oriented, or are people issues on his own staff which have bubbled too long and too hard. These are few and far between. Resolving stakeholder conflicts are much more the natural visitor to his subdued, formal office. A former occupant of this office was once presented with a difficult stakeholder conflict. The then Atlantic Area Commander asked the Maintenance & Logistics Commander to have several million dollars – which had been earmarked for maintenance of cutters – transferred to the Area’s account to help fund a new and ongoing counter-drug operation in the Caribbean. For the then occupant of the eighth floor office, the question was one of conflict: obey an order from a superior and support an important Coast Guard – and national – initiative, or follow the desires of Congress – which specifically appropriates maintenance money – and support the engineering concepts of preventative and curative maintenance. In many respects, the decision was a no-win decision for the Maintenance & Logistics Commander. No matter which way he leaned, he would be ignoring a key stakeholder’s interests and position.

Decisions in 2005 are no less critical and, perhaps, even longer reaching in terms of impact on the organization. The Maintenance & Logistics organization is undergoing a major reorganization and support functions are being scrutinized as possible venues of outsourcing to government contractors. Conflicting stakeholder desires abound in these decisions which will have an impact long after Pearson moves on following his tour. He will likely move on in the summer of 2006, after just two years leading the organization. Strategic leadership and decision making by executives is influenced by tenure in the position; Pearson is nearly on the downhill turn for his tenure and may become more inflexible in looking at alternatives that do not match decisions made in the first year. (Yukl, 2002, p. 352) However, Pearson has shown an acceptance of ambiguity – in his systems thinking and in his understanding of multi-faceted relationship – so “refuge in a single-minded theme” is less likely.

Creating Leaders through Mentoring and Education
Growing leaders is important, particularly in an organization like the Coast Guard that moves members nearly every two or three years. Military members do not get a chance to spend 5 or 7 years in a single job; the culture demands movement and growth. Looking over his career, Pearson indicated that mentoring was the key activity he has taken on to grow leaders. What was evident in his explanation, however, was that he sees that responsibility as current, also. “It is important to provide teaching moments – as available – making bigger picture linkages, leading a person through the thought process” in decision making and in reconciling diverse stakeholder needs. Not only is this something he has done, but it is something he continues to do, and not just with junior members of the service. He indicated a mentoring role with the Deputy Commander, a subordinate, but a senior officer with nearly as much time in the service. Pearson sees himself as a mentor to his senior staff, his senior advisors, as well as those military members and employees who work on his personal staff. Mentoring is a “continuing issue” that helps ensure all in the service learn from many people over the years and are not just locked in to one role model.

This notion of continuous learning is one that played clear as Pearson talked about his dream for formal education for mid-level and senior military members and civilian employees. He noted the Coast Guard does a “pretty good job with on-the-job-training and leadership training” but, with a leader’s primary responsibility being “succession planning,” formal education is the service’s biggest deficiency. While the other military branches require officers to attend staff and war colleges, the Coast Guard does not require any graduate education for officers. “We don’t put enough energy and attention to this valuable opportunity.” As he talked, Pearson’s vision became clearer: a Coast Guard sponsored graduate College of Homeland Security or a Security & Staff College, or perhaps an increase in the work of the Coast Guard’s Leadership Development Center to include education, not just training. In a sense, Pearson is asking for a re-rack of our culture: make education important and put resources – including billets for students – in an enhanced education system. And, he noted that college education is “not just the purview of the commissioned officer corps.” The Coast Guard’s enlisted members are completing undergraduate and graduate degrees in record numbers; the service must encourage and nurture this learning through enhanced support. The service’s “structure requires” this support so that we do not lose our intellectual capital.

These shared notions of mentorship and education fit well within Kouzes & Posner’s “practices of leadership.” (2002, p. 22) The very notion of creating a graduate school within the service, or even within the Department of Homeland Security, challenges the process and the status quo. Mentoring subordinates, even those with years and years of experience, both models the way and inspires a vision. Seeing education as key to life-long personal success, as well as organizational success, encourages the hearts of employees.

The Changing Role of Leadership in the Coast Guard
According to Pearson, leadership has changed in his time in the Coast Guard. There is a “growing recognition that through readings, education, and training, a person can improve leadership skills.” As a service, the Coast Guard is more proactive and sees value in the research and literature of leadership, and the service attempts to use this new knowledge in various, fairly new, programs such as the Chief Petty Officer Academy, Leadership & Management course, and the Leadership Development Center. Over the years, according to Pearson, “contemporary leaders have become more astute at leadership and conflict resolution…. Whereas years ago, most of it was rank-based, now people at all levels have skills to lead and to help reduce conflict.”

The View from the Eighth Floor Front Office
As our interview wound down, Pearson defined what he saw as the outcomes to good leadership: mission accomplishment, better products quicker, a more satisfied workforce, better organizational performance, and increased retention. In his five outcomes, Pearson basically nails the four strategic cornerstones of planning: customers, stakeholders, process management, and employees. (Kaplan & Norton, 1996) Afterward, I wonder if he sees these as strategic goals for the Maintenance & Logistics community. On the one hand, they are more general than the goals in the strategic plan signed by his predecessor just barely a year ago; they are also more understandable, providing a clearer vision than the program-focused document which hangs down the hall from the flag office. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004)

Pearson sees leadership as “cascading down” and including everyone in the organization. From the polished office on the eighth floor, it is a long way to the electronics shop in San Juan or the industrial facility in New Orleans or the administrative support spaces in Boston, but that is where his leadership must reach. If he is lucky, Pearson will make it to each of these spots twice during his tour; for the other nearly 800 days, it is the responsibility of those in the chain-of-command to carry his message and provide the appropriate coaching, standards, and expectations. He can make rudder commands and he can make power commands, but it is the helmsman, the throttleman, and the engineers who actually turn the ship and bring up the speed. It is, indeed, Pearson’s three senior leader competencies – systems thinking, personal relationships, and understanding people – all delivered from the plush confines of the eighth floor office or wherever his flag flies, which will ensure success.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Appendix – Interview Questions
1. What does it mean to be a "leader"?

2. What the key leadership competencies you've used during your time in the Coast Guard? How have you put those to use?

3. What would you consider to be the most important competencies (or traits) of a leader in a complex organization such as the Coast Guard?

4. What are some key instances when you have used leadership competencies?

5. How has conflict played a role in your experience as a leader?

6. What leadership competencies have you used to resolve conflict?

7. What steps can leaders take to reduce conflict within an organization?

8. What linkages do you see between leadership development and conflict?

9. What are some ways you've helped grow leaders?

10. If you could make significant structural or organizational changes in the Coast Guard, what would you do to enhance leadership development?

11. How do you see the Coast Guard's new Unit Leadership Development Program impacting Coast Guard people and units?

12. In what ways do you think leadership development is lacking in today's Coast Guard?

13. How has leadership -- and leadership development -- changed in your time as a member of the Coast Guard?

14. How has conflict -- and conflict resolution -- changed in your time as a member of the Coast Guard? What types of conflict do your recollect from your early days in the Coast Guard?

15. For you, what are the keys to conflict resolution?

16. What do you see as the value to good leadership?

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
References
Covey, S. R. (2004) The Eighth Habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press.

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phillips, D. T. (with Loy, J. M.). (2003). Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2004). Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic Strategic Plan 2004-2008. (MLCLANTINST 16000.1H, February 26, 2004) Norfolk: Author.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Exemplary Practices of Leadership: A view from within the Coast Guard

2005-04-10T23:55:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Leadership to Shape the Future: Theory, Research, and Practice” (Leadership 8510).

Organizations succeed or fail based in large measure on the abilities of senior leaders. Senior leaders provide the vision for the organization and create the environment for success. Senior leaders do not work alone, however. It takes leaders at every level of the organization to ensure organizational excellence. While a senior leader sets the tone for the overall organization and can have a huge impact on the organization, the greatest impact on employees is on direct supervisors (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999) Creating a holistic approach to leadership, one that grooms leadership at all levels of the organization is vitally important for all organizations. The U. S. Coast Guard is no different. Tracing its roots back to 1790, the U. S. Coast Guard, now one of the foundational members of the recently formed Department of Homeland Security, prides itself on being a multi-mission, maritime, military service. As a service, the Coast Guard prides itself on developing leaders; leadership, or so the indoctrination goes, is a fundamental part of the culture. At the very least, the organization does put a focus on leadership, having created and nurtured a Leadership Development Center as a part of the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. In addition, the service’s immediate past Commandant, the senior leader of the service, partnered with author Donald Phillips to write a volume about leadership and the Coast Guard; the book is filled with anecdotes of strong leadership in the service. (Phillips, 2003)

Philips suggests the Coast Guard’s leadership success is based on four major actions: (a) set the foundation, (b) focus on people, (c) instill a bias for action, and (d) ensure the future. He breaks each of these actions into subordinate parts; for instance to focus on people is to eliminate the frozen middle, cultivate caring relationships, build strong alliances, and create an effective communication system. In many respects, Phillips outline of leadership practices as demonstrated by the people of the Coast Guard is not so very different from Kouzes & Posner (2002) and their five practices of exemplary leadership.

Kouzes & Posner (2002) postulate there are five practices of exemplary leadership. For them, those practices are (a) model the way, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) challenge the process, (d) enable others to act, and (e) encourage the heart. Like Phillips, Kouzes & Posner suggest each practice is made up of smaller parts. For them, these smaller parts are “commitments,” and each practice is embedded with two commitments of leadership; the practice is made whole by these leader-made commitments which serve to guide how successful leaders get great things to happen in effective organizations.

From my vantage point in the organization as a consultant to Coast Guard leaders, I have a unique perch from which to view the organization. Sometimes that perch settles into cynicism, a strong cultural bias for long-time members of the Coast Guard organization. As such, my focus for examination will not be the entire Coast Guard, nor one of the two primary, “flag-level” (or headed by an admiral, a military of “flag rank”) commands I serve. Instead, my focus here will be on the performance consultant community and our “right coast” program manager – and my direct supervisor – Dr. George Yacus.

Dr. Yacus – or George, as I usually refer to him – is the direct supervisor of three internal performance consultants assigned the Atlantic Area staff in Portsmouth, Virginia. He is also programmatically responsible for, although provides not supervisory oversight, for eight other consultants working at District offices in Boston, Miami, New Orleans, and Cleveland. While George is a civilian employee, he has both military members (both enlisted members, warrant officers, and commissioned officers) and civilians under his purview. As a retired Naval aviator, he has experience with the military and understands the military mindset. Having worked with the Coast Guard for more than five years now, he understands the Coast Guard culture.

In his work within the Performance Excellence program, George must lead rather than direct or manage. Only three consultants actually work “for” him; the remainder work “for” their own supervisors at their respective flag-level district offices. In order to create an environment of effectiveness, George must lead. As Kouzes & Posner (2002) suggest, “Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow.” (p. 20) George has neither a carrot or a stick to encourage the bulk of consultants to join him on the journey; rather, he must use exemplary leadership practices to gain their participation.

Model the Way
Each consultant brings a unique set of skills and perspectives to the job of helping create excellent performance through organizational leadership and management. Kouzes & Posner (2002) suggest that two commitments are required for leaders to “model the way.” Leaders must find their own voice by clarifying their personal values and then must set the example by aligning actions with shared values. While I’ve never asked George about the values which drive him, I have a sense – through watching him work – as to what the values might be. He values community; he values making contributions; he values people and their individual and organizational success; and, he values ideas and their practical application. As an organization, the Coast Guard has a set of defined values – honor, respect, and devotion to duty – that also rank high in George’s pantheon of guiding values. Some of what we do as consultants involves helping people – leaders and followers, alike – develop their own list of personal values and clarifying what those look like not just in theory but also in action. I suspect George has done this.

Why do I suspect George has done this? In large measure it has to do with his alignment of actions with what I see as the shared values of our consulting community. Our work revolves around implementing systems and practices which are in alignment with the Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria, the Coast Guard’s – nearly word-for-word – adaptation of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence published by the National Institute of Science and Technology, a veritable blueprint for organizational effectiveness and efficiency through appropriate organizational leadership and management practices and systems. We are, perhaps, “Baldrige Geeks,” working to align systems and processes to create high performance within the organization and segments we work. In large measure, this is one of our key, shared values: implementing Baldrige-based systems and processes.

Leading by example, George has done his share of hands-on consulting with senior leaders and has had success with implementing Baldrige-based systems and practices. And, he has gently suggested, tugged, cajoled, and prodded the eleven consultants within the Atlantic Area to follow.

Inspire a Shared Vision
A key to organizational success is that a single person cannot “do it” alone. Indeed it takes all the members of the organization, working in concert with each other, to bring about organizational success. To create that “working in concert,” leaders must, as Kouzes & Posner (2002) suggest, inspire a shared vision. Each member of the organization must share the vision.

There’s an old consulting tale about organizational vision. I am not sure if it is based in fact or if, as I suspect, it is apocryphal, but it is, nonetheless, worthy of repeating. Before his death, President Kennedy propelled our nation on to the moon: to conquer that journey by the “end of the decade.” The story goes that several years later, and well before Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon in 1969, a business consultant asked a janitor who was sweeping up at the Kennedy Space Center what he was doing. Without missing a motion, the old man answered, “I’m helping put a man on the moon.” The message here is that it takes that sort of commitment, by all members of the organization, to make great things happen. And it takes that sort of unified dedication, too. The story shows an organization aligned to a single outcome: putting a man on the moon and bringing him home safely.

Kouzes & Posner (2002) provide us with two commitments for leaders, two commitments which are embedded with the practice of “inspiring a shared vision.” For Kouzes & Posner, leaders must be committed to “envisioning the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities” and to “enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations.” George has made both of these commitments, at least in practice. Whenever George talks with any of us consultants, he talks about the journey and where we are leading Coast Guard leaders through the implementation of Criteria-based leadership and management practices and systems. For George, who can paint a word picture of what success looks like, our efforts will help the Coast Guard be an excellent organization, meeting the Commandant’s goal of the Coast Guard being the best managed organization in the federal government. Whether the conversation takes place in George’s windowless office, or during an all-consultant phone conference, or during one of our thrice-yearly face-to-face gatherings, George’s message is consistent. And, he appeals to our shared aspirations of wanting organizational success. To a one, each consultant sought out the job, a non-traditional billet by Coast Guard standards and not always career enhancing, at least for commissioned officers who serve. And, to a one, each of us wants to see organizational success first and foremost, even beyond our own individual success.

It is, perhaps, because George has to compete with five different “chains of command” and seven flag officers and their individual priorities – which are sometimes based on geographic or operational necessity and other times based on some idiosyncratic bit of organizational or personal bias – that resorting to a shared vision has been so successful. George has given us the end-in-mind, but not the actual steps to get there. We learn what works for us by trying out different tactics and strategies, and sharing successes and failures with each other.

Challenge the Process
As Phillips tells us, a key Coast Guard cultural bias is to “instill a bias for action.” For many of us long-time “Coasties” – and for the newer Coasties who are a quick study – this often means challenging the norm. “Act, and seek forgiveness later” is a strong cultural norm. Granted, sometimes forgiveness does not come so easily, but true Coasties learn and move on. Kouzes & Posner (2002) tell us that leaders practice “challenging the process.” For them, leaders “venture out” and “seek and accept challenges.” (p. 16) Kouzes & Posner claim that of every successful leader they met during their research, none claimed to achieve their “personal best by keeping things the same. All leaders challenge the process.” (p. 17)

George has committed to “searching for opportunities by seeking innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.” But, more importantly, he challenges each consultant to do the same. The Coast Guard recently instituted an optional “individual development plan” process which allows members and employees to list their goals, the steps needed to attain the goal, and the organizational support needed. These individual development plans are reviewed by the individual’s supervisor and, after negotiating the specifics, endorsed by the supervisor. While George is not he supervisor for eight of the eleven consultants in his “area of responsibility,” he, nonetheless, has gotten each consultant to annually complete an individual development plan, and, in certain cases, he has intervened as both an advocate and mediator between the consultant and the consultant’s supervisor, even though he has no positional power over the supervisor. He challenges each of us to seek innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.

And, like the Coastie who acts first and seeks forgiveness later, and then finds things didn’t work out all that well, George experiments and takes risks. Small wins might very well be a motto for him. Within the Criteria for Performance Excellence, strategic planning plays a fundamental role, as does fact-based decision making. Historically, neither of these has been culturally significant. We plan for action, not for the long term; we make decisions based on gut, intuition, and past experience, not based on facts and data. Getting senior leaders, particularly senior leaders, to escape the grips of our culture and move toward strategic planning with respect to organizational leadership and management and toward fact-based decision making is a long road. George has been working diligently and slowly, accruing small successes wherever possible. When he finds success, or hears of success by one of us consultants, he publicizes the news through formal (a monthly consultant newsletter) and informal (scuttlebutt) means. And, he encourages the other consultant supervisors to not take a “zero defect” mentality and punishing honest mistakes.

Enable Others to Act
Kouzes & Posner (2002) provide a key to the success of strong leaders: they don’t “do it” alone; strong leaders “enable others to act.” They suggest that “leadership is a team effort” and that a test of leadership is the frequency a person uses the word “we” as compared to “I.” (p. 18) Successful leaders say “we” because they know that organizational success happens through the efforts of “us,” not “me.” The leader commitments in enabling others to act are clear: collaboration and power-sharing.

Kouzes & Posner (2002, p. 242) tell us that “collaboration is the critical competency for achieving and sustaining high performance” especially in these times of increasing technology, increasing connectedness, and increasing speed in the spread and accessibility of information. George has worked to encourage collaboration amongst us consultants, even to the point of dedicating some of our budget to paying for travel to allow for collaborative events. He has made it possible for he and the eleven consultants to meet annually together as a team and share successes and collaborate on new initiatives.

George frequently shares power and discretion, encouraging consultants to enter into conversations he is involved in with senior leaders. For our annual “right coast” consultant conference, George usually delegates not just the logistics – such as choosing a location and making arrangements with the hotel and meeting location – but the agenda also. He wants the experience to be collaborative in nature, encouraging us to work together for the common good.

Encourage the Heart
The last practice of exemplary leadership is to encourage the heart. Recognition of good work and sustained effort is a cultural weakness for the Coast Guard. As a consultant going into a Coast Guard unit or organization, I can bet that communication and recognition will rank in the top three or four issues for members and employees. George has taken a proactive approach to this, recognizing good work done by each consultant. He does this recognition in a variety of ways and using a variety of tools, and tailoring the recognition for the individual. He’s been known to give trinkets – such as embroidered shirts or engraved desk clocks – as recognition of good work. Monthly, he publishes a newsletter which summarizes consultant work and successes. Originally conceived as an Atlantic Area only tool, the monthly newsletter has taken on a Coast Guard wide perspective, including the work of our Pacific Area shipmates (nine consultants and one area program manager) and our Headquarters counterparts (three consultants and two program managers). His work in recognition has helped add to our spirit of community.

Conclusion and Possible Improvements
Within the greater Coast Guard community, there are a number of possible improvements which could be made to enhance the practices of exemplary leadership throughout the service. Indeed, a current initiative announced recently by the Commandant is the “unit leadership development program” which is designed to help unit leaders increase leadership competency through a variety of possible interventions. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2005)

For our purposes, however, the question is how can we increase the exemplary leadership practices within the Atlantic Area performance consulting corps. Perhaps the first method of increasing leadership practices would be for us to actually talk about them, as they relate to ourselves. The organization expects us to provide leadership and management counsel to leaders at all levels of the organization, including flag officers and civilians of equivalent rank. To speak with authority, perhaps we also need to “talk amongst ourselves” and examine how we, individually and corporately, are doing.

A second possible method of improving might be for George to be more proactive in providing his own guidance. George’s manner is very laissez faire, and perhaps that is the right approach for people with our experience and education. But, George brings much to the table and could, perhaps, be stronger in guiding us, particularly as we “seek innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.”

A third method for improving leadership practices would be to increase the collaboration amongst consultants, almost demanding that we work together on projects. Washington, DC, and Alameda, CA, and here in Portsmouth find a concentration of three internal performance consultants; each other location has only two (and in Alaska, the two consultants are not in the same city). There is no critical mass, truly, at any location. Creating scenarios where the consultants can work together would allow for collaboration and growth.

We seek excellence in leadership in our selves and in our organization. Through proven practices, and a diligent and continuous focus on those practices, we will create an effective, high performing, excellent organization.

References
Buckingham M. & Coffman C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phillips, D. T. (with Loy, J. M.). (2003). Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

U.S. Coast Guard (2005). Commandant’s Priorities – People – Unit leadership Development Program Implementation. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from here.

Vision and Conflict Resolution: The crux of leadership

2005-02-27T23:33:00.000-05:00

A literature review of a presentation from the Educational Impact Learning Library written for “Leadership to Shape the Future: Theory, Research, and Practice” (Leadership 8510)

Johnson, Johnson, & Dias (n.d.) tell the story of starting and maintaining “the dream” at Thurgood Marshall Academy for Learning & Social Change, a charter public school in Harlem, New York City. The presenters were – and continue to be – involved in the life of the school and of the community. S.P. Johnson is the principal of the school and was one of the community members involved in developing the original proposal for the school. K. Johnson is an assistant pastor at the local Baptist church; he also sits on the board of the Abyssinian Development Corporation, the church-related non-profit corporation which runs the school. L. Dias, an administrator at Columbia University and the current chair of the Abyssinian Development Corporation. While each of these leaders brings a unique perspective to the community and the school, they share a basic understanding of what the school is about: they share the vision.

As S.P. Johnson notes about the start of the school, “we need to have some stronger educational initiatives in our vision of enhancing and improving the quality of life in Central Harlem. (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, n.d., p. 2) This was the genesis for the school and the overarching vision for the school: to serve as a bedrock in the changed community. For Johnson, the vision was – and remains – fundamental. All action relates back to the vision. She offers three fundamental actions for a leader. First, have a mission and a vision, and stick to it. “Never compromise your vision.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, p. 8) Second, Johnson says, “dream. Dream large, live large.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, p. 8) And third develop and use a strategic plan which spans a three to five year window. The strategic plan – complete with realistic benchmarks – should be dreamt large and built on the vision.

For K. Johnson, much of the success of the school has been accomplished through partnerships, partnerships which were developed and nurtured by S. P. Johnson, the principal; S. P. Johnson was able to bring disparate people together for a common purpose. Says K. Johnson, “it’s almost like grandma’s quilt, if you will – there may be different patches, but yet she has the thread and the needle that it need to connect every person so that we all fit together for the common good.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, n.d., p. 10) For him, S. P. Johnson was the person who made it all work, bringing people together for collaboration and a common purpose.

L. Dias agrees with K. Johnson: S. P. Johnson knows what she’s doing in terms of leading an organization. Dias also notes S. P. Johnson’s skills in conflict resolution. Says Dias, “The other part of the leader is that he or she must be able to engage in conflict resolution – internally and externally. You have conflict within the organizations that can carry over externally. And one must be able to recognize the source of conflict and be able to sit down and try and figure out how do you get the other person to come across to your side.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, n.d., p. 17) Dias also notes, “A leader must be able to listen carefully, and then be able to address the concerns of the other party. And sometimes it means giving that person something in return for what you need.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, p. 17) S. P. Johnson is, according to Dias, able to use conflict resolution skills in moving the school forward and creating the shared vision. She was “able to sit down” and “understand the real issue at hand. And she had the unique ability to help the individuals to better define their problem and then look for a solution jointly. She did not impose a solution, and I think that’s the key element in terms of conflict resolution.” (Johnson, Johnson, & Dias, p. 18)

This Educational Impact piece offers two important observations about leadership: that vision is key and that conflict resolution is vitally important. In my work as a consultant for the Coast Guard, I find that vision is powerful. With vision, an organization can almost do anything; without vision an organization sets itself up for mediocrity. Consultants – and I count myself among them – tell the apocryphal story about vision, NASA, and America’s journey to the moon. The story goes that NASA’s vision – to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade – was so well deployed throughout the organization that even janitor’s knew their contributions were putting an American on the moon. Some people suggest America succeeded at reaching the moon in large part because all the key stakeholders bought into the vision.

The role of conflict management is also important. However, conflict and conflict resolution is not linked to leadership as often as vision. Vision, and aligning stakeholder action toward that vision, is a frequent topic. Resolving conflict is less frequent. But, it’s equally important, because like vision, conflict is always in play. Having vision, or not having a vision, strongly impacts an organization’s progress. Conflict – and managing and resolving that conflict – exists whenever there’s more than one person involved. Every organization has conflict; whether or not that conflict is handled well, is a differentiator. Leaders like S. P. Johnson have a talent to handle that conflict well. And, her ability to resolve conflicts went beyond just those who were members of the school community, but to all community and school stakeholders.

Johnson, Johnson, & Dias’s presentation helps shed light on actual leadership in an actual organization. They clearly demonstrate the power of vision and the importance of conflict resolution.

References

Johnson, S. P., Johnson, K, & Dias, L. (n.d.) “Living the Dream at Thurgood Marshall Academy for Learning & Social Change.” Retrieved February 17, 2005, from Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Web of Support/The National Perspective on Leadership Web site at URL.

Theoretical Frames of Organizational Leadership: It’s not about the leader

2005-02-06T21:54:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Leadership to Shape the Future: Theory, Research, and Practice” (Leadership 8510).

In my work as a performance consultant with the United States Coast Guard, I visit a number of senior leader’s offices on a regular basis. I also visit with middle managers, or up-and-coming leaders, in their offices. The books on the shelves of these offices always suggests to me Coast Guard leaders are reading the same books. I find Kaplan & Norton (1996), Covey (1989), Collins (2001), Buckingham & Coffman (1999), and Phillips (2003) make regular appearances. No doubt, the Commandant’s Reading List (U.S. Coast Guard, 2003), a list of recommended books, drives part of the similarity. Sometimes I suspect these books line the shelves of Coast Guard personnel merely because the books look good. Other times, my conversations with these individuals lead me to believe they are actually reading these books. Why is this important? In part it is important because a common definition of leadership, and a common language of leadership, helps an organization grow and develop; it is important because a common language of leadership, and common positive leadership practices, helps grow and develop the people in the organization. Leadership is not so much about the leader as it is about the led. Good leaders don’t call attention to themselves; good leaders call attention to those around them.

A Working Definition of Leadership
In one sense, leadership is one of those things “we know when we see it.” For some of us, it is a warm and fuzzy notion that is difficult to define. Gladwell (2005) suggests most of us “associate leadership ability with physical stature. We have a sense of what a leader is supposed to look like.” (p. 88) This sounds a bit fuzzy. Other writers are not so fuzzy. A number of academics and business pundits have helped define leadership; they’ve taken the subjectiveness out of our notion of leadership. Yukl (2002) defines leadership as “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives.” (p. 7) For Kouzes & Posner (2002), leadership is not so much about personality as it is about practice. They write, “Leadership is an identifiable set of skills and practices that are available to all of us… leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow.” (p. 20) Bennis and Goldsmith suggest leadership is generating “shared values, goals, visions, or objectives” (p. 3) and then creating a situation whereby the followers can accomplish those goals and create the defined future. My own personal definition of leadership combines the Coast Guard’s basic definition of leadership – getting subordinates to do what you want them to do – with Covey’s (1989) definition of effectiveness – the balance between “production of desired results” and “production capability, or the ability or asset that produces.” (p. 54) My definition is “getting someone to do something, something they might not want to do, in a way in which you can get them to do it over and over again.” Covey (2004) defines leadership as “communicating to people their worth and potential so clearly that they come to see it in themselves.” (p. 98)

Most of these definitions have a common core: getting people to see a shared vision and getting them to work toward that shared vision. The definitions do not rely on a formal organization. That is to say that leadership does not occur just within organized groups. But not all organizations are formal or “organized.” Covey (2004) suggests “an organization is made up of individuals who have a relationship and a shared purpose” and may be as simple as “a simple business partnership or a marriage.” (p. 99) Further, he suggests leadership is not a “formal position,” but “rather a choice to deal with people in a way that will communicate to them their worth and potential so clearly they come to see it in themselves.” (p. 99) For Covey, the leadership challenge is to set up organizations – including families – “in a way that enables each person to inwardly sense his or her innate worth and potential for greatness and to contribute his or her unique talents and passion … to accomplish the organization’s purpose and highest priorities.” (p. 99) While at first blush, Covey appears to just have the leader suss out the other person’s worth and potential; in truth, he asks that the worth and potential be committed to a shared vision. We have moved beyond Gladwell’s (2005) fuzzy notion.

“Self Evident” Notions on Leadership
In truth, however, Gladwell (2005) is not that far off the mark: we know leadership when we see it. This is, perhaps, the fundamental self-evident truth about leadership. While Gladwell builds a case that sometimes we can be taken-in and fooled, this doesn’t happen always. Gladwell uses leadership and Warren Harding as a key example; Harding looked the part. He was not presidential, however, and is often ranked as one of the worst American presidents ever. Certainly, sometimes we can be taken-in and deceived – as McIntosh & Rima (1997) and The Arbinger Institute (2002) note – but, more often than not, Gladwell’s “thin slicing” takes place. Gladwell suggests thin slicing is “the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience” and, from those patterns to make “rapid cognition” and “sophisticated judgments.” (p. 23) For the most part, we are able to thin slice: we know leadership, and we know leadership when we see it. Much of “knowing it when we see it” is, I believe, based on a view of practices, practices which for most of us are not clearly defined. In the passageways of Coast Guard cutters and halls of Coast Guard offices, I often hear rumblings of “walk the talk” (or more likely “not walking the talk”) or taking care of subordinates (or often not taking care of subordinates and being concerned only for self). Kouzes & Posner’s (2002) five practices seem to nail most of what for many of us are known but somewhat unclear. Kouzes and Posner list the five leadership practices as “modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart.” (p. 22) When we “thin slice,” we are, I believe, making judgments and assessments on these, defined, basic practices.

Is a Theory of Leadership Necessary?
While we are able to “thin slice” when we see a leader or a person practicing leadership processes, some people are able to “thin slice” the act of leadership. That is to say, some leaders just seem to know how to “do it.’ And, they may not even be able to put to words what they do or why they do it. For the rest of us, however, thinking about leadership and having a theory of leadership is necessary. Bennis & Goldsmith (2003) believe all of us “are capable of becoming effective leaders. The challenge is to confront the barriers that stand in the way of our becoming better leaders.” (p. xiv) If each of us is capable of becoming an effective leader, and not all of us are born effective leaders, we need, as Bennis & Goldsmith propose, to assess our character and become accomplished at certain core competencies. We assess our character so that we are doing what we do for the right reason; we grow our competencies so we can do the right thing.

We need a theory of leadership so we can grow into the role. We also need a theory of leadership so we can grow those around us. Without a consistent theory of leadership, without a shared paradigm, one person’s leadership will stop with their departure from the organization. Leadership will die on the vine. Organizations define leadership and the competencies required for leadership. (See, for example, U. S. Coast Guard, 2004). But they do more than define; organizations teach people within the organization. The Arbinger Institute (2002) tells the tale of the Zagrum Company and a long-standing, senior management ritual: a day-long meeting with a particular senior vice president where leadership insights are shared and taught. And part of Zagrum’s process is this ritual which has been passed down and is kept alive even though the original leader has been long gone. To be an effective leader, the leader must create systems which will carry on after she is gone.

Leadership and Management: People and Things
The maintenance of these systems is, oddly, a function of management. Years ago, I thought leadership was “better” than management. Now, only slightly wiser, I know both are needed within an organization. Leadership is about people; management is about things, process, and systems. Bennis & Goldsmith (2003) suggest management is about “efficiency” and leadership is about “effectiveness.” (p. 8) Covey (1989) echoes this when he states, “You think effectiveness with people and efficiency with things.” (p. 169-170) Covey (2004) – drawing on 12 leadership theorists including Bennis, Gardner, Kouzes & Posner, Drucker, and Peters – notes leadership is about people, management is about things; leadership is about principles, management is about technique; leadership is about transformation, management is about transaction; it is doing the right things versus doing things right; and it’s working on the systems (for the leader) and working in the systems (for the manager).

In order for effective leadership to survive within an organization – whether it is a complex and large organization like the Coast Guard, a small business, a religious organization such as a parish church, or a family – good leadership must be taught to each successive generation. Creating that system is a function of leadership; continuing that system is a function of management. We need both.

Rational and Emotional Aspects of Leadership
As both management and leadership are needed within organizations, so also are rational and emotional aspects needed within leadership. If we look to Kouzes & Posner’s (2002) five practices and the associated ten commitments (p. 22), we see both the rational and emotional components of an individual are challenged. The ten commitments are behaviors, and within them are both behaviors fundamentally founded on rational behavior and behaviors fundamentally founded on emotional behavior. For instance, the fourth commitment is to “enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations.” (p. 141ff) This commitment is built on various actions, actions which swing to both sides of the rational/emotional spectrum. Kouzes & Posner tell us to “find the common ground” (p. 181), a process which is more rational than emotional. And they also tell us to “breathe life into your vision” (p. 185) and “speak from the heart” (p. 186), two actions which are more emotional than rational.

What we see here is an understanding that leadership is about people; it is about relationships. Relationships exist between people, and they are fundamentally both rational and emotional. A relationship that is solely one or the other is doomed to fail, or worse, explode. Effective leadership hinges on both the emotional and the rational, on both the right side and the left side of the brain. When Dr. King spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial more than 40 years ago, he painted a word picture that presented in no uncertain terms a common vision for all Americans. (King, 1963) It was, and remains today, a heartfelt call. But Dr. King did more than evoke an emotional response; Dr. King used his words to paint a clear, rational picture. And he did it in a studied manner, built upon more than 15 years of preaching in front of gatherings, large and small.

The Learning of Leadership: Art or Science?
For King, I imagine that preaching, which is really what he was doing that hot August day in Washington, was both an art and a science. For most of us, when we refer to “art” in this sense, we mean it is something which is, while perhaps “learned,” is something for which we have an innate talent. A “science,” while we might have a talent for it, is something which is learned. Art happens; science is planned. Art comes from the heart; science comes from the head. Leadership, like King’s preaching, is both an art and a science.

While, as noted earlier, some people just “have it” where leadership is concerned, others of us don’t have it. But, as Bennis & Goldsmith (2003), Covey (2004), Hacker & Wilson (1999), and the contributors to Bennis, Spreitzer, & Cummings (2001) all suggest, leadership can be learned. What each of these authors suggests is that leadership can be learned through a process. For each of them, the process invariably involves learning about self before moving forward. While their processes are different, each involves introspection, a determination of one’s own mission and vision, and a clarification of one’s own values and preferences. We see this even in the Coast Guard’s (2004) own leadership competencies. “Leading Self” is the building-block category; all else builds on the competencies of accountability & responsibility, followership, self-awareness & learning, aligning values, health & well-being, personal conduct, and technical proficiency. (pp. 2-3) These are the competencies of “leading self.” These competencies are consistent with the leading authorities’ processes for learning leadership.

Through the process of learning about one’s self and aligning personal mission with organizational vision, the leader becomes a person of character, a trait fundamental to the work of Bennis & Goldsmith (2003) and Covey (1989). Character, as defined by Covey, is based on three things. Integrity, or “making and keeping meaningful promises and commitments” (p. 217), is at the core. Next is “maturity,” which Covey defines as the balance between the courage to stand up for self and the consideration one has of others. (p. 217) The final building block of character is what Covey calls “the abundance mentality” or the belief “that there is plenty out there for everybody.” (p. 219) Integrity, maturity, and the abundance mentality can only come through substantial self-knowledge and self-understanding. Leaders must know themselves.

A strong key, however, is that leadership is not about the leader. Certainly, a leader must know one’s self, but leadership is about the shared vision, the shared goal, the shared mission of the members of the organization, be it a formal organization or an informal, ad-hoc organization. Leadership is not about greatness, in the sense that greatness is ego and self; leadership is servant-based. Greatness, as Dr. King once suggested, is about being a servant to others. Gardner, Csikszentmihayli, & Damon (2001) suggest that excellence really only takes place when high ethical standards are met; excellence in leadership is not about being “selfish and ambitious,” but rather about being concerned with the common good. (p. viii) They propose three foundations to bring about excellence: development of the individual, which they distinguish along two routes: competence and character; democratic processes; and education as key. (pp. 242-247) Even with Gardner, Csikszentmihayli, & Damon, the outward look becomes foundational. This is the link between greatness and servant-attitude that King was referring to. And, it reflects the link between leadership and a servant-attitude. Again, leadership is not about the leader; it is about those who follow the leader.

While leadership might be innate and developed through some Gladwell-ian “thin slicing” process, for most of us, a combination of art and science tends to build good leadership. And within the art of leadership, and within the science of leadership, good leaders know themselves, but focus on those around them.

A Leadership Self Analysis
I struggle on a daily basis to be a good leader. My own sense of self is bound up in my mission statement, which I’ve developed and honed and trimmed and dreamt about for more than a decade. In the last year or two my mission has become trimmed and more focused: I am a servant leader in my family, community, and work. For me, these words serve as a guidepost, encapsulating my key values – though unstated – and demonstrating an external focus based on relationships. Within each of the three broad areas – family, community, and work – I have defined a set of roles; for each role, I have defined desired outcomes or activities. My family roles of father, husband, son, and self come first. They are first both because they are most critical to my ultimate being, but also I have placed them first because they are, for some reason, the first to be pushed aside when work and community rear their heads. My work roles of performance excellence coach & facilitator, leadership coach, innovation champion, civil rights counselor, senior reservist, and search & rescue expert come next. And, lastly, my community roles as student, writer, crisis intervener, conflict mediator, vestry member, and stewardship chair bring up the bottom of the list. For each role, I have defined one or more goal objectives or focus goals, things I want to complete or things on which I want to focus.

From these goals, it is not surprising to learn that according to the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, I am an INFP. As Kroeger & Thuesen (1988) note, INFP’s are idealists, “performing noble service to aid society.” (p. 238) As an intuitive feeler, I “look at the world and see possibilities” and then “translate those possibilities inter- and intra-personally” serving causes that “advance human interests.” (p. 52) Kroeger & Thuesen (2002) note that INFP’s blend “productivity with compassion for the workforce.” (p. 341) They also note an INFP “usually assumes leadership positions in an effort to merge his vision with some sense of accomplishment. When this happens, the INFP male will be a highly inspirational leader, though routine details can be a bore and lead to his undoing.” (p. 342) Truer words were perhaps never spoken. Aside from the routine details which have been known to bring me down, so too have violations of my own values by co-workers and superiors. Kroeger & Thuesen (1988) note, “INFPs have their own self-imposed ‘codes’ for life, and while they have little to share or impose them on others… when others do trample on INFPs’ codes, INFPs can become demanding and extremely aggressive.” (p. 239) Offend an INFP’s value system, and forgiveness may never come. (Kroeger & Thuesen, 2002, p. 341)

Some people would say that I have mellowed over the years. Perhaps. I prefer to think that I have become more mature, as Covey (1989) would define it: I have found a balance between courage and consideration. My own values have not changed all that much over the years; they have become, perhaps, more well-defined, sharper around the edges, more focused on self and the community of life within which I live. What I have found is that as I get older, I find it more difficult to live up to the standards I have set for myself. My transgressions seem bigger, at least in my own mind.

Conclusion
And it is in the mind where the journey to leadership starts. When an individual decides to exercise the leadership muscles, they start with an inward, introspective journey, matching their values and goals to those of the organizations within which they work. Through concerted effort, and a defined process, we can develop and exercise effective leadership. While the experts don’t necessarily buy into the exact same model, their writings indicate a consistency: start with the self; learn about self. In my own journey to leadership, I continue to struggle to know myself, and I continue to struggle to put my talents and skills to use being a servant leader to those who choose to follow.

References
Arbinger Institute. (2002). Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting out of the box. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Bennis, W. & Goldsmith, J. (2003). Learning to Lead: A workbook on becoming a leader (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Bennis, W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Cummings, T. G. (Eds.). (2001). The Future of Leadership: Today’s top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow’s leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buckingham M. & Coffman C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Free Press.

Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th Habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press.

Gardner, H., Csikszentmihayli, M. & Damon, W. (2001). Good Work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Hacker, S. K. & Wilson, M. C. (with Johnson, C. S.). (1999). Work Miracles: Transform yourself and your organization. Blacksburg, VA: Insight Press.

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

King, M. L., Jr. (August 28, 1963). I have a dream. Retrieved February 4, 2005, from website.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kroeger, O. & Thuesen, J. M. (1988). Type Talk: The 16 personality types that determine how we live, love, and work (Rev.). New York: Tilden Press/Dell Publishing.

Kroeger, O. & Thuesen, J. M. (with Rutledge, H.) (2002). Type Talk at Work: How the 16 personality types determine your success on the job. New York: Tilden Press/Dell Publishing.

McIntosh, G. L. & Rima, S. D., Sr. (1997). Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership: The paradox of personal dysfunction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Phillips, D. T. (with Loy, J. M.). (2003). Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on leadership. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

U.S. Coast Guard (2003). Commandant’s Reading List 2003-Present. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from website.

U.S. Coast Guard (2004). New U.S. Coast Guard Leadership Competencies. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from website.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Transformative Mediation and the United States Coast Guard: Strengthening Equal Opportunity and the Complaint Discrimination Process

2004-12-18T01:24:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Mediation and Negotiation Strategies” (Leadership 9620).

For a number of years, federal government agencies have sought to diversify their workforces under the assumption that a diversified workforce makes “business sense.” Diverse organizations can harness that diversity and use differences as a strength, not a weakness. Organizations which embrace diversity and use diversity as a driver have better results than organizations which are homogeneous or organizations which see diversity among the workforce as a divider. However, even organizations seeking diversity sometimes find that all employees have not bought in to the idea of a diverse workforce. Sometimes managers and employees act in a discriminatory manner. In this paper, we will examine the Coast Guard’s equal opportunity program and ways for the Coast Guard to improve it’s discrimination complaint process.

The Coast Guard’s Equal Opportunity Program
The United States Coast Guard, one of the foundational agencies of the recently formed Department of Homeland Security, has more than 6000 full-time civilian employees (Sharn, 2003) who work alongside and support more than 40,000 uniformed Coast Guard military personnel (U.S. Coast Guard, 2004). These civilian employees play key roles in prosecuting Coast Guard missions around the United States and around the world. Civilians are a key component of “Team Coast Guard” – the human resources of the Coast Guard made up of active duty military personnel, reservists, civilian employees, and volunteer Auxiliarists. The Coast Guard, as an organization, is a strong advocate of diversity and equal opportunity in all it’s workforce components.

The Coast Guard mandates that all members of Team Coast Guard – regular and reserve military, civilian, non-appropriated fund, and Auxiliary – are to be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and compassion. Each should be provided the opportunity to work, develop, and achieve his or her full potential, thereby enhancing unit cohesiveness, military readiness, and mission accomplishment. The Coast Guard prohibits any form of discrimination that violates law or policy in any action affecting Coast Guard personnel, those seeking employment with the Coast Guard, or those receiving benefits from any Coast Guard-sponsored programs. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-2.)

The Equal Opportunity Program Manual goes on to specify the Coast Guard must prevent “discrimination in the workforce, so that the only roadblocks to success exist in a person’s mind.” (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 1-2) Allegations of discrimination are made, however, and some of those allegations are found to have merit. The Coast Guard is not immune to discrimination. The Agency does, however, have discrimination complaint programs which detail “policies and procedures for identifying, investigating, and resolving allegations of discrimination in the Coast Guard.” (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 5-3)

The discrimination complaint program is administered by a team composed of unit commanding officers or commanders – senior, organizational leaders who are required to “exercise personal leadership in promoting equal opportunity and equal treatment of Coast Guard personnel and their dependents within their commands and local communities.” (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2-5) In addition, these leaders are directed to “take prompt, positive action to eliminate discrimination within their commands if it does occur. (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 2-5) Senior leaders ally themselves with full-time and collateral duty Equal Opportunity personnel including Civil Rights Officers (who manage the Equal Opportunity Program), Equal Opportunity Specialists (civilian employees dedicated full-time to the Equal Opportunity Program and Civil Rights operations and missions), and Collateral Duty Equal Employment Opportunity Counselors (civilian employees who spend some of their duty time working with aggrieved persons who allege discrimination. (U.S. Coast Guard, pp. 2-18 – 2-24) These four individuals form the basic Equal Opportunity Program team.

The Equal Opportunity Program Manual designates a fifth member of this team, Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediators. The Mediator is

a neutral party available to assist aggrieved personnel or applicants for employment and the Coast Guard in reaching a settlement of their difference in an allegation of discrimination. The Mediator takes an active role in defining the issues, encouraging communication, and offering options for an early resolution. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2-34)

Coast Guard employees certified, and designated, as Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediators become part of the federal government’s Sharing Neutrals Program. (U.S. Coast Guard, p. 2-35)

The alternative dispute resolution process is fairly new to the Coast Guard. The use of alternative dispute resolution in Equal Opportunity cases was implemented in 1999. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2) Even now, the use of alternative dispute resolution and mediators is fairly limited in scope, and the Equal Opportunity Program Managers continue to discuss ways to increase the use of alternative dispute resolution. According to J. Whack (personal communication, September 2004) discussions include changing the Equal Employment Opportunity process to mandate the use of a mediator in all cases before an aggrieved person is permitted to file a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint.

Under the current process, civilian employees, or applicants for Coast Guard civilian jobs, who believe they have been discriminated against have 45 days from the discriminatory event to speak with an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor. The EEO Counselor – without evaluating the claim – counsels the aggrieved person on the Equal Employment Opportunity process, conducts a limited inquiry and fact finding into the matter, and attempts to bring about resolution. The Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor has 30 days to complete this process; if resolution has not been reached the Counselor provides the aggrieved person a letter providing them the right to file a formal complaint. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 2-24) Without progressing through the informal process – the administrative remedy – the aggrieved person may not file a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint. The Counselor serves as the entry to the entire process.

Mediation and Discrimination Complaint Resolution
Mediation is a growing practice in discrimination complaint resolution. Goldstein (1995, p. 28) indicates the number of employment discrimination cases filed in the federal courts rose more than 2000 percent from 1975 to 1995. Alternative dispute resolution is seen as a viable alternative to the courtroom for discrimination cases. According to Camp (2004, p. 66), “Mediation enables disputing parties to jointly craft a sensible remedy…. A fundamental tenet of negotiating an agreement is that each party to that agreement must agree to its terms.” Camp notes, “Successful mediation requires the assent of all parties…. The parties may craft an agreement that provides a better solution than a verdict or award ever could.” (p. 66) One of the benefits of mediation is that money isn’t the be-all and end-all: “Parties to a dispute should not miss the opportunity afforded by mediation to craft non-monetary ways to resolve the dispute.” (Camp, p. 66) Epstein (2003, p. 40) notes “mediation is a facilitative process” juxtaposed with litigation which is “inherently adversarial, requiring the two parties to face off in court.”

The Power of Transformative Mediation
Bush and Folger (1994, p. 12) delineate two approaches to mediation. “The first approach, a problem-solving approach, emphasizes mediation’s capacity for finding solutions and generating mutually acceptable settlements.” This approach offers the focus sought by Camp, Epstein, and others. Bush and Folger, however, favor the second approach, a transformative approach to mediation, which emphasizes mediation’s capacity for fostering empowerment and recognition. (p. 12) They lay out a strong and comprehensive case for the transformative approach, even while acknowledging it is not the favored, or in vogue, mediation approach for many mediators. They suggest “the mediation process contains within it a unique potential for transforming people – engendering moral growth – by helping them wrestle with difficult circumstances and bridge human differences, in the very midst of conflict.” (Bush and Folger, p. 2) For Bush and Folger, the transformative approach creates two powerful states: empowerment and recognition. Empowerment is “the restoration to individuals a sense of their own value and strength and their own capacity to handle life’s problems.” (p. 2) Recognition is the ability for people to acknowledge and empathize “for the situations and problems of others. (Bush and Folger, p. 2) Rather than asking the mediator to face a “barrage of factual and emotional information” which needs to be “sorted and organized into negotiable issues”, a mediator practicing the transformative approach comes “ready to witness an intense interaction and exchange between the parties … filled with myriad opportunities for empowerment and recognition.” (Bush and Folger, p. 102-103)

What of the bottom line, however? We seek mediation to resolve disputes, not prompt personal growth. Bush and Folger (1994, p. 279) state

Since empowerment and recognition will probably produce desired settlements wherever they are really possible, mediation practice can attain both solutions and transformation – not by striving directly for both but by following the transformative approach alone. Practicing transformation mediation is the best way to meet both goals, because it will lead not only to transformation but to settlement as well, whenever a settlement is genuinely acceptable to both sides.

What Bush and Folger suggest is that through the use of the transformative model, problems will be solved; through the use of the problem-solving model, however, participants will not grow. By using the transformative model, with its mental roadmap of personal growth, participants are given the chance to grow through empowerment and recognition, and through this growth, resolution is possible. When the mediator starts with the transformative approach as a mindset, all things are possible; when the mediator starts with the problem solving mindset, the best that can happen is the particular problem will be solved; there’s been no movement on underlying issues.

This notion of transformation has taken root in a number of venues. In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Zadek (2004) outlines an organizational model of corporate responsibility. He provides a continuum of “five discernable stages in how (organizations) handle corporate responsibility. (Zadek, p. 125) In short, for Zadek, organizational growth comes from a transformation of organizational beliefs, practices, and actions. At its highest form, not only does the organization integrate responsibility in “core business strategies” but promotes broad industry and community participation in organizational responsibility. (Zadek, p. 127)

Transformative mediation falls in direct alignment with Zadek’s organizational approach. Creating an institutionally mature, civil organization, by “shifting the relationships between disputants so that their experience of each other changes before they return to the workplace … is a primary goal in each (transformative) mediation, as that supports the overall organizational goal, which is to actually change the workplace environment and culture.” (Begler, 2001, p. 67)

Transformative Mediation in a Large Bureaucracy
The U.S. Postal Service’s mediation program for equal employment opportunity disputes, known as REDRESS, utilizes Bush and Folger’s transformative model and sets a goal to “afford the maximum participant self-determination at the case level.” (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 137) Empirical studies by the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute at Indiana University show the transformative model of mediation as implemented by the Postal Service resulted in “a statistically significant drop in formal EEO complaints of more than 17 percent annually” for a 3-year period. (Bingham and Pitts, p. 143) The authors of the study go on to assert a bottom-line organizational win: “Organizations can reduce transaction costs by resolving conflict at an earlier stage in the administrative process using appropriately designed mediation programs.” (Bingham and Pitts, p. 144)

In constructing the Postal Service mediation program, two variables were examined to determine the impact on the satisfaction levels of participants and settlement rates for the cases. The variables were “comparing inside and outside neutral mediators” and “examining the role that different kinds of representatives play in mediation.” (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 136) Inside or in-house neutrals are mediators employed by the organization; in this case, they were U.S. Postal Service employees. Outside neutrals are mediators who are not employees of the organization; in the Postal Service’s case, they were professional, contracted mediators. Results showed higher satisfaction for all participants using the outside mediators. (Bingham and Pitts, p. 138) One possible reason for this is participants might have an easier time believing the non-employee mediator “to be truly neutral.” (Bingham and Pitts, p. 138) Based on the data, “the Postal Service abandoned the use of internal neutrals in favor of independent, external neutrals.” (Anonymous, 2002, p. 6)

The second variable which Bingham and Pitts examined was the impact different types of representation that participants brought to the mediation sessions. In the Postal Service’s program, participants – both the aggrieved person and the person representing the agency – could bring representation into the mediation sessions. Representatives could have been an attorney, union official, coworker, or some other person such as a friend or family member. (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 140) Having representation present – no matter what sort of representation – increased the settlement rate and the duration of the mediation sessions. Union or professional association representatives had the greatest positive impact on settlement rates; attorney representatives had the least. (Bingham and Pitts, p. 140-141) Bingham and Pitts (p. 141) suggest this discrepancy may be in large measure because many attorneys are protective of their clients and are, by nature, adversarial. Simon (2004, p. 113) supports this assumption, suggesting, “lawyers’ typical efforts to mediate between clients … rely less on advocacy and more on information control.” He goes on to suggest “dependence on lawyers often impedes responsible or human behavior.” (p. 113) However, Bingham and Pitts note representation of any sort in mediation efforts was better in terms of settlement rates than the participants flying solo; they state, “these results are important because they indicate that various kinds of representatives are associated with differences in the dynamics of the mediation process…. Mediation outcome, party participation, and participant satisfaction with fairness are all related to the presence and type of representative the parties use.” (p. 142)

An apparent key element in the success of the Postal Service’s program is the fact the agency has a unified plan and program that they piloted in one area and then rolled across the country involving the entire service. Their deployment of the discrimination complaint mediation process was not a hodgepodge approach, but a proactive approach embracing a specific model of mediation – the transformative approach. Nothing in the literature reviewed indicated the Postal Service considered using mediation from the problem solving perspective

Underlying Costs Addressed by Transformative Mediation
A fundamental cornerstone for this rationale is likely a set of beliefs held by the designers of the Postal Service’s program. The Coast Guard has identified six “costs” for an ineffective equal opportunity program. These costs speak to the fundamental concerns serving as foundational for the transformative approach to mediation:

1. Processing formal discrimination and harassment complaints significantly drains resources from the Coast Guard budget.
2. Distrust, fear, anger, and other negative feelings pervade an environment that condones discrimination, harassment, and a lack of respect for diversity. Accomplishments and productivity inevitably decline along with morale.
3. Discrimination, harassment, and a lack of respect for diversity fracture the organization. With teamwork impaired, safety is compromised along with effectiveness and ability to accomplish Coast Guard operational missions.
4. If the Coast Guard loses its ability to perform Congressionally mandated tasks, service to the American public is hampered.
5. Internal discrimination and harassment undermine trust in the organization, among Coast Guard members and the public it serves.
6. Failing to comply with Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights mandates in its dealings with external entities damages the Coast Guard’s reputation. (U. S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-4)

Interestingly, the transformative approach, with its emphasis on empowerment and recognition, addresses a number of these costs. The transformative approach deals directly with distrust, fear, anger, and other negative feelings. The transformative approach asks both parties – the aggrieved person and the alleged discriminator – to put aside distrust and fear and anger, to learn about themselves and the other person, and to see both participants as a part of some greater community. Discrimination and harassment and a lack of respect fracture the organization; the transformative approach works to cement the organization with “good mud” which bonds and holds tightly. The problem solving approach to mediation merely looks for a solution to the current situation; it does not deal with the fundamental costs. Transformative mediation can, as Begler (2001, p. 60) notes, “help to stabilize the workplace.”

Recommendations for the Coast Guard
While the Coast Guard has officially implemented a mediation component for discrimination complaint processing, in practice it is nothing more than words on paper. Mediation is seldom used. In the Postal Service’s program, the aggrieved person decides whether or not to use the mediation program; “mediation is voluntary for the EEO complainant, but required for the supervisor respondent, who represents the USPS as an organization entity.” (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 136) In the Coast Guard, senior leaders have been known to refuse to proceed with mediation, even when requested by the aggrieved person. Mediation, voluntary for the aggrieved person but mandatory for the agency representative, helps provide the aggrieved person some sense of control. Begler (2001, p. 75) notes conflict is often “embedded with many assumptions, feelings of isolation, lack of understanding about others’ experiences, insufficient transmission of information, and limited organizational support and investigation.” Providing the option of mediation begins to address these for the aggrieved person. The Coast Guard should move to mediation voluntary for the aggrieved person, but mandatory for the person acting in the agency’s stead.

While some people have suggested, and continue to suggest, mediation should be mandatory, the research does not support this method. Mandatory mediation disempowers the aggrieved person by forcing them to take a certain path for the discriminatory complaint process. Mandatory mediation locks the participants into a format they may not be comfortable with and encourages a lack of trust.

The Coast Guard’s current mediation program does not specify the approach or model for mediation. All the documentation, including a “Sample Format for Mediation and Settlement Agreement” and a “Mediation Completion Form” focus on problem solving. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, 5-71 thru 5-72) It does not appear as if, at the present time, the Coast Guard’s mediation focus is on transformation, even though the costs outlined would clearly lead to the transformative approach. While the duties and responsibilities for mediators working within the Coast Guard are spelled out, and the desired knowledge, skills, and abilities are specified, and the specific training and certification standards are listed, there is no statement of model, approach, or process to use in mediation. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2-34 thru 2-35) Using the programs goals and stated costs (U.S. Coast Guard, 1-2 thru 1-5) as a starting point, the transformative approach appears to be a better mesh than the problem-solving model. Begler (2001, p. 59) notes, “When left unrecognized and unresolved, conflicts inside organizations frequently develop into major disputes that range from ongoing personal backbiting to multilevel turmoil.” Using the transformative approach “supports the overall organizational goal, which is to actually change the workplace environment and culture.” (Begler, p. 67) To meet the stated goals and overcome the identified costs, the Coast Guard ought to adopt the transformative approach and ensure all mediators are using the transformative roadmap as they work with participants in conflict.

Whether to use internal mediators, outside mediators, or a combination of both is a critical decision. As noted earlier, the Postal Service has moved to using only external mediators. A key to using external mediators for the Postal Service is that all of them use the transformative approach to mediation and all mediators working in the Postal Service program have “gone through a special mediation training sponsored by the USPS.” (Begler, 2001, p. 61) This, coupled with the agency’s relationship with the University of Indiana and the continuous gathering of empirical data, leave little to chance. The Postal Service has taken a systematic approach to their mediation program. This is not to say that external mediators are the best approach; Bingham and Pitts (2002, p. 138-139) write,

These results indicate that the outside model may provide a more effective mediation program overall than the inside model in circumstances where the program does not give participants a choice between models…. They were never offered a choice between inside and outside neutral mediation, as they might be in an ombudsperson program or integrated conflict management system. In these latter cases results might differ.

Since the Coast Guard participates in the Sharing Neutrals program managed by the Department of Health and Human Services (2004), the Coast Guard could establish a mediation program which provides the aggrieved person the choice between a inside, or Coast Guard employee, mediator and an outside mediator, an employee from another federal agency. Using the Sharing Neutrals program will help keep costs down; the use of outside, contracted mediators would raise the required costs for the program. All mediators practicing in the Coast Guard should be trained in, and use, the transformative approach.

One of the strengths with the Postal Service’s program is the collection and use of evaluative, empirical data. It is the use of data which supports assertions by Begler (2001, p. 61) and others that the Postal Service’s mediation program is a “success.” Success for the Postal Service is not anecdotal, but rather based on measurable data. The Coast Guard has asserted certain costs for ineffective equal opportunity programs including drains on budget, loss of productivity, reduction of operational effectiveness, and employee morale. (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-4) The Postal Service used measures of effectiveness which included participant satisfaction with the mediation process, the mediator, and the outcome (Bingham and Pitts, 2002, p. 138); additional measures of effectiveness included settlement rates (Bingham and Pitts, p. 138). Additional measures include time spend in mediation sessions and the number of formal Equal Employment Opportunity discrimination complaint filings following the administrative remedy of informal counseling and mediation. A combination of measures, based on desired outcomes and identified critical success factors, will provide information for review as the Coast Guard works to create a more effective discrimination complaint process.

Vision for the Future
The Coast Guard’s outcomes for Civil Rights are clear and include a “workforce that values diversity” and a “workforce free of discrimination and harassment.” (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999, p. 1-5) The use of transformative mediation following allegations of discrimination will begin to provide positive change; transformative mediation “creates the possibility for disputants to integrate strength of self and compassion toward others – a goal that neither problem solving mediation … nor other institutionalized forms of dispute resolution even seeks.” (Bush and Folger, 1994, p. 284) For the Coast Guard change its culture, transformative mediation provides an avenue which, while not quick is thorough, impacting employees, supervisors, managers, and leaders.

References
Anonymous. (2001, November). Conference rewards outstanding federal ADR programs. Dispute Resolution Journal, 56(4), 6.

Begler, A. L. (2001, Autumn). Partnering with mediators: A collaboration that works. Employment Relations Today, 28(3), 59-77.

Bingham, L. B, & Pitts, D. W. (2002, April). Highlights of mediation at work: Studies of the national REDRESS evaluation project. Negotiation Journal, 18(2), 135-146.

Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (1994). Promise of Mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Camp, A. (2004, September). Mediation’s advantage: Money isn’t everything. The CPA Journal, 74(9), 66-67.

Epstein, D. G. (2003, October) Mediation, not litigation: Alternative dispute resolution methods offer cost-effective, nonadversarial strategies for resolving workplace conflict. Nursing Management, 34(10), 40-42.

Goldstein, J. I. (1995, February). Alternatives to high-cost litigation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 28-33.

Sharn, L. (2003, August 1). Senate panel boosts Coast Guard acquisition effort. Government Executive online. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080103cdam1.htm.

Simon, W. H. (2004, December). The confidentiality fetish: The problem with attorney-client privilege. The Atlantic, 294(5), 113-116.

U. S. Coast Guard. (1999). Coast Guard Equal Opportunity Program Manual (COMDTINST M5350.4). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Coast Guard (2004, June 24). Civilian career opportunities. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgpc/cpm/jobs/vacancy.htm.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004, July 16). Sharing Neutrals: An Interagency Collaborative Effort in Support of ADR. Retrieved December 18, 2004 from http://www.os.hhs.gov/dab/sn/.

Zadek, S. (2004, December). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125-132.

Diagnostic Intervention of a Group Facilitation: A Facilitated, Collaborative, Self-Assessment Using the Criteria for Performance Excellence

2004-12-11T13:58:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610).

Note: To protect client confidentiality, while the specifics discussed in this paper are true and accurate, the name of the team leader, team recorder, and the name of the unit have been changed.

Meeting Purpose, Issue, and Parties
In the late autumn of 2004, ten members of the Coast Guard Group Northeast command, an operational unit responsible for Coast Guard small boat operations in a large coastal and river environment stretching several hundred miles, met to participate in a two-and-a-half day facilitated, collaborative workshop to assess their command against the Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria (2003). During the workshop, two facilitators led the meeting participants through a series of questions designed to help the unit personnel assess their approach and deployment of organizational leadership and management practices based on the Criteria. The Criteria, the Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria, is the Coast Guard’s version of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (2003) published by the National Institute of Standards and is composed of seven categories. The workshop has a set agenda and includes an introductory piece, a process to review each category, and a concluding piece. The facilitation team leader was Juliet; I served as the co-facilitator; a third person, Dwayne, served as the recorder, typing session notes on a computer.

The meeting was held at a local maritime museum’s meeting space, a cathedral-ceilinged room of nearly 2000 square feet with windows on three sides opening onto a river vista. The ten participants sat an a U-shaped table with a white board and flip charts at the open end of the “U.” A small table for the facilitation team was at the other end of the room; this table served as a place for process review and was where Dwayne sat to type the notes during the meeting. In addition, six other round tables were spread around the room providing space for small group and break-out work. The meeting participants were a fairly mature group, composed of long-time Coast Guard military members. Nine of the participants were men; all participants were roughly 35 to 45 years of age. Two participants were enlisted members of the Coast Guard; the other participants were all commissioned officers. The facilitation team prepared the room the morning of the first session. As a part of the preparation, we hung posters – including meeting ground rules and a place for a “parking lot” – on the walls around the meeting space.

Agenda and Meeting Process
The meeting was kicked off by the junior commissioned officer who had served as the project officer setting up the meeting. She opened the meeting, reviewed a few administrative details, and then introduced Juliet. Juliet began the introductory portion of the collaborative assessment with a broad overview of the process. She then had the participants and the facilitation team members introduce themselves; each person was to provide their name, role at the unit, and their experience with the Criteria. Following this round-robin introduction, Juliet launched into a 15-slide PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the Criteria and the collaborative assessment process. She did not refer to the ground rules, parking lot, or other posters on the wall.

Once the overview was completed, the group took a short break. Juliet then began to facilitate through the first category, “Customer and Mission Focus.” The collaborative assessment was developed by a number of Coast Guard consultants; I was on the initial development team.

The collaborative assessment calls for each category facilitation to include three parts: pre-work, processing the category questions and determining strengths and opportunities for improvement, and post-work. The category pre-work is composed of five parts. The facilitator reviews the content of the category, including reviewing the questions. Participants are asked to identify which Criteria core principles relate to the specific category; they are asked which of the other six categories link directly to the current category; they are asked to review their unit’s “performance factors,” a document required to be completed before the start of the assessment, and identify which parts of the performance factors relates to the current category. For each of these identifications, the participants must articulate their rationale for choosing whatever they chose. The final bit of pre-work is for the participants to develop a list of characteristics, initiatives, process, and/or systems the “ideal unit” or “ideal organization” would do within the realm of the particular category. In the second major part of the assessment for each category, the facilitator has the participants answer the questions in the category. Participants are then to identify unit strengths and opportunities for improvement within the category criteria. The process calls for the participants to consent to three strengths and three opportunities for improvement. After processing the category questions, the post-work includes the participants identifying “results” which might come from the category content, identifying negative “systemic issues” which are beyond the unit’s circle of influence to correct, and identifying any “proven practices” the unit has within the content of the category. Finally, the facilitator is to review, and clear if possible, any items which the participants have placed in the “parking lot.”

Each of the seven categories is completed using the same basic agenda outline. Following the seventh category, the facilitation team helps the participants choose several initiatives and then develop action plans to implement those initiatives. Finally, the facilitation team provides an outbrief to the participants, and the collaborative assessment is thus completed.

Participants were in formal session for 50 to 90 minutes at a clip with ten to 15 minute breaks between formal meeting time. In addition, participants had an hour lunch break; on the second day, the participants had a working lunch and spent the hour together talking about some upcoming personnel changes and an impending reorganization.

Facilitation Process
As the facilitation team leader, Juliet conducted the initial introductions and facilitated the first category. In my experience, the first morning – which is the introductions and the first category – is usually a bit slow. This assessment was no different. The participants are not used to thinking systematically; they are not used to spending time together thinking and discussing important, but not urgent, issues. The Coast Guard culture puts a priority on urgency, and the assessment process and the assessment content is anything but urgent. In this particular assessment, this cultural priority was evident in the types of questions posed to the facilitator and the conversations around the questions. Juliet did not, however, provide what I thought was a satisfactory “business case” for the assessment or the Criteria to the participants. Another credibility issue came to light when Juliet cited the “performance factors” document, and the participants determined that the copy she had provided as a handout was incomplete. In addition, during this category Juliet mentioned a reference pocket guide by Mark Graham Brown (2003) which the participants did not have. While Juliet allowed silence to hang, using it as a tool for encouraging participation, all the work for the category was done with the ten participants engaged together around the table. At the conclusion of the first category, Juliet had captured 19 strengths and seven opportunities for improvement. These 26 items had been written on the easel paper at the front of the room; to narrow the field, Juliet attempted to have the group reach consensus on the most important issues. She did not use facilitative tools as provided in the Coast Guard’s Process Improvement Guide (1977), such as the affinity diagram or multi-voting, however, and allowed the participants to wander conversationally until the top five were identified.

At the end of the entire assessment process, each participant completed a two page survey indicating their satisfaction with the process and the facilitation team. One participant noted on the form:

A better explanation of the CPC process at the unit level at the beginning of the session would have been helpful. The info glossed over the program at a macro/CG-wide level, but we need a better understanding at the unit level of what we would do, why it was important, what it would do for us, etc. Peter helped explain this better when he introduced a later category after lunch the first day. (Coast Guard Quality Performance Consultants, 2004)

Having noticed the process problem in terms of engagement, I sought to take a structured approach to the process and to use various tools and techniques to increase participation and buy-in by the participants. In addition, I felt that by teaching an overarching model, I might be able to put into perspective the purpose of the meeting.

In starting the category work, I did a couple of things different from Juliet. The first thing I did was post a sheet with the category agenda on it; my first task was to review the category agenda and to explain the use of the parking lot. With the first four items in the pre-work, I had the participants work in pairs and then report out to the entire group. For the last pre-work item, identifying characteristics of the ideal unit, I used silent brainstorming; I had each participant right as many things as they could come up with, one each on a single “yellow sticky.” I then posted these and read them aloud. For the question review, I assigned each pair two questions and provided them ten minutes to discuss the questions and come up with answers. I then had one volunteer from each pair report to the larger group. After completing all the questions, I asked the participants to each identify no more than one strength and one opportunity for improvement in the context of the category and, during the break between categories, to write their responses on the flip charts at the front of the room.

Following the second category, Juliet began the third category. She took from my example and used pairs during the pre-work portion. The day ended before getting to processing the category questions.

Facilitator Interventions
During the ride from the meeting facility to the hotel, the facilitation team discussed the day and the facilitation process. Juliet was concerned with the pace and content of the introductory piece. Dwayne, having never participated in a facilitated, Baldrige-based, collaborative assessment asked questions concerning both content and process. The facilitation team also met for dinner and continued to discuss methods for involving the participants. I noted I thought the large group discussion wasn’t particularly effective in getting participation; Juliet noted that in one prior group she’d worked with, pairing participants had not worked as the participants spent the time talking off-point and not dealing with the issues or questions provided for the pair work.

As the co-facilitator and not the team lead, I was willing to offer suggestions and facilitate by example. I did not feel comfortable directing facilitation method. Indeed, even when I am in the lead facilitator role, I will usually coach and lead by example rather than direct.

The second day’s session began with a brief hello from Juliet and then straight to work. She divided the participants into three groups, choosing the groups to allow for distribution of personalities and of organizational roles. She then assigned each group a single question from the category and told them to identify two strengths and two opportunities for improvement for each question. She gave them a 20-minute limit, provided each group with a large sheet of paper and a marker, and directed them to go spread out in the room to work. After 20 minutes, Juliet brought them back and asked each group to brief-out. She allowed each group’s presenter to make the presentation as they saw fit. One group’s presenter sat at the table, another stood at the top of the “U” after taping the flip-chart paper to the white board, and the third group’s presenter stood at the top of the “U” and wrote on the white board. Juliet then repeated the process, covering all the questions.

This process engaged the participants and allowed for a variety of styles. The small groups remained focused as Juliet occasionally circulated around the room observing the groups at work and answering content questions. The process did take a bit longer than usual.

Following my facilitation of a category, Juliet returned for the fifth category, “Human Resource Focus,” a fairly long category with 10 category questions. She processed the pre-work as she had her last time before the group until she got to the “ideal unit” portion. For this segment, she had each participant draw out a piece of paper from a cup. The papers were numbered from 1 to 10, and each participant pulled one piece of paper. Juliet then asked the participants to silently brainstorm what the ideal unit would look like or do in regard to the category question which matched the number on the piece of paper. She asked them to think of as many items as they could; how would the ideal unit answer that specific category question? After several minutes, Juliet called time; she then told them that when the group had answered each question during the process the category portion, the person with the corresponding number would provide their additional suggestions as to what the ideal unit would do. I thought this was a novel way to engage the participants.

Juliet then began to process the questions with the entire group, capturing the strengths and opportunities for improvement on the two flip charts at the top of the “U,” one flip chart for strengths and the other flip chart for opportunities for improvement. After each question had been answered, she had the “ideal unit person” offer their thoughts.

During the processing of one of the questions, the commanding officer of the unit began to dominate the conversation. The domination was so intense Dwayne passed me a note asking me what I would do when the commanding officer takes over the conversation. I wrote back that I’d either shut him down right away, talk to him off-line, or do nothing. Juliet allowed the conversation to run on; after the two senior enlisted members made a comment, Juliet stopped the conversation by saying it was time for lunch (and it was).

There is a tension between allowing people to talk in meetings and staying on track. What I had not seen from the back of the room, but what Juliet told me over lunch, is that the senior enlisted were chomping at the bit to speak, and she did not want to end the conversation until they had had a chance to say their peace. Juliet understood the need for the senior enlisted personnel to be heard and understood the cultural significance of their input as the voice of the enlisted members.

Interestingly, Juliet had facilitated the first seven questions in the standard form with the larger group. I had noticed a lack of energy, as there had been during the first category question period. Over lunch she asked for feedback; I noted that when we broke up the groups there was more energy and things moved quicker, or at least it seemed they moved quicker. Certainly, in pairs and groups the participants were more engaged. Juliet noted that this fifth category was one she did not usually facilitate and she was less familiar with the content. She noted that she had never thought of breaking into groups, even though she had with her last block of facilitation. She had reverted to the basic process because she wasn’t familiar with the content. In a sense, she’d frozen on process and reverted to the very basics.

For the last three questions, Juliet broke the participants into randomly assigned groups and had each group discuss one of the remaining questions. Energy and conversation increased.

Participant Feedback to Facilitators
At the conclusion of the two-and-a-half day workshop, each participant was given a two page survey to determine satisfaction in terms of the purpose of the workshop – to educate participants about the Criteria and to assess the unit against the Criteria – and to determine satisfaction with the facilitation team. Eight of the ten respondents indicated the time spent on the process was “just right.” The other two respondents said the time on process was “too long.” In terms of “return on investment” (“Based on the time and resources invested, what do you believe your return on investment will be”), three respondents said 1x, two respondents indicated 2x, three respondents said 3x, and two respondents indicated the return on investment would be more than 3x.

The participants also had an opportunity to evaluate the competence of the lead facilitator and the co-facilitator. The responses from the participants are indicated in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, both facilitators received a preponderance of “master” ratings and no ratings below “practiced.” Juliet received 14 “practiced” ratings and 46 “master” ratings, while I received 12 and 48, respectively. While novice, practiced, and master were not defined, all participants had experience attending facilitated meetings and working with facilitators. Of interest to me were the responses to the characteristic of being “courteous and respectful.” While Juliet received ten “master” responses, I received only 8. This, I believe, is an accurate assessment. As I noted to Dwayne when he asked about handling an overbearing commanding officer, I actually consider shutting the individual down as a possible intervention. I’m direct and sometimes abrupt and can see not being assessed as a master at being respectful; while I always use “sir” and “ma’am,” I’ve been known to have an “edge” and a sense of sarcasm less than courteous. Juliet is another matter, however. She is always courteous and respectful no matter what the situation.

Another question on the survey, a referral business indicator, asked if the participant would refer this facilitator to another unit or leader. All ten respondents answered “yes.”

Intervention Success
Overall, this workshop was a success, in large measure because of the facilitation by both Juliet and me. As Schwarz (1994) notes, working with another facilitator can be challenging. While Juliet and I have different styles and personality types, we are complementary when it comes to facilitation. As Schwarz notes, “cofacilitation can be effective to the extent that the facilitators’ orientations are either congruent or complementary.” (p. 211) We are not competitive, but seek to learn from each other. And, when we work together, we have a clear definition of roles and responsibilities.

Schwarz (1994) also defines nine types of interventions. (p. 123) While neither Juliet nor I did much “reframing,” Schwarz’s ninth intervention, we did use the other eight fairly often and generally without even ascribing the type of intervention we were using. Both of us were able to focus on process while keeping an ear toward content, as we were also the technical content experts with regard to the Criteria.

Certainly, the facilitation was not perfect, but as co-facilitators, we did a good job of adjusting on the fly and keeping the participants on-task and on-message, providing them with an opportunity to both learn about the Criteria and to assess their unit against the Criteria. And, all three people on the facilitation team learned new techniques for facilitation and were able to grow as facilitators.

Data for Table 1: On Site Facilitation Competence
The numbers indicate the number of responses in that block by the meeting participants. n = 10

Knowledge elements

Exhibits subject matter expertise
Juliet - Novice: 0
Juliet - Practiced: 1
Juliet - Master: 9

Peter - Novice: 0
Peter - Practiced: 0
Peter - Master: 10

Ability to apply theory to practice in client’s world of work
Juliet - Novice: 0
Juliet - Practiced: 5
Juliet - Master: 5

Peter - Novice: 0
Peter - Practiced: 3
Peter - Master: 7

Oral Communication elements

Ability to keep group interested and engaged
Juliet - Novice: 0
Juliet - Practiced: 3
Juliet - Master: 7

Peter - Novice: 0
Peter - Practiced: 2
Peter - Master: 8

Is courteous and respectful
Juliet - Novice: 0
Juliet - Practiced: 0
Juliet - Master: 10

Peter - Novice: 0
Peter - Practiced: 2
Peter - Master: 8

Facilitation elements

Ability to keep the group focused on desired outcome
Juliet - Novice: 0
Juliet - Practiced: 2
Juliet - Master: 8

Peter - Novice: 0
Peter - Practiced: 2
Peter - Master: 8

Ability to effectively manage the group’s time
Juliet - Novice: 0
Juliet - Practiced: 3
Juliet - Master: 7

Peter - Novice: 0
Peter - Practiced: 1
Peter - Master: 9
-- END OF TABLE DATA --

References

Brown, M.G. (2003). The Pocket Guide to the Baldrige Award Criteria (9th ed.). New York: Productivity, Inc.

Coast Guard Quality Performance Consultants. (2004). [Unit survey responses for Commandant’s Performance Challenge collaborative assessments]. Unpublished raw data.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2003). Criteria for Performance Excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Author. {See this website.}

Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

U.S. Coast Guard. (2003). Commandant’s Performance Excellence Criteria Guidebook. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Coast Guard Quality Center. (1997). Process Improvement Guide (3rd ed.). Petaluma, CA: Author.

Leadership as Impact: A review of two presentations from the Educational Impact Learning Library

2004-11-21T19:15:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610).

The Educational Impact Learning Library provides a host of information on a variety of topics of interest to individuals studying and focusing on education. The content – in the form of streaming video of presentations, slides and outlines, transcripts of content sessions, and papers – provides overviews and in-depth commentary on issues of contemporary interest to professional educators. In reviewing this material, I have sought out presentations which provide relevance to leaders outside educational settings. I have looked for content which provides universal themes.

In the “Web of Support: The national perspective on leadership,” Alan November provides a presentation about “The Power of Leadership.” November’s focus is on technology and leadership, a focus of value to all leaders. While November’s talk is directed at educational institutions, particularly K through 12 schools. November suggests, “All books, all video, all radio, all television, essentially every media we now know in a separate box is going to merge onto the internet…. It’s going to be as big a revolution as the printing press.” (p. 1) He suggests that the major question coming out of this is “What’s the role of a school leader trying to make sense out of all this?” (p. 1) I believe the question is even larger than this. The question is “What is the role of an organizational leader who is trying to determine how to harness technology within the organization, whatever the organization?”

November suggests there are two basic ways for leaders to think about technology. The first way is what November terms “automating.” With automating, we merely take what we are currently doing and “bolt technology on top of it.” (p. 1) A school example of this is using computers for writing; when students are sent to a computer lab to write an essay using a word processor, they are doing the same thing they’d be doing using pen and paper, only they are using technology. (p. 2) A non-school example might be voice-over-internet, which is merely using the computer and the internet as a telephone. We’re merely using technology to do the same thing, in basically the same way, as we were doing it before. The second way to think about technology is what November calls “informating.” (p. 2) Three questions frame informating: “Are you giving people access to information they’ve never had before?” (p. 2) “Are you giving people access to people? (p. 2) “Are we empowering people to take more responsibility for managing their own work?” (p. 3)

November spends the remainder of his presentation building a case for embracing technology in an appropriate, informating manner so that students, teachers, and parents can best function in, and contribute to, our rapidly changing world. We are moving to a knowledge economy where being “self-directed, self-motivated, and a team player” (p 4) are of vital importance. He builds a case for “information literacy” and “communication literacy,” two literacies which impact not only schools but all organizations.

Phil Schlechty, president of the Center for Leadership in School Reform, provides an “Expert Analysis” for a chapter from “Breaking Ranks: Revisited.” The chapter is “Leadership: Attributes that need nourishing,” and Schlechty provides a sometimes rambling review and commentary on the seven recommendations “Breaking Ranks” makes for creating leaders in high schools. The recommendations are specific to educational settings; the first recommendation is “The principal will provide leadership in the high school community by building and maintaining a vision, direction, and focus for student learning.” We could re-rack this recommendation to be more universal in applicability: “The senior leader will provide leadership in the organization by building and maintaining a vision, direction, and focus for creating customer and stakeholder-desired outcomes.”

As I see it, Schlechty’s major contribution to expanding on the seven recommendations comes near the conclusion of his talk. He states two steps which are mandatory for good leadership. The first is to “get your own head right.” (p. 24) He suggests, “Unless you have a clear conception of – and a clear vision yourself – where you think things ought to go, there’s no way to get a group to develop a vision…. Groups respond to visions that are developed, and they modify them.” (p. 24) He goes on to say “the first step in leading real change is for the leader to sit down alone and figure out what they believe about a number of important things.” (p. 24) What is the organizations purpose? How can we create the desired outcomes? What are our critical success factors? The second mandatory step for good leaders is “to gather around you a group of people who … function as a guiding coalition.” (p. 25) The people of this guiding coalition must have the “ability to get other people to do things without authority” (p. 25) and they must have the understanding and skills to do the work required of them, and they must have “some degree of credibility with those other people who are going to have to support the change.” Schlechty suggests, “And then once I got those folks around me, we would take my beliefs and their beliefs; and we’d have dialog until we came to a consensus about what we believe. And then we’d begin to take that same dialog to wider and wider circles.” Schlechty’s counsel is appropriate for all organizational leaders, not just school leaders.

Both November and Schlechty provide insight into organizational leadership. Schlechty’s counsel focuses on what I might term the “soft side” of leadership. He is about building relationships and consensus; he is about leaders exercising our four human endowments – self awareness, imagination, conscience, and independent well (Covey, 1989, p. 71) – in creating an environment for change. November’s work focuses on the impact technology will continue to have on organizations. He is about using technology to not just automate processes, but to “informate” – to create a community based on information and communication and relationships. Leaders, of schools and of other organizations, need the joint focus of Schlechty’s and November’s counsel.

References
Covey, S. R. (1989). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: The Free Press/Simon & Schuster.

November, A. (n.d.). “The Power of Leadership.” Retrieved November 20, 2004, from Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Web of Support/The National Perspective on Leadership Web site.

Schlechty, P. (n.d.). “Breaking Ranks – Revisited: Chapter 12 Expert Analysis.” Retrieved November 20, 2004, from Nova Southeastern University, Educational Impact, Breaking Ranks Revisited Web site.

The Role of the Facilitative Leader: A Literature Review

2004-11-14T19:26:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610).

Both a review of the literature and working in organizations over the last twenty years show a shift in leadership from dictatorial and hierarchical in nature to a style more attuned to consensus, collaboration, and synergy. This second style is facilitative leadership, a style which calls for a different set of skills, tools, and knowledge. For many of us who grew up in hierarchical organizations which emphasized decision making solely by leaders and delegation of task from the top down, facilitative leadership requires us to learn and implement these new skills and tools. A host of resources exists to help with this transition; in the following discussion, I’ll discuss five sources which can provide assistance for anyone seeking information on facilitative leadership.

Bens (1999) states “Facilitation is a way of providing leadership without taking the reins. A facilitator’s job is to get others to assume responsibility and to take the lead.” (p. 3) Her handy, pocket-sized, spiral-bound volume is an excellent primer on facilitation and provides insight into conflict resolution in the work place, suggestions on group decision-making and meeting management, and process tools for facilitators. Bens focuses on leadership and facilitation in the “meeting” environment. Her work does an excellent job of differentiating between content and process during a meeting; she then provides the tools for the process, the “how” of the group’s work. Her focus is on the methods and procedures, how relations are maintained, the tools being used, the rules or norms set, the group dynamics, and the climate. (p. 5)

While Bens covers common process tools (such as brainstorming, force field analysis, and multi-voting) for facilitators – like other pocket guides’ authors including Martin & Tate (1997), Brassard & Ritter (1994), and Goal/QPC & Oriel (1995) – Bens tackles new ground in her chapter on facilitating conflict. While Bens’ approach is somewhat simplistic in that she often presents topics as two sided or either/or (such as debates vs. arguments) or two stepped (such as managing conflict by venting emotions and then resolving issues) her ying/yang approach works: it provides the basic information necessary for a person to successfully facilitate a meeting or lead a team.

Bens’ guide is a good primer for novice facilitators; it is also a good review for more experienced facilitators and leaders. A facilitator or leader can use the book in preparing for a meeting; the guide offers checklists for meeting planning. Team members, the team leader, or the facilitator can also use the book during a meeting when answering questions on process and meeting management.

Scholtes’ (1998) handbook is not a pocket guide, but rather a desk manual designed for use by leaders at all levels of an organization. Scholtes’ work is a balance between “instruction” and tools. While Scholtes’ handbook is certainly of value to new or inexperienced leaders, its real value is likely to seasoned and more experienced leaders. Scholtes’ concepts and tools will support and challenge seasoned leaders, demanding they re-think their own leadership philosophy and paradigms.

Scholtes proposes six leadership competencies which fit with the concepts of facilitative leadership. These competencies – and the discussion, models, and checksheets which expound on the competencies – challenge leaders to think about their own current competencies and what steps they need to do to develop skills in the six “new” leadership competencies.

While Scholtes provides a host of useful tools and models, the tools and models are interspersed throughout the text and discussed in proximity to topics which use the tool. For instance, flow charting is discussed in depth with six different types of flow charts presented along with the process for using and building these flow charts. The tools, however, are buried in a discussion of “getting work done.” They are not easily found.

Of particular note for facilitative leaders is Scholtes’ discussion about performance without appraisal. Scholtes shares a philosophical worldview with W. E. Deming, the father of the total quality movement in Japan and here in the United States. Scholtes outlines the “case against appraisal” with what he defines as the faults common to all types of performance appraisal systems. (p. 307-308) The facilitative leader will ask, then, “What am I to do?” Scholtes suggests “debundling” the various aspects or benefits of the performance appraisal process and experience. Through debundling, the facilitative leader can still gain the benefits of a traditional performance appraisal system without the faults Scholtes identifies as catastrophic to creating a healthy, high performing organization.

Rees (2001) presents a full text on using facilitative leadership with teams in organizations. This book is not a pocket guide, or even a desk guide, but rather a text providing a more academic presentation of facilitation and facilitative leadership. Rees first discusses teamwork in evolving organizations, noting a shift in organizational leadership from traditional, or hierarchical, organizations to team-based organizations. The second section of the book provides an in-depth discussion of facilitative leadership with an emphasis on the leadership aspects. Rees presents a model which delineates four goals a facilitative leader must keep in mind at all times: (a) lead with a clear purpose, (b) empower to participate, (c) aim for consensus, and (d) direct the process. (p. 31) She then presents information on communication in team settings and the skills necessary to facilitate productive communication in one-on-one settings, in small groups, and with distance teams. The fourth section, a how-to for facilitating team meetings, consumes the bulk of the text.

Rees’ text is an excellent resource for anyone interested in facilitative leadership. Her discussion about facilitating meetings is full and complete. While she does not provide specific tools, her discussions provide the background and philosophical under-girding important in understanding the process beyond just the doing of it. Her chapter on “recording people’s ideas” provides an excellent overview which would help any leader interested in harnessing group member’s ideas beyond the moment of the meeting.

Putz (2002) provides a simplistic overview of the facilitative process in his book. Putz’s work focuses on pure facilitation and identifies the roles and responsibilities of all participants, including the leader, the facilitator, and team members. He provides a step-by-step overview for a successful facilitation experience, and he outlines nuts and bolts issues such as room setup, logistics, and meeting management issues. Putz also provides information and models for handling conflict. He provides and overview of conflict, using the assertiveness & cooperation 2x2 matrix, and he provides helpful hints for dealing with problem behaviors. Two sections, of the most benefit for someone facilitating, are a set of frequently asked questions and examples of flip charts for use during meetings. These two sections of Putz’s work address issues not seen in the other resources.

Sadly, Putz’s book is not all that user friendly. The book is replete with line drawings which many learners may find distracting. The material is presented in a way which may appeal to novices, but will turn off a seasoned professional. Aside from the FAQ and the flip chart examples, most of the volume will be of little use to most facilitators. The volume will likely be of even less use for the facilitative leader as Putz’s paradigm is one of “pure facilitation.” By pure facilitation, I mean his focus is on traditional team-based meetings with a facilitator – most likely not a member of the group and thus a “hired gun” – and a team or meeting owner (the boss) and team members.

Kaner’s (1996) work is also mostly a pure facilitation text, although Kaner approaches the topic from a broader perspective. People in a variety of roles can use the tools, models, and skills Kaner presents in a host of group settings. The common denominator for users of Kaner’s work is that they see facilitation – which Kaner notes comes from the Latin root meaning “to enable, to make easy” (p. xi) – as key to group work. Kaner’s work revolves around a model of dynamics of group decision making involving “divergent thinking” leading to “convergent thinking” through what he calls the “groan zone” and the “struggle in the service of integration.” (p. 19-20) Kaner presents a series of facilitator fundamentals which provide tools, models, and skills for facilitation. His presentation is comprehensive, yet easy to understand and would aid beginners and experienced facilitators alike. In addition, he writes from a paradigm which allows a leader to latch onto the tools and models and see applicability in a variety of leadership situations.

Kaner presents six brief case studies which help put a “real world” spin on his tools, models, and skills. These case studies would be of benefit to a facilitative leader in helping to understand the material and see how it applies. A facilitative leader who is willing to improve their own leadership behaviors could learn much. In addition, Kaner’s reframing activities are a unique vision for facilitative leadership. Kaner provides seven specific tools to help the facilitative leader “invite group members to break out of their normal categories of analysis and re-examine their beliefs and assumptions. These activities require participants to make deliberate mental shifts in order to look at a problem from a completely different angle.” (p. 195)

Indeed this is what each of these resources is asking of us. Each of these resources is asking us to look at leadership and group work in a new light; each of these resources is asking us to use new tools, and to approach the work with new worldviews, in order to harness the collective power and intelligence of a group of people. These resources provide assistance for the leader just starting the transition away from hierarchical decision making or the accomplished and experienced facilitative leader.

References
Bens, I. (1999). Facilitation at a Glance: A pocket guide of tools and techniques for effective meeting facilitation. Salem, NH: Association of Quality and Participation & Goal/QPC.

Brassard, M. & Ritter, D. (1994). The Memory Jogger II: A pocket guide of tools for continuous improvement & effective planning. Salem, NH: Goal/QPC.

Goal/QPC & Oriel Incorporated. (1995). The Team Memory Jogger: A pocket guide for team members. Salem, NH: Author.

Kaner, S. (1996). Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Martin, P. & Tate, K. (1997). Project Management Memory Jogger: A pocket guide for project teams. Salem, NH: Goal/QPC.

Putz, G. B. (2002). Facilitation Skills: Helping groups make decisions (2nd ed.). Bountiful, UT: Deep Space Technology Company.

Rees, F. (2001). How to Lead Work Teams: Facilitation skills (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Scholtes, P. R. (1998). The Leader’s Handbook: Making things happen, getting things done. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Case Study Analysis and Synthesis: A marriage ends in assault and disagreement

2004-11-08T23:16:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Mediation and Negotiation Strategies” (Leadership 9620).

Please note: the following analysis and synthesis is based on the case study provided by Michelle Bailey-Cole.

Case Synopsis
This conflict case involves a married couple, Susan and Duane, and the wife’s son, Johnny, from a previous marriage. Susan and Duane have been married for two years; they are now separated and headed for a divorce, although they continue to live in the same house. Recently, Susan and Duane had an argument which ended in Duane assaulting Susan. Duane was arrested; he was then served with a restraining order initiated by Susan. Concurrent with that restraining order, Duane initiated an order against Johnny. Due to the dueling injunctions, all three people find themselves before the circuit court judge. We are asked, “What should be considered in order to allow Susan, Johnny, and Duane to mend the family relationship?”

Causes of Conflict
The causes of conflict within these relationships are many. We learn Susan and Duane are both superficial, share limited trust and respect, and are reactive in nature. They find themselves in a conflict spiral with every action sending them further into conflict. From the description of the case, it appears they have little in common and, at the moment at least, little reason to salvage the marriage. It appears their marriage is built on a foundation of sand, such as looks; we don’t learn what drew them to each other early in the relationship beyond physical attractiveness.

Conflict Prevention
The conflict could have been prevented by action on the part of Duane and Susan more than two years ago: they could have chosen to not marry. Considering they did, however, conflict prevention could occur through healthy communication styles. Both Susan and Duane have much emotion and baggage which gets in the way of their interpersonal communication. They don’t know how to talk with each other without entering the conflict spiral. Putting distance between them would also help with preventing conflict.

I note here that since Duane owns the home – and it appears he owned the home before the marriage with Susan and she has no interest or piece of the home – Susan is going to find new lodging for herself and her son. Since she’s paying rent to Duane, money does not appear to be a constraining factor. With the conflict having escalated to a violence situation, a situation which drew all three of them into the conflict spiral, putting physical distance between Duane and Susan is paramount.

Options
At this point, Susan and Duane have limited options. The violent assault in front of Johnny, and the dueling court orders, have raised this conflict to levels they had not previously experienced. As noted earlier, they need distance between them, if possible. Or, if they remain living in the same house, Susan and Duane should build a living-under-the-same-roof agreement, delineating roles, responsibilities, and behaviors.

Individual and Shared Needs
Susan, Duane, and Johnny all have individual needs. Susan has a need for a home for herself and her teenaged son. She has also expressed a desire to no longer be married to Duane. Finally, Susan has a need to be able to live without fear of being assaulted. Johnny’s needs are related to Susan’s: he has a need for a home and a need for he and his mother to be safe. Duane’s needs are more worldly; his primary need is to exert power within his own house. While he sometimes claims to love Susan, his behavior does not demonstrate love. The shared needs between Susan, Duane, and Johnny are few; they all share a desire for a home and safety.

Recommended Intervention Strategy
I propose a four-part intervention strategy. The first component of the intervention strategy is to separate Duane from Susan and Johnny in terms of living arrangements. Recent history has demonstrated that the relationship between Duane and Susan has become increasingly violent in nature. If Susan is not able to immediately find a place for Johnny and her to live, Susan and Duane must create a situation whereby Duane and Susan are not in the house at the same time. The second component of the intervention is to have Duane and Susan determine what would be necessary to move toward divorce and dissolving the marriage. The case study notes “Duane has attempted to delay the process of the divorce due to feelings of failure, jealously (sic), anger, and vindictiveness.” Working with a third party, Duane can explore those feelings and work to put them aside as he moves forward with his life. The third component of the intervention is to develop a formal separation agreement detailing a property settlement and support agreement which can later be incorporated in the divorce decree. This would need to be a mediated process with both Susan and Duane. The fourth component of the intervention is for Susan and Duane to come to some understanding that while their marriage is over, some good was created in the marriage. The mediator would have them focus on good from the marriage not to help them salvage the marriage, but to salvage the memory of the relationship, ending it on a more positive note.

Expected Outcomes
The expected outcomes for this case are deceptively simple: to create a safe living situation for all involved. We have other outcomes, of course. We expect the marriage between Susan and Duane to end in divorce; we expect Susan and her son Johnny to live in a safe and comfortable home; we expect – indeed, we hope – Susan and Duane will remember some good from their time together.

Effective Communication in Dispute Resolution: A Balance of Emotion and Desire for Common Understanding

2004-10-31T21:23:00.000-05:00

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610).

Please note: The three figures cited in this paper are not included in this posting.

Communication is a key element in disputes and effective dispute resolution. The transmission of message – or the non or incomplete transmission of message – is involved in every stage of dispute. All human interaction – including disputes – is based on communication. Communication is fundamental in interpersonal relationships, corporate relationships, and community relationships. To successfully communicate, barriers which block effective message transmission must be torn down. Effective communication is also predicated on all parties seeking common understanding and limiting action based on emotion as much as possible. Communication plays a role in both the escalation of conflict and the resolution of conflict. Effective practitioners of conflict resolution understand communication and seek to increase the desire for common understanding and reduce the emotional action of the communication cycle.

Definition of Communication
As Schwarz (1994) puts it, “Essentially communication involves exchanging information in a way that conveys meaning.” (p. 25) Communication requires four components: the sender, the receiver, the medium, and the message. Undergirding this quartet is the need to encode and decode the message. The sender is the person who is sending the message. They create the message, encode the message – perhaps into words – and then convey the message. The receiver is on the receiving end. They must receive the message and decode the message to ascertain the meaning of the message. The medium is what is used to transmit the message. For instance, I am using words, written English, to transmit a message to you, the reader. The medium is the written word. Tonight, when my soon-to-be wife returns from babysitting the neighbor’s child we will use the spoken word as the medium. We’ll also trade messages through non-verbals or body language: a look, a touch, a posture. Spoken words are a medium as are various non-verbals. Other mediums could be art, such as paintings or statues. The message is the fourth component of the quartet. The message is the information which the sender is attempting to transmit.

Covey (1989) suggests there are four forms of communication: writing, reading, speaking, and listening. (p. 237) For him, the action by the sender or the receiver is the form of communication; it takes both appropriate forms to have successful communication.

Figure 1. The Communication Quartet

In order for the sender to successfully communicate with the receiver, the message must be appropriately encoded, sent using the chosen medium, and decoded by the receiver. If, at any point, there’s a breakdown, the communication will not occur. Perhaps a different message will be seemingly received by the receiver (mis-communication) or no message will be received (non-communication). As Carkhuff (1983) notes, decoding the message uses observation that goes beyond the words the sender uses. “We must focus not only upon the words but also upon the tone of voice and the manner of presentation.” (p. 47)

Communication occurs at various levels of human interaction. My focus here is on interpersonal communication – communication (generally face-to-face) between two people or a small group of people. There are, of course, other types of communication including mass communication – communication using messages distributed to many people at one time, such as television and newspapers, in generally a one-way communication mode – and intrapersonal communication, our own self-talk and reflective communication. Bolton (1979) tells us, “Although interpersonal communication is humanity’s greatest accomplishment, the average person does not communicate well.” (p. 4) He goes on to say, “One of the ironies of modern civilization is that, though mechanical means of communication have been developed beyond the wildest flight of imagination, people often find it difficult to communicate face-to-face… we find it difficult to relate to those we love.” (p. 4) For a multitude of reasons, true communication – sending out a real and true message which speaks to our inner self – is most difficult with those who we care about. And, often, even if we send out such a message, it is not received. Barriers to communication seem to abound.

Barriers to communication
Gordon (as cited in Bolton, 1979) developed a “comprehensive list that he calls the ‘dirty dozen’ of communication spoilers.” (p. 15) These barriers to communication can be divided into three major categories: judging, sending solutions, and avoiding the other’s concerns. Rogers (as cited in Bolton, 1979) claimed the major barrier to interpersonal communication is judging – approving or disapproving what the other person says. (p. 17) Carkhuff (1983) places “suspending judgment” as a key in listening. Rees (2001) defines an important characteristic of a facilitative leader as someone who “reserves judgment and keeps and open mind.” (p. 60) Covey (1977), who purports a key habit of effective people is to “seek first to understand, then to be understood), notes “When you understand, you don’t judge. Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (2002) suggest that effective communication has mutual purpose. They define mutual purpose as “working toward a common outcome in the conversation” and that all participants care about the other’s “goals, interests, and values.” (p. 69) Mutual purpose, as they define it, cannot occur with judgment impeding the communication.

Another prominent barrier to communication doesn’t fit neatly into Gordon’s pantheon. This barrier has to do with a person’s attitude while listening. Bolton (1979) says, “If you are at all typical, listening takes up more of your waking hours than any other activity.” (p. 30) Nichols and Stevens (as cited in Bolton, 1979, p. 30) claim listening occupies 45 percent of our waking time. And yet, as Bolton notes, “few people are good listeners.” (p. 30) Covey (1989) says, “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. They’re either speaking or preparing to speak. They’re filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people’s lives.” (p. 239) Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (2002) suggest “At the core of every successful conversation lies the free flow of relevant information.” (p. 20) They call this “filling the pool of shared meaning.” I call it a desire for common understanding. And common understanding cannot happen when the listeners are filtering the message through their own world-view

Conversation – two people talking and listening back and forth – is not necessarily built on a desire for common understanding. Tannen (1995) says, “Conversation is fundamentally ritual in the sense that we speak in ways our culture has conventionalized and expect certain types of responses.” (p. 321) Covey (1989) says, “We’re usually ‘listening’ at one of four levels.” (p. 240) He identifies those four levels as ignoring the other person, pretending to listen to the other person, only selectively listening to the other person, and attending to the other person by focusing on the words and feelings. He claims few of us practice the fifth level – empathic listening, which he defines as “listening with the intent to understand” – not to respond or run the message against our own life script. “Empathic (from empathy) listening gets inside the other person’s frame of reference.” (p. 240) In wearing the other’s shoes – or glasses, perhaps – a listener can begin to come to a common understanding.

Another barrier to communication is strong emotion. Often emotion enters into a communication cycle and neither the sender nor the listener is able to focus on message. Paterson et al. (2002) identify six behaviors stemming from emotion. These six behaviors form a continuum from “silence” to “violence.” Withdrawing, avoiding, and masking form silence, while attacking, labeling, and controlling form violence. Olsen and Braithwaite (2004) note clear research shoes violent communication behaviors – such as verbal aggression, anger, patronizing behavior, and destructive forms of relational control – often lead to violent relationships. (p. 271)

Figure 2. Silence/Violence Continuum

Violence can be tamed, however. Utne (2004) suggests, “If you blunder into a delicate communication, request a re-do lest you dig yourself in any deeper… let your hackles down and listen as if for the first time.” (p. 56, emphasis added. True listening can help conquer violence.

These barriers – judging, sending solutions, avoiding other’s concerns, not pursuing common understanding, and strong emotion – all play a part in communication styles.

Communication Styles
A number of researchers and communications experts have identified a number of communication styles. Covey (1989) provides the five levels of listening, a set of communication styles. Tannen (1995)outlines communication styles of men and women. Lulofs and Cahn (2000) list a number of communication options. Davis (2002) outlines communication styles and behaviors that help build bridges between diverse peoples. Kroeger (2002) purports that communication style is linked with personality type and outlines styles and their implications in the work setting.

Another way of looking at communication styles is to first look to the barriers to communication. Judging has to do with putting our own spin on someone else’s message or words. It is an autobiographical response that runs counter to the goal of attaining common understanding. Sending solutions falls into the same trap; when we send solutions, we are providing solutions developed from our own perspective. Again, it runs counter to a establishing a common understanding. When we avoid the other’s concerns, we are also running counter to common understanding, but we usually do it in a way of intolerable emotion, such as provided on the silence/violence continuum.

We can look to communication style as falling along two continuums. The first continuum has to do with the level of emotion in the communication, as exhibited by either the sender or the receiver. On one end of the spectrum is no emotion; on the other end is emotion generally present in the form of violence or silence. The second continuum is the desire for common understanding within the sender or the receiver. This continuum measures “intent” or the inner desire of the person. We can match these two continuums in a 2x2 matrix, and then plot a person’s style on the axis.

Figure 3: Communication Matrix

The ideal communication style lies in the lower right quadrant: low emotion and a high desire for common understanding. The least helpful communication style lies in the upper left quadrant with a low desire for common understanding and high emotion. Interestingly, in this model, both ends of the silence/violence continuum lie together in the same quadrant. Both the extremes of silence and violence are highly emotional behaviors.

The communication matrix can be a useful tool in reviewing communication styles. The emotional continuum determines external behavior, what we see. The other continuum measures something inside the person: it measures intent, desire, and hope. Using the matrix, we can look at behavior and intent; and, by using the matrix we can, perhaps, change behavior and intent – or at least educate communication partners.

Role of communication in conflict escalation
Communication plays a fundamental role in conflict escalation. Wilmot & Hocker (2001) detail destructive conflict spirals, patterns of behaviors in relationships which spiral out-of-control. In each of these destructive spirals, communication between the parties sparks further development. In these spirals, the communication is negative in nature or highly emotional or stems from a misunderstanding. Davis (2002) provides examples of Israeli and Palestinian youth attending camp together in the United States. Through destructive cycles, which are fed by communication between these youth, occasional outbursts create untenable situations. It is communication, not action, which propels the motion of the cycle. Certainly, in their homeland it is action that provides a spiral of destruction; in the woods of Colorado, however, it is not so much action as it is talking about action which sometimes creates these cycles. Emotion, misunderstanding, negativity propel the participants to conflict.

When we apply the communication matrix, we can see that generally, for a destructive spiral to occur, one or both of the participants must be living to the left of the centerline. Whether emotion is high or low, the desire for common understanding is low. Lulofs & Cahn (2000), Wilmot & Hocker (2001), Davis (2002), and Ury (1999), all suggest that strong emotion, in and of itself, does not escalate conflict. Looking at the communication model, the upper right quadrant has high levels of emotion, but also high levels of desire for common understanding. It is possible to have both. In the upper right quadrant of the communication matrix, the participant has strong emotion, but because it is tempered with the desire for common understanding, the emotion is not acted on. In the upper left quadrant, the emotion is acted on in such a way as to withdraw, avoid, or mask, or in such a way to control, label, attack. The emotion is not tempered by a desire for common understanding; as a matter of fact, when we are behaving in the upper left quadrant, our emotion can be fanned out of control like a wild fire on a dry, southern California hillside with the winds kicking off the Pacific.

Role of communication in conflict resolution
Lulofs & Cahn (2000) describe a process model of communication that suggests five distinct phases. These phases are: (a) prelude to conflict, (b) a triggering event, (c) the initiation phase, (d) the differentiation phase, and (e) the resolution phase. (p. 87) The prelude to conflict is just that: the prelude. In this phase, conflict can potentially exist because of the participants and their relationships or some environmental factor. The triggering event is generally some sort of communication; I would suggest that actions serve here as communication. If I slap you, I am using my hand and the action of the slap as the medium in delivering a message; in order for you to receive the message, you would need to decode to translate. In this sense, the action is a mode of communication. The initiation phase starts when at least one of the participants realizes there’s a conflict as initiated by a triggering event: no triggering event, no conflict. Likewise, when the parties have no realization of a triggering event, there’s no conflict. It is possible for the conflict to proceed to no further stage if the participants move to avoidance. In the differentiation phase, the participants begin to share their differences, positions, and needs. The final stage is resolution. Lulofs & Cahn suggest “Resolution is a probable outcome when the conflict can be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned; management is more likely when only one or neither party can be satisfied.” (p. 96)

What is the role of communication in these phases? Clearly, we can see that communication can trigger the conflict. Likewise, communication in the differentiation stage can help de-escalate conflict and begin to bring the conflict to resolution. Davis (2002) tells a number of stories from the camp in the mountains outside Denver with the Israeli and Palestinian youth. In each story, it is positive communication – sometimes laced with emotion – coupled with a strong desire to really understand the other person that creates situations where the conflict is resolved. As Davis notes, “When two people come to the table with authenticity and kindness – and a deep willingness to listen to each other – neither comes out of the interaction unchanged.” (p. 201) She goes on to say, “But when adversaries enter into a dialogue with a basic respect for differing points of view and ground rules that make conversation possible, alliances can be built even across the most intransigent lines.” (p. 201) Covey (1989) suggests one of those ground rules that makes conversation possible. Covey would have us present the other person’s ideas and position as well as they can, or better. He suggests we do not need to agree with it; we merely need to understand it. This is at the root of his fifth habit, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”

Covey’s ground rule is truly only effective when the participants both desire a common understanding. Certainly, if one participant desires common understanding, and the other does not, it is possible that the first’s actions will bring about a change in the second person. In this case there is still some effectiveness.

Role of communication in interpersonal relationships
Communication is a fundamental building block in interpersonal relationships. As Davis (2002) notes, “Estrangements often start because we lack the communication skills to prevent them: we don’t know how to apologize, listen, or cool off and talk again tomorrow.” (p. 14) For her, communication skills are paramount in developing, and holding on to, deep relationships between people. Beyond the skills, however, is the attitude. The communication matrix places the horizontal axis with “desire.” It is the individual’s desire to find common understanding. Covey (1989) says, “But you can always seek first to understand. That’s something that’s within your control.” (p. 257) He goes on to suggest, “To touch the soul of another human being is to walk on holy ground. . . . The next time you communicate with anyone, you can put aside your own autobiography and genuinely seek to understand.” (p. 258)

Using the communication matrix, we see the goal is certainly to stay to the right of the matrix. When we do not intend to seek common understanding, we do not increase the pool of knowledge, nor do we seek first to understand. Living to the left of the matrix only increases the likelihood of destructive conflict cycles and a life in conflict. And, when we act in the upper left quadrant, our actions are highlighted by the extremes of silence and violence. We find ourselves withdrawing or attacking; both have no place in conflict resolution. By withdrawing, we only create stronger emotion within ourselves that festers and spirals out of control. By attacking, even if it is only a verbal attack, we increase the likelihood of physical violence. (Olsen & Braithwaite, 2004).

Communication as a tool for personal growth and conflict resolution
Understanding the role of communication in conflict escalation, conflict resolution, and interpersonal relationships can provide a person with an opportunity for personal growth: “I can do better.” Using the communications matrix as a tool for understanding, we see the relationship between emotion – in the communication content, message, or medium – and desire for common understanding. When a person has a desire for common understanding – as demonstrated by the stories told by Davis (2002), Covey (1989, 1997), and Bolton (1977) – tremendous things can happen in the relationship between the participants. Minimizing action based on emotion – the silence and violence behaviors – and increasing the desire for common understanding, can allow growth in each participant and in the relationship as a whole.

References
Bolton, R. (1979). People Skills: How to assert yourself, listen to others, and resolve conflicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Carkhuff, R. R. (1983). The Art of Helping. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press Inc.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (1997). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Families. New York: Golden Books.

Davis, L. (2002). I Thought We’d Never Speak Again: The road from estrangement to reconciliation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kroeger, O., Thuesen, J. M., and Rutledge, H. (2002). Type Talk at Work: How the 16 personality types determine your success on the job. New York: Dell Publishing/Random House, Inc.

Lulofs, R. S. and Cahn, D. D. (2000). Conflict: From theory to action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Olson, L. N. and Braithwaite, D. O. (2004). If You Hit Me Again, I’ll Hit You Back: Conflict management strategies of individuals experiencing aggression during conflicts. Communication Studies, 55(2), 271-285.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., and Swtizler, A. (2002). Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rees, F. (2001). How to Lead Work Teams: Facilitation skills (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Tannen, D. (1995). The Power of Talk: Who gets heard and why. In Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D. M., Minton, J.W., & Barry, B. (2003). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (4th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill Irwin.

Ury, W. L. (1999). Getting to Peace: Transforming conflict at home, at work, and in the world. New York: Viking/Penguin Putnam Inc.

Utne, N. (2004). The ABCs of Intimacy: A toolkit for getting closer. Utne, November-December 2004, 56.

Wilmot, W. W. & Joyce, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal Conflict (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

A Case Study for Mediation and Negotiation Strategies: The Case of the Fired Network Administrator

2004-10-24T16:32:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Mediation and Negotiation Strategies” (Leadership 9620).

Please note: the following case study is based on actual, current, informal EEO complaint. All identifying details have been changed.

Imagine, for an instant, you are a civil servant working for the Coast Guard. As a program analyst, you’re responsible for helping your command determine where to put resources in order to accomplish priority missions. You’re also an Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights counselor. You haven’t had any EEO cases in a while; things have been fairly quiet on that front. The fact that things have been quiet is, on the one hand, good, since no cases means no allegations of discrimination. On the other hand, it’s a bummer since you enjoy the EEO work more than the program analyst. Today is a Monday morning in late September; sunlight streams through the slats of the blinds covering your window at work; the blinds hide the view of the parking garage across the street. The phone rings; you answer. The caller is Mr. Jimmy Farns from Coast Guard Headquarters. He wants you to help out with a complaint of discrimination. You accept, and over the next several weeks you meet one-on-one with the complainant to conduct the initial counseling session and you conduct an informal fact-finding.

The Players within the Conflict
The complainant is Bobby Merrill, a 40-something man who suffers from clinical depression. Thunder Under Group LLC (TUG) employed Mr. Merrill as a network administrator on a contract for the Coast Guard’s Aviation Repair and Supply Center (ARSC) in Elizabeth City, NC. In October 2003, the Coast Guard terminated the contract with TUG; TUG fired Mr. Merrill when the contract ended. Mr. Merrill had worked for TUG for 10 months and had received one evaluation during that period which indicated his performance was satisfactory. Mr. Merrill asserts TUG terminated his employment because of his disability. He further asserts that members of the Coast Guard told TUG to fire him, and he says that in return for following that request, TUG received an additional contract in a quid quo pro relationship.

The Coast Guard, of course, follows the federal government guidelines and has a policy of non-discrimination. According to the Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Rule (1999), protected persons under this policy may not be discriminated against due to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age (forty years or older), disability, or reprisal for past EEO activity.”

During the course of the initial fact finding, you discover there are three key players aside from Mr. Merrill. Belinda Gloom is the regional manager for TUG. She is responsible for a number of contracts TUG has with the federal government and is the person who actually fired Mr. Merrill. Steve Wynwood is the Coast Guard employee responsible for the performance of the contract which TUG held. Ed Tate works for the Government Services Administration (GSA) and serves as the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR). The GSA was the actual contracting organization; TUG had a contract with GSA to provide certain services, and the Coast Guard exercised a task order to have TUG perform work at the Elizabeth City facility, the Aviation Repair and Supply Center.

As Mr. Wynwood described the relationship, the Coast Guard was merely concerned with the performance of the contractor with regard to the specifications spelled out in the task order and contract. How that work was completed was up to the contractor; whom the contractor employed didn’t matter, so long as the work was completed as specified in the contract. Coast Guard representatives forwarded perceived problems in the performance of the contract to the GSA; GSA then forwarded that information to GSA. Mr. Tate of GSA and Ms. Gloom of TUG supported this description of the relationship between the Coast Guard, GSA, and TUG.

The Current State of Affairs
Mr. Merrill has been unemployed since late October 2003. On the day the contract between the Coast Guard and TUG was terminated, Mr. Merrill was escorted from the facility; he has not returned since. He later heard that his picture had been posted at the security office with a notation he was not allowed access to the facility. Mr. Merrill is still depressed and exhibits characteristics of someone who is clinically depressed. When you meet with him in early October 2004 for the initial counseling session at his house, he is late. You arrive at 1100 sharp and are met at the door by his elderly mother. He has just gotten into the shower. As you wait at the kitchen table for him, you can hear the shower running. He arrives in the kitchen nearly twenty minutes after you arrive.

Thunder Under Group LLC no longer holds the network contract for the Coast Guard’s ARSC. They do, however, hold two contracts: one is for data entry and the other is for work in the warehouse. One of these contracts was let shortly after Mr. Merrill was fired, but you have yet to get any additional information. Belinda Gloom has indicated TUG has no plans to hire Mr. Merrill back.

Needs and Wants
In the initial counseling interview, Mr. Merrill shares with you what it would take to “be made whole.” He does not want his job back, rather he wants to be remunerated for lost wages and benefits from the date of his firing until he is able to secure a position providing the same level of income he had with TUG. He also would like some punitive damages levied on TUG and the Coast Guard, but he’s less certain as to what form that would actually take. Both of these desires are clearly content goals. During this initial counseling interview, you also determine other, unstated, goals and desires. Mr. Merrill has a goal of being respected as a network administrator; he sees himself as a “techie” and placed great value on his one, and only, performance evaluation from TUG. He wants to be treated with respect by TUG and the Coast Guard during the course of the resolution of this process. Finally, he’s willing to move away from the informal venues provided by the EEO process. His original complaint was lodged with the State of North Carolina’s EEO Department; they passed the buck to the Federal EEO Office who then forwarded his complaint to the Coast Guard. Mr. Merrill has reached a “boiling point” and has begun looking for legal representation. The underlying interests, you suspect are two-fold: Mr. Merrill wants to be able to cover his debts incurred during his period of unemployment, he wants to beat his depression, and he wants to be seen by others as a professional.

Thunder Under Group wants to put this behind them. Ms. Gloom believes she and the company acted in good faith; they lost the contract and when contracts are lost, employees lose their jobs. As disappointing as this is, it is, in her view, the real world. The Coast Guard and GSA are about in the same place. Both the Coast Guard and GSA were focused on the performance of the contract; they claim that TUG was unable to perform the contract to the levels required by the contract.

What is the best alternative to a negotiated agreement? On the one hand, it appears that a resolution is not possible at the informal stage. The Coast Guard asserts Mr. Merrill was not a Coast Guard employee and is, actually, not able to assert discrimination by the Coast Guard. TUG asserts his employment was terminated with the loss of the contract with the Coast Guard; the work dried up, in essence. At this point, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is to allow Mr. Merrill to file a formal EEO complaint. A second component to this BATNA would be to provide Mr. Merrill with all documents relating to the contract, the termination of the contract, additional contracts awarded to TUG, and the posting of his picture at the security post at the entrance to the ARSC facility.
Commitments and Communication of the Parties

Mr. Merrill is committed to see this issue through. He was fired nearly a year ago and has been working through state and federal bureaucracies in order to have his complaint heard. He is nearly unwilling to continue down the informal route, and he is currently looking for legal representation. The Coast Guard is willing, at this point, to engage Mr. Merrill, although they may not actually accept the formal complaint. Some members of the Coast Guard are unwilling to provide Mr. Merrill with information or documentation, following a cultural imperative that transparency is not always what is best for the agency. They are, however, willing to speak to you and provide you with various documents.

Mr. Merrill is unwilling to speak directly to any member of the Coast Guard, TUG, or the GSA. All communications, except for meeting for the informal counseling session, have been by mail or e-mail.

Next Steps
You have the basic facts. The question is now, “Now what?” How did this conflict occur? How could it have been prevented? What can all the players do in the future to ensure something like this doesn’t happen again? What options exist within this conflict? What would you recommend as an intervention strategy at this point? How do you think this will get resolved? What will be the outcome? These, and other questions, ought to be the focus in an analysis and synthesis of this case study.

Reference
Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity, 29 C.F.R. 1614 (1999). Retrieved October 23, 2004, from http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/1614-final.html

Literature Review for Mediation and Negotiation Strategies

2004-10-10T01:41:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Mediation and Negotiation Strategies” (Leadership 9610) .

In nearly every aspect of human endeavor, mediation and negotiation skills are necessary. Perhaps a person living alone on a deserted island would have no need for these skills, but the rest of us do. No matter what we do and no matter our lot in life, we interact with those around us. Because we interact with people, mediation and negotiation skills are necessary.

This first source sheds light on the role of the mediator and the mediation process. Threets (2003) outlines a program of peer-based mediation in a secondary school which made a marked difference for 20 targeted students. These 20 targeted students had been identified as the school’s top disruptive offenders during the previous year. At this secondary school, a peer-mediation program was implemented using trained peers, students who had been identified by classmates as students who other students went to when they needed help. (p 75) The chosen peer mediators were provided two days of training which included an overview of conflict, the role of the mediator, and listening skills. Additional training and coaching continued during the remainder of the school year.

Students were either self-referred to the peer mediation program or referred by a teacher or administrator. The mediation sessions included two co-mediators and the disputants. The process used was a formal, structured process which included six stages. As Threets outlines them (p 48), the stages are:

Stage I: Mediators define the mediation process and lay cooperative groundwork.
Stage II: Mediators ask the disputants to agree to the rules.
Stage III: Disputants explain the problem and share their feelings.
Stage IV: Disputants recognize each other’s needs.
Stage V: Disputants find a fair solution to the problem.
Stage VI: Mediators write up the agreement and the disputants sign.

Over the course of the eight month program, referrals to the principal’s office for disruptive behavior for 20 targeted students decreased, missed days – and reports to the counselor’s office – due to disruptive behavior for these same students was reduced.

This second source puts perspective on the transformative potential of mediation. Shepherd (2003) discusses a “peace education training” program implemented at an urban, secondary, public school in Tampa, FL. In this program, 9th grade teachers were provided training through the Peace Education Foundation; this training included mediation and conflict resolution. The program attempted to not only impact teacher behaviors in specific times – such as when two students were in conflict – but transform the teachers during the entire teaching day so that they were more responsive and in tune with their students. The program sought to create teacher behaviors which were peace, rather than conflict, inducing.

While this study is merely a small study in a single school, the results show the possible potential in the lives of both students and teachers. The goal of the program “was to empower teachers with the skills and strategies that would create a safe, nurturing, and orderly learning environment in order to decrease classroom disruptions. (p 60) Following the training, participating teachers used conflict resolution skills to “reduce classroom disruptions by 56%” and were able to impact other classrooms by coaching teacher peers. Students recognized a difference, too, indicating a preference for participant’s classroom settings (p 60) and indicating more of a sense of “getting along” with other students than their peers who were not in classrooms impacted by the study.

The third source presents some unique perspectives on the concepts and theories of mediation and negotiation. Gabel (2003) asserts the practice of mediation and psychotherapy are related at their core. The field of mediation, Gabel tells us, is grounded in the law while psychotherapy is grounded in medicine. Because the foundations of these two practices come from diverse sources, major differences exist, such as in outcomes, processes, and terminology. According to Gabel, both mediation and psychotherapy involve an outside third party helping change the status quo.

Gabel outlines a continuum of mediation practices ranging from transformative, where the goal is to empower the participants to not only find a solution between them but to make themselves better human beings, to an evaluative or problem solving approach at the other end of the spectrum (p 318). On this side, the energy is focused on fixing the presenting issue. Gabel’s view of psychotherapy is, perhaps, more layered. While he doesn’t provide for a true dichotomy or linear progression, he does cite differences in types of psychotherapy. Brief, supportive, psycho-educational, and/or time-sensitive psychotherapy all focus on clarifying and resolving problematic issues in the present, rather than focusing on some hidden, underlying cause or conflict. These styles differ from psychoanalysis which do, of course, involve looking for the hidden meanings and focusing not only on the present situation but the entire history of the individual. Group, family, and couples therapies focus much energy on the relationships between the participants; these forms might look remarkably similar to certain forms of mediation.

Gabel’s insight helps put a different perspective on mediation. The similarities he draws between certain types of psychotherapy and mediation, and in the roles the third party – the therapist or the mediator – plays help in broadening our perspective on the fields.

These three sources provide a beginning examination into the mediator, the mediation process, the potential of mediation, and the concepts and theories behind mediation.

References
Gabel, S. (2003). Mediation and psychotherapy: Two sides of the same coin? Negotiation Journal, October 2003, 19(4), 315-328.

Shepherd, O. B. (2003). Ninth-grade teachers’ attempts to reduce classroom disruptions with conflict resolution and peace education training. Unpublished doctoral applied dissertation, Nova Southeastern University.

Threets, A. (2003). Improving student behavior and decreasing the rate of violence-based suspension through the use of peer mediation. Unpublished doctoral applied dissertation, Nova Southeastern University.

Avoiding and Accommodating: Now the Instrument Shows a Truth

2004-10-10T00:21:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610).

According to the Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Questionnaire (Bluffton University, n.d.), my primary conflict mode is “avoiding” and my secondary mode is accommodating. No surprise here, as these results jive with my earlier self-assessment. Frankly, however, it is not a happy picture. In my role as a performance excellence consultant for the Coast Guard, I am expected to help people collaborate to attain increased levels of performance. In my collateral duty role as a counselor in the Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights programs, I am also expected to help people collaborate, or, if we can’t get there, to compromise. And, I’m fairly successful. It seems this professional need is not matched by my personal preferences.

Last year, while developing a four-hour block of instruction for the Coast Guard Auxiliary on managing conflict, I took the Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Questionnaire. I was unable recently to find those results, but I remember them not being as bleak as this go-round. What I mean by this is I remember collaboration placing either as my secondary or primary preferred mode, a result which is more in keeping with my self image. But then, perhaps true reflection is necessary at times. For the sake of introspection and growth, I will take the results from this latest completion of the instrument as valid: avoiding and accommodating come out head and shoulders above the other three modes.

According to Lulofs and Cahn (2000, p. 101), “Avoidance is a preference for not addressing a conflict at all. People who avoid conflict may understand intuitively that confronting others might bring about better results, but they are not sufficiently concerned about getting those results to risk doing the conflict.” They also state that this mode’s objective is lose-lose. When using this mode, the person demonstrates a low concern for self and a low concern for the other party. (p. 101-103)

A neighbor to avoidance, “accommodation is a preference for smoothing over conflicts, obliging others, and not making waves because one has a high concern for others and a low concern for results. Those using this approach prefer to maintain the illusion of harmony.” (Lulofs and Cahn, 2000, p 101). This style has a paradigm of lose-win (as in “I lose, you win”).

For me, to hear my preferred methods of dealing with conflict stated in this way, I shudder. I shudder for a couple of reasons. First, I like to think that I have more concern for my own self than none at all. Second, I really like the idea of collaboration, or as Stephen Covey puts it, finding the third alternative. Third, I see myself (or at least I want to be) a straight shooter; avoidance and accommodation don’t fit the model of a straight shooter. Having stated these three reasons, I do acknowledge that with many things, I don’t live up to my ideal. This evening, my fiancé reminded me of a few.

When I found out I was to be a father for a third time, I was stunned, to say the least. I knew it to be true, but I went into denial for months. Until now, I’ve looked at this time as denial; Jenny reframed it as avoidance. I only told three people during the first trimester: my priest, my attorney, and one dear friend from college. In the second trimester, I told a few other people, including my two older sons and my parents. It wasn’t until Elliot arrived that most people at work even knew I was a father-to-be. Avoidance. Certainly, beginning to confront the issue and work through things would have brought about better results in my own life situation. I know this now, and I knew it then. But still, I didn’t do it.

Do I compromise? Compromise allows for the workable rather than the optimal solutions; it is a style of give and take where no party gets everything they want. (Lulofs and Cahn, 2000, p 102). I find myself compromising in certain situations, giving up something in order to gain something else. This weekend, Jenny wanted to go out to dinner; I didn’t think I had the time or the money for something fancy. We compromised: we didn’t go to dinner last night, but rather went tonight. And, we went to a fancy restaurant at the local Renaissance Hotel, and we used a gift card my colleagues had given me a couple weeks ago for hosting our annual conference. I spent time I didn’t think I had, but I didn’t have to spend money I didn’t think I had. And, most importantly – since I’m putting my concern for her on a high level – Jenny got to go out to a candlelight dinner. With a compromise on her part: Elliot came along, as we couldn’t find a sitter.

I suggested in my first paper that I was avoiding conflict by getting married. As I’ve thought about this over the last couple of weeks, I’d like to change my tune. Perhaps saying “yes” is avoiding some issues, but it is also an opportunity for collaboration, for creating something that is better than either Jenny or I can imagine at present. This is my new hope and my new vision. But the fact remains, as outlined in examples from the first paper, I do, indeed, avoid conflict.

I least prefer competing as a conflict mode. On the Thomas-Killman instrument, I answered only question with a preference to competing. I’m reminded of a time years ago when I took a job as a car salesman. I’d been at the dealership for three days, learning the product lines and watching other sales people work, when I was called into the sales’ manager’s office. “Peter,” said Barry, “we’re going to have to let you go.” I was stunned; I had a family to feed and house; I asked why. “Well,” he said, “we’re afraid you’re going to be too honest with the customers.” Clearly, here was a business that was into the competing paradigm, and the management saw I wasn’t going to fit in. “Aggression. Win-Lose. Selfish and argumentative.” (Lulofs and Cahn, 2000, p 101). These are not generally words which describe me, my view on life, or my behavior.

As I noted earlier, win-win is an ideal I strive for. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is an ideal I would like to strive for. I teach “think win-win” in my work. And, I’d like to think that I do get the win-win, often. As I look at my actions, however, the win-win comes only after a huge delay. My first tactic is to avoid. Once I’m finished avoiding, I can move to win-win. For some reason, I’m more apt to avoid in my personal life than in my work life. At work, I seem to focus on the outcomes. This isn’t to say that relationships are not important – I’d argue that relationships in my work is the most important thing – but that I don’t avoid or acquiesce as much as I do in my personal life.

Relationships are important to me. This does, I believe, drive my behavior in conflict situations. This is perhaps why I often put other’s needs before my own: I’m trying – even in an unhealthy way – to maximize the relationship. The more important the relationship is to me, the more apt I am to avoid or accommodate. Through avoiding or accommodating, I am “saving” the relationship. Or, perhaps more likely, by avoiding, I am putting off dealing with the difficult questions or issues. When I put off preparing for a new child or getting married or even paying the bills, I am putting off possible bad or difficult or troubling times. I create the illusion of status quo, of an even-keeled life.

In my earlier paper, I noted that “getting along” is one of my key desires. This stems, in part, from roles I learned early in childhood. I’d marry this desire with the desire of a calm and even-keeled life. Some people thrive on discord and confusion; my brother, a recent organizer of a “peace rally,” is one such person. (Stinson, n.d.) A former attorney and unwilling to let anything go, he thrives on conflict and chaos. While he creates a life of confusion and stress, I seek a life of quietness, sameness, and routine. This desire for an even-keel helps drive how I approach conflict. If I avoid or accommodate, then the perception of an even-keel exists. If I don’t deal with the conflict, then in a perverted way, that conflict doesn’t exist. The same is true with getting along: by avoiding, I am encouraging the perception of “getting along.”

For more than six months, my first wife and I lived in the same house, but didn’t really live as wife and husband. In March, she’d asked me to move out. I would not until we had a signed agreement. At the time, I thought I was trying to create a win-win for both of us; looking at the situation now, I can see there were elements of avoidance at play. By not moving, by having weeks go by where we didn’t talk about the agreement, by maintaining the appearance of a family, we were both avoiding. We maintained an illusion of harmony which was punctuated by flare-ups which demonstrated the truth.

As I look at the Thomas-Killman results and review my analysis, I’m struck by what I want to do over the next several months. If I am to focus on dispute resolution and conflict management, then I want to refocus my efforts to not only understand where I am, but to move my preferences. I’m not sure if these preferences are “hard wired,” but I would guess that like personality type preferences, non-preferred modes can be used. As an INFP, I can certainly “sense,” it’s just not my first and preferred way of taking in information. Perhaps this conflict modes are similar. I can learn to move to collaboration, and perhaps compromise, in appropriate situations. I can stop and make a conscious decision on my behavior based on choice: I can choose the mode I’m going to respond to a given conflict.

References
Bluffton University. (n.d.). Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Questionnaire. Retrieved October 4, 2004, from http://www.bluffton.edu/courses/bcomp/301sup/thomas.htm.

Covey, S. R. (1997). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Families. New York: Golden Books.

Lulofs, R. S., & Cahn, D. D. (2000). Conflict: From Theory to Action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stinson, P. M., Sr. (n.d.). Valley Forge Rally for Social Justice. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from http://www.stinsongroup.com.

Conflict Management and Avoidance: Natural Relatives in my Life

2004-10-03T23:21:00.000-04:00

A paper written for “Introduction to Conflict Resolution and Alternate Dispute Resolution” (Leadership 9610) .

In my life, I’ve had a few incidents of conflict which have been “defining” moments. These bits of conflict shed light on my own style of conflict management. They span more than twenty years, from my days in high school to the last several months. These examples show some consistency in behavior; I’m not sure they show personal growth. In short, these examples show that in my personal life I generally avoid conflict; in my professional life, I generally take on conflict, particularly when some important value is at stake.

I went away to boarding school for high school. My father, a minister, strongly felt I should attend a church-related school. I chose to head off to the farmland of western Maryland and attend a school headed by a friend of my father’s. Senior year I was a prefect; unlike most of my fellow prefects who led dormitory halls of underclassman, I landed the only senior floor on campus. The chaplain and a first-year teacher were the dorm masters. Sometime in mid-winter, I heard that the chaplain was drinking with one of my hall mates. I went to Father D. and told him what I’d heard; he told me he’d been having a rough year (his mother was dying of cancer) and it wouldn’t happen again. Late one night on the last week of school, I happened to his apartment and discovered him inebriated, along with each of my hall mates, my friends.

Four years later I was a resident coordinator at college. Responsible for two dormitories and a dozen resident advisors, I also had my own floor, which I advised. One chilly winter during fraternity rush season, the brothers of one of the rowdier fraternities barged on the floor, yelling and screaming, to hoist away two new pledges. When I told them their antics were inappropriate for the residence halls, and that they had to leave the dormitory, voices were raised. Security, summoned by one of my peers, soon got the situation under control, but all was not well. The next night, at an all-campus get-together, one of the fraternity brothers assaulted me and spit in my face.

Much more recently, following 9/11 I was serving on active duty with the Coast Guard as a duty officer in the Atlantic Area Command Center. At one point, we had a long and drawn out search and rescue case; our role was to plan the searches and serve in a command capacity. The case drew substantial media attention, and in my role I briefed members of the press. I was asked questions in which the truthful answer did not show the Service in the best light; my seniors were attempting to bury the issue and stonewall. While I wasn’t ordered to say or not say anything specific, I knew which way my superiors wanted me to go.

And, even more recently, last year I found myself, a divorced father with two near-teenage sons, dating a woman who was pregnant with my child. We had been on the verge of ending our relationship when she found out she was pregnant. For her, adoption and abortion were not an option, and I couldn’t see myself starting the fatherhood journey all over again.

Each of these incidents presented conflict in various degrees. In the first case with the drinking hall master, my conflict was with the teacher and with my hall mates. He, of course, didn’t want word of his transgression to go any further; my classmates didn’t either as they liked their drinking buddy. The incident with the fraternity brothers also involved various aspects of community: my fraternity hall mates, the other folks on the residence hall, the outside brothers, and the student affairs administration. The incident involving the press and the search & rescue case put my own desires for transparency in government against the wishes and views of my superiors. And, in the final example, the my pregnant girl friend and I were in conflict: what sort of a life did we want to create?

The conclusion of the tales shed some light on my style of conflict management. With the drinking faculty member, I went to the headmaster the next morning and told him what I’d seen. The upshot was the chaplain was asked to resign, and my peers wrecked my room, destroying my belongings and covering everything in curry powder. The fraternity brother who assaulted me was brought before the dean of students and given a sentence that was primarily constructive in nature; the entire fraternity was also given a “community service” task as a teaching point. With the Coast Guard media issue, I ended up telling all to the press, even though some thought it showed the Coast Guard in a poor light. I was reprimanded for “speaking out of bounds” and received a performance evaluation that will likely end my twenty-four year career as a reservist. And, with the unexpected baby, Elliot was born in late April, his mother moved in with me (at my suggestion) and we are to be married at the end of the month. In some respects, the impending marriage is avoidance on my part: conflicting sets of values within my own heart continue to battle out the details. I have clearly decided, however, this is my life, the life I have chosen to live.

How do I deal with conflict? As the examples show, I sometimes take conflict head on, particularly when there is an issue of “right” and community involved. If I think I’m in right in one of these types of situations, I’m apt to plow forward, consequences be damned. With other, more personal conflicts, I am apt to move to avoidance. While my impending marriage is good, avoidance plays a part however: Jenny asked me; Jenny set the date; I’m along for the ride. This isn’t to say that we’re not friends, that we don’t have much in common, that we aren’t loving; but, in large measure, I’ve avoided all conflict with her by accepting the proposal.

I do compromise on solutions, but I’ll not compromise on firm values. Years ago I took Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits” course. Two things with regard to conflict stood out for me in that learning: first, that I should create a hierarchy of my values. For instance, for me community based on shared values is more important than allegiance to an individual; another might be that transparency in decision-making is more important (when not related to issues which are classified) and trumps orders from a superior. The second concept that stood out for me was the notion of the “third alternative.” Covey suggests that compromise is not the highest possible solution for people in conflict for in compromise each party must give up something. The highest possible solution is finding a “third alternative,” something which neither party thought of before which is better than any proposed solution or any compromised solution. The third alternative breaks new ground. I try to find the third alternative. When I can’t, I’ll compromise, so long as I don’t violate a firm value.

By nature, I’m not a competitive person. When I coached high school varsity coach, I wasn’t one of those all-for-the-win coaches. We’d play teams where the coach would encourage the players to run up the score; if we were on top in a lopsided win, I’d tell my players not to score. I would demand, however, that they play the best they could, get every ground ball, make every pass, and put every shot on target. I demanded they be competitive with themselves. And this is what I demand of myself. I am competitive against my own self, but not with other people. I don’t have to ensure the other person loses in order to win; I don’t even need to always get my own way. I believe in the “abundance mentality;” there’s enough to go around, and we’ll each get our own. This belief limits, I believe, my competitive nature, even in conflict.

I’d like to think I’m pretty much the same person with different people. Actually, this is one of the things that “miffs” senior members of the Coast Guard; I don’t sugar coat what I say, and I always “speak truth to power.” I’m just as civil to the admiral as I am to the janitor. Having said that, there are certain times when my ire gets raised to the point when I do become short, curt, and loud. As I think about this, usually these situations involve some sort of service faux pas I’m experiencing. Perhaps this is because I can’t walk away.

In my personal life, and with my professional colleagues, it is important to me that we all “get along.” I was reminded of this recently when my former spouse, the mother of my two eldest sons, came by to pick up one son. While here, she told us she and her husband would, as invited, be coming to the wedding. It’s important to me that she and Jenny get along; it’s important that I get along with her husband; it’s important that my eldest sons get along with Jenny. And the list goes on. This notion of “getting along” plays a huge role in my relationships when it comes to conflict. I am willing to subordinate my own desires for the goal of everyone “getting along.”

As a broad overview, there we are. I take conflict head on or avoid conflict. And, I’m not sure I deal with conflict all that differently today than I did many years ago. This is food for thought for me as I continue to learn more about conflict resolution; I don’t want to be stuck in the same place forever.

Homeland Security and Homeland Defense: Flexible, Multi-Capable Agencies Best for Federal Homeland Interventions

2004-03-03T17:03:00.000-05:00

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations and the Master of Arts in national security and decision making.

What is the difference between Homeland Security and Homeland Defense?

The line between homeland defense and homeland security is a narrow one, particularly in these post-9/11 times. Before the terrorist attacks of September 2001, most Americans gave little thought to either homeland security or homeland defense. When we thought of defense, we generally thought of national interests outside the boundaries of the United States. When we thought of security, we generally thought rent-a-cops and local law enforcement. Times have changed. In terms of policy, the United States has drawn a distinction between homeland security and homeland defense, focusing on the primary tasks and who has the lead for the task.

Homeland defense and homeland security are not the same. Homeland security is “the prevention, preemption, and deterrence of, and defense against, aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure as well as the management of the consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies.” Within this definition from the U.S. Northern Command, the combatant commander assigned the responsibility of homeland defense, is the acknowledgement that the role of the Department of Defense and NORTHCOM is in support of the national effort for homeland security. NORTHCOM does not have lead agency status with regard to homeland security issues. Homeland defense, however, is a different story. U.S. Northern Command says, “Homeland defense is the protection of U.S. territory, domestic population and critical infrastructure against military attacks emanating from outside the United States.” As the Center for Defense Information puts it, “homeland defense usually refers somewhat more narrowly to preventing and defeating attacks, while homeland security also includes the functions of handling the consequences of attacks that get through defenses, largely using civilian and local agencies.”

Interestingly, NORTHCOM’s definition for homeland defense specifically cites defense against military attacks which emanate from outside the United States. This definition is ambiguous in several ways. Can non-state actors mount a military attack? What is the definition of “military”? What of homegrown insurgency or terrorist attacks, such as the Oklahoma City bombing? In the current “war on terrorism” the United States policy is that this is a “war” perhaps not so much in the sense of a declared war against another state, but in the Clausewitzian sense of exerting force as a component of policy. We wage this war globally, seeking out terrorists who threaten the United States and her national interests. Certainly, the followers of Bin Laden would consider themselves to be part of a military; they are members of an un-uniformed military carrying out a holy Jihad. According to Stuart Taylor, The United States has treated them the same, labeling those who bear arms as enemy combatants. Perhaps this definition is not as ambiguous as it seems at first. With regard to terrorists, at least those who are captured outside the United States, we are treating them as enemy combatants, with the legal rights and responsibilities of that internationally recognized definition.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security notes that the Department of Defense “contributes to homeland security through its military missions overseas, homeland defense, and support to civil authorities.” The Strategy goes on to note that in extraordinary cases, the Department of Defense would take the lead in defending Americans and the territory of the United States by conducting military operations such as combat air patrols or maritime defense operations. Support to civil authorities would likely be the greatest contribution the services in the Department of Defense would offer to both homeland security and homeland defense within the boarders of the country. The United States could take a lesson from the Israeli counter-terrorism strategy which includes “military and paramilitary operations to disrupt terrorist infrastructure.” (Tucker) Clearly, Israel has integrated their response to terrorism to better combat terrorists before incidents and with regard to consequence management, in part because for them it is a question of existence or survival, not merely an impact on their way of life.

While the Department of Defense’s focus is clearly on defense, and the support of civilian authorities for security, the newly created Department of Homeland Security’s focus is on security and is both preventative in nature with an eye keenly on consequence management. As one of the foundational agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard is uniquely situated to provide both defense and security interventions. The Coast Guard is the only one of the five military branches which is organizationally within the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard is also the only military organization whose operations with the United States are not governed by the Posse Comitatus Act. While the Act does not forbid the use of military force in working with civilian authorities, it certainly does limit the scope of the use of the military in law enforcement operations; the impact on homeland defense operations is limited, however. (Trebilcock) Part of the reason for this is that “the distinction between criminal law enforcement and defense of the national borders” is not as clear as when the Act was passed in the late 1800s. Today, through various laws and executive orders, it is permissible for the military to provide “indirect and logistical support of civilian law enforcement and not direct involvement.” (Trebilcock) What of a federal agency, however, that can bridge both worlds and provide both security and defense operations without regard to posse comitatus or other seemingly arbitrary delineations? The Coast Guard holds a unique place in the federal government in that it is both a military service and a law enforcement agency; the Coast Guard can do both.

This dual role for the Coast Guard makes it uniquely situated in this new world order to provide both homeland defense and homeland security. In some respects, the Coast Guard is a model agency for flexibility in the homeland security and homeland defense arenas. The Coast Guard is multi-mission in nature, a trait which is often billed as a strength in allowing for resources to be deployed to the next national need. The Coast Guard is able to serve several masters at the same time. The Coast Guard’s missions include both safety, security, and defense missions, all cobbled together around the theme of maritime interests. What is important in this discussion of homeland security and homeland defense is not whether or not the Coast Guard serves too many masters or has been weakened by a lack of focus, but whether or not the service can respond adequately in both environments. And the answer is a resounding “yes.” Yes, the Coast Guard responds adequately in both defense and security environments.

One of the areas the Coast Guard has succeeded is in demonstrating an ability to flex to provide needed services wherever national interests dictate. The Coast Guard has demonstrated the capability to transfer skills from one mission area to another, to jump from defense to security operations at the drop of a hat. The other military services have begun to move in this direction, little by little. The National Strategy for Homeland Security states that in extraordinary circumstances Department of Defense assets “would be involved during emergencies such as responding to an attack or to forest fires, floods, tornadoes, or other catastrophes.” The Strategy goes on to say that in these circumstances the Department of Defense would be tasked to “act quickly to provide capabilities that other agencies do not have.” This has become something of a regular activity. The Marine Corps provides fire fighters for brush fires on federal lands; the Army provides relief following major disasters. Indeed, portions of the National Guard are generally activated for every natural disaster.

The National Guard is another agency which demonstrates a regular flex between security and defense missions. Occupying a unique position in American life, the National Guard (and it’s sister the Air National Guard) serve both the federal government and the state government. National Guard elements, when activated under state orders, are not encumbered by the Posse Comitatus Act either actually or perceptually. As agents of the state, they can enforce laws and provide more than just support to civil authority such as law enforcement and rescue. The National Guard is at home both in providing defense to key infrastructure as it is in providing consequence management following a disaster or terrorist attack. In this post-9/11 world, we have seen National Guard personnel at work in both New York City and Arlington conducting post-attack operations assisting in recovery, and we have seen National Guardsman protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, power plants, and airports.

Where does this lead us in our examination of homeland defense and homeland security? The line between security and defense is blurry given today’s technology and the ability for an enemy to launch a catastrophic attack from nearly any point on the globe. We are vulnerable not only from distant shores – such as North Korea – but we are vulnerable here in our own backyard. As the 9/11 attackers showed us, critical attacks can be launched from the crucible of our democracy or the home of our federal government. Nothing is sacred. And for that, we must be prepared. Both the National Guard and the Coast Guard demonstrate that agencies can exist within both the security and defense arenas. Indeed, both of these organizations thrive in both of these. They represent a model for other agencies to emulate. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force can provide valuable mission areas in the arena of homeland security in addition to their work with domestic homeland defense. And, traditional civilian agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, could effectively work in the defense arena supporting the Department of Defense in addition to their security functions.

References
Center for Defense Information. “Organization for Homeland Security: Issues and Options.” 21 December 2001. [5 February 2004]

Office of Homeland Security. National Strategy for Homeland Security. Washington, DC: The White House, 16 July 2002.

Taylor, Jr., Stuart “Enemy Combatant: Inching Toward Due Process.” The Atlantic Online. 3 March 2004. [3 March 2004]

Trebilcock, Craig T.. “The Myth of Posse Comitatus.” October 2000. [2 March 2004]

Tucker, Jonathan B. “Strategies for Countering Terrorism: Lessons from the Israeli Experience.” March 2003. [3 March 2004]

U.S. Coast Guard. U.S. Coast Guard: America’s Maritime Guardian. Coast Guard Publication 1. 2nd Printing. Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard, 2002.

U.S. Northern Command. “Homeland Defense.” Date unknown. [5 February 2004]

Coast Guard Capabilities for Joint Force Operations: The Leatherman of the Littorals

2004-01-06T16:38:00.000-05:00

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations and the Master of Arts in national security and decision making.

How does the U.S. Coast Guard view itself as a military service? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What unique capabilities does it bring to the joint force?

The U.S. Coast Guard, which traces its organizational roots to 1790 and the Revenue Cutter Service, sees itself as a “multi-mission, military, maritime service.” (U.S. Coast Guard, p 6) This triad is reiterated in any number of publications and venues including prominent places in the 2003 Commandant’s Direction. Within this definition, we see three distinct emphases. The Coast Guard prides itself on being a military force with the same obligations, risks, and responsibilities of the other four military services. The Coast Guard culture is different, however. The Coast Guard is primarily a service of “life savers” or “Smokies of the Sea.” The culture is one of rescue and, to a lesser extent, law enforcement. The Coast Guard does not have a warrior ethos or focus; no matter what the language of the service’s senior leaders, the ethos within the ranks is one of rescue and law enforcement. The Coast Guard Publication 1 states the service has a “unique blend of humanitarian, law enforcement, regulatory, diplomatic, and military capabilities.” (U.S. Coast Guard, p 6) The Coast Guard hangs its hat on this idea of multi-mission and blended roles.

A Watershed Time for Coast Guard Missions

According to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, this is a “watershed time” in the Coast Guard’s history. (Philpott, p 52) The Commandant also suggested the service’s move to the Department of Homeland Security has had on impact on missions and resources, shifting “assets into the homeland security mission” and yet maintaining the multi-mission organization. (Philpott, p 52) Search and rescue, which had been the cornerstone mission area for the Coast Guard, now shares the spotlight with homeland security. These two mission areas are not on par.

The Coast Guard has five fundamental roles, each with several mission areas (which might support additional roles). Each mission is “based on one or more mandated or authorized duties” (U.S. Coast Guard, p 6-18):

Maritime Security

Drug Interdiction
Alien Migrant Interdiction
Economic Exclusion Zone and Living Marine Resource Law/Treaty Enforcement
General Maritime Law Enforcement

Maritime Safety

Search & Rescue
Marine Safety
Recreational Boating Safety
International Ice Patrol

Protection of Natural Resources

Marine Environmental Protection
Domestic Fisheries Enforcement
Protected Living Marine Resource Law Enforcement

Maritime Mobility

Aids to Navigation
Icebreaking Services
Bridge Administration
Waterways/Vessel Traffic Management

National Defense Missions

General Defense Operations
Maritime Interception Operations*
Military Environmental Response Operations*
Port Operations, Security, and Defense*
Peacetime Military Engagement*
Coastal Sea Control Operations*
Polar Icebreaking

* Agreement between Coast Guard and Department of Defense to support Combatant Commanders with these missions.

The Coast Guard is often pulled in different directions. While everything the Coast Guard does revolves around the maritime environment, and every petty officer, warrant officer, and commissioned officer is a federal law enforcement officer by statute, emphasis slides along a spectrum of conflict from search and rescue operations (low conflict) to counter-terrorism and force protection operations (high conflict). The Coast Guard must operate along the full spectrum and her people must be comfortable along the full spectrum. As noted above, the Commandant sees the service at a revolutionary time. Members of the service realize the time today, post 9/11, is different. Search & rescue shares top billing with homeland security operations; many Coast Guard personnel see the shift continuing with search & rescue taking second billing or even further down the spectrum of perceived importance. Some mission areas seem to be outside the Department of Homeland Security mandate; some service members would not be surprised to see these non-core missions cast off. While Publication 1 – a pre-9/11 document – states “since at least the late nineteenth century, the mission of aiding distressed mariners usually has trumped all other priorities,” (U.S. Coast Guard, p 79) this emphasis is changing.

Service Strengths

The Coast Guard is, indeed, the service with expertise at operations in the coastal maritime environment. The Coast Guard’s assets are designed and well suited for coastal operations – response boats, motor life boats, patrol boats are all specialized for the coastal environment. Even the Coast Guard’s new “deepwater” assets will be used primarily in the coastal environment. One of the primary missions of the new “national security cutter” will be port security, serving as on scene command and control for port approaches such as the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, New York Harbor, and San Francisco Bay. Certainly, this use of this major cutter falls in the coastal environment. Coast Guard personnel are also experienced in the coastal environment, matched with the capabilities of vessels and aircraft.

Coast Guard personnel are willing to take the initiative to get the job done. Not only is on-scene initiative one of the Coast Guard’s seven defined principles of Coast Guard operations, but it truly is a part of the Coast Guard culture. (U.S. Coast Guard, p 76ff) This principle of initiative – at least in practice – goes beyond the idea of on-scene command. Coast Guard personnel, no matter their station, are encouraged and expected to take initiative. Whether it’s a young petty officer deciding how to react to suspicious men on a deserted Long Island beach during World War II, or a rescue coordination center watch stander diverting naval and commercial vessels for a search and rescue incident, or a boarding officer completing a boarding on a recreational vessel, Coast Guard personnel take initiative and operate within broad, given boundaries. Generally, Coast Guard personnel – when they see a task which needs doing – do it. They don’t wait for orders.
Along with initiative, Coast Guard personnel are flexible, and, thus, the service is flexible. The official Coast Guard motto is semper paratus, always prepared. The unofficial motto is semper gumby, always flexible. Like Gumby, Coast Guard personnel are flexible. One moment a Coast Guard member might be enforcing fisheries laws, the next pulling a boating accident victim from the water, and the next enforcing a security zone around a naval or high value commercial vessel. Coast Guard personnel must shift effortlessly among missions, adopting the stance requisite for each. More than 200 years ago, Alexander Hamilton offered advice to boarding officers of the newly formed Revenue Cutter Service; he urged these men to “activity, vigilance, and firmness” coupled with “providence, moderation, and good temper.” (Hamilton) He understood that the service’s members would tread a fine line in all they did. As an organization, flexibility has been, and continues to be, key. The Coast Guard is the amalgamation of six agencies merged together during the past 200 years. A founding component of the Department of Transportation, the Coast Guard was recently moved to the new Department of Homeland Security in the largest federal reorganization in more than fifty years. In a changing world with shifting priorities and minimal resources, flexibility is key.

Weaknesses of the Coast Guard as a Service

While many see the Coast Guard’s multi-mission focus as a strength, it is also a weakness, the service’s Achilles Heel. As noted above, the Coast Guard prides itself on being multi-mission, being all things to all people. But this means that the Coast Guard is not able to specialize, to focus on one singular strength. As noted by several current management and leadership thinkers, including Jim Collins, great organizations focus on one thing. It is this focus on one strength, one critical task, which sets great organizations apart from good organizations. (Collins) That the Coast Guard and her personnel need to be proficient in more than 20 individual and divergent missions ensures that not all of them will be done superbly. Instead Coast Guard personnel attempt to be semper paratus when sometimes paratus is more likely. (Note: As a watch stander in the Coast Guard’s Atlantic Area Command Center, a multi-mission center responsible for all operations in the eastern United States and the Atlantic Ocean, I realized no single person could know everything about every mission. Even with more than sixteen years of experience, it was evident I did not know all there was to know. And, sadly, no watch stander did. There was just too much.)

Not only does the Coast Guard find itself trying to be many things to many people, she finds herself under-resourced. A small service, the Coast Guard is composed of about 40,000 active duty personnel, 6,300 civilian employees, and 8,000 part-time military members (reservists). The service is also blessed with a volunteer, civilian force of some 35,000 members who donate their time in support of the Coast Guard’s missions, particularly boating safety and search & rescue. With more than 1400 small boats, 230 cutters (ranging from 65 feet to 400 feet), and 160 aircraft, the Coast Guard finds itself conducting multiple missions on the high seas, in the coastal environment, and on the nation’s lakes and rivers. (U.S. Naval War College, p 3.3-14) Even with Deepwater set to recapitualize 93 of the service’s multi-mission, white hull cutters, the Coast Guard will be stretched thin. (U.S. Naval War College, p 3.3-58) The Coast Guard is responsible for search & rescue and twenty other missions along more than 95,000 miles of shoreline and in 360 ports. (U.S. Naval War College, p 3.3-52) The task is immense.

Lastly, the Coast Guard finds itself pressed into a “joint world” with no real strategy for working in this joint world. The Coast Guard, by it’s very nature, is expected to work operationally with the Combatant Commanders of the Department of Defense, as well as with law enforcement agencies at the local, state, federal, and international levels, and with safety organizations at each of these levels. The Coast Guard must be able to speak and understand Department of Defense speak, Department of Homeland Security speak, law enforcement speak, intelligence speak, and safety speak. And, the Coast Guard must be fluent in each of these languages. Even looking at just the relationship with the Department of Defense, clearly room for improvement exists. While the Coast Guard does have billets on certain DOD staffs – particularly combatant commanders including NORTHCOM and CENTCOM and certain U.S. Navy commands – those billets are neither held in much prestige nor sought after. While members of the other four military services are almost required to receive joint training, education, and experience (Osgood), the Coast Guard has no emphasis and no plan. Unless the service strategically emphasizes joint service and understanding, the Coast Guard may find itself unable to effectively participate in a joint environment.

Capabilities for the Joint Force

The Coast Guard does bring something to the table for the joint force, however. Five of the twenty-two mission areas are specified in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense. (U.S. Coast Guard, p 16) These missions – Maritime Interception Operations; Military Environmental Response Operations; Port Operations, Security, & Defense; Peacetime Military Engagement; and Coastal Sea Control Operations – are missions that the Coast Guard is fairly well suited for. The Coast Guard brings experience working in, and assets designed for, the littoral environment. As Stubbs and Truver point out in their monograph, the Coast Guard’s mandate has four fundamental elements: a humanitarian element, a policing element, a diplomatic element, and a military element. (p 54) To the joint force, the Coast Guard brings experience in all four of these fundamental elements as exhibited in her multiple missions.

The most unique capabilities the Coast Guard can bring to the table are patrol boats (87 and 110 feet, multi-mission, law-enforcement & security capable cutters) for brown water operations, port security units to provide waterborne security in a port, and tactical law enforcement teams to provide trained boarding teams capable of searching and securing commercial vessels.

When would a joint force or a combatant commander look to the Coast Guard for assets and resources? When operating in the littoral environment, in low to moderate levels of conflict, the Coast Guard can bring a wealth of experience. This is particularly true when, for political or diplomatic reasons, a maritime, military presence other than by a gray warship is desired. With experience in alien migrant operations and maritime counter-drug operations, the Coast Guard can bring relevant experience, if not expertise, to non-combatant evacuation operations and certain counter-terrorism & force protection operations.

In conclusion

The Coast Guard’s Achilles Heel is her critical strength: her multi-mission focus. For the joint force, the Coast Guard can be the Leatherman** of the Littorals, able to do much in the maritime environment, perhaps not being the perfect tool, but certainly being versatile enough to be useful.

**Note: Leatherman Tools mutli-purpose tools were inspired by a young American’s 1975 trip through Europe in a cranky Fiat. See this site.

References
Collins, Jim. From Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. New York: Harper Collins, 2001.

Hamilton, Alexander. “Letter of Instructions to Commanding Officers of Revenue Cutters” (4 June 1791) [1 January 2004]

Osgood, John. “The Goldwater Nichols Act - Managing the Defense Department.” 1996. [5 January 2004]

Philpott, Tom. “Beyond the Waterfront,” Military Officer (July 2003): 50-58

Stubbs, Bruce, and Scott Truver. America’s Coast Guard: Safeguarding U.S. Maritime Safety and Security in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard, 2000 [2 January 2004]

U.S. Coast Guard. U.S. Coast Guard: America’s Maritime Guardian. Coast Guard Publication 1. 2nd Printing. Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard, 2002.

U.S. Naval War College. “U.S. Coast Guard Doctrine and Capabilities.” Joint Maritime Operations, AY 2003-2004, Block 3.4. Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003

Four Keys to Planning for Post-Conflict Operations

2003-10-08T13:33:00.000-04:00

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations and the Master of Arts in national security and decision making.

What is the connection between planning for conflict and planning for post-conflict operations? Why does it matter when you do this planning?

Planning for conflict and planning for post-conflict operations are certainly related. We only need to look at our current situation in Iraq to see that post-conflict operational planning is vitally important. It is not only important how we fight a war to bring peace; it is important how we conduct ourselves to create and ensure this peace. Americans seem willing to allow our elected leaders to slide into war; the public takes a bit of a firmer stance when it comes to “getting out.” This may be exaggeration and oversimplification, but we need only to look at Vietnam and Desert Storm to see minimal discussion before the conflict – and major discussion after the conflict was started. Some of that public outcry could, perhaps, be satisfied with better post-conflict planning up front.

Equally important with actually doing the planning is the timing of when this planning is conducted. Military forces will be caught-flat footed if they succeed with their primary strategic objectives and do not have a post-conflict plan. We need only to look at the current Iraqi situation to see a post-conflict which has not gone as to script, perhaps in part because of the speed of success with the major operations.

I offer four key points when considering post-conflict planning. These four keys are not, of course, the only elements of planning for post-conflict operations, but they form a framework for success.

Begin with the “end in mind”

Link the desired end-state with the grand strategy

Have alternate plans in place

Link post-conflict planning with conflict planning from the start

By following the key elements, campaign planners can better link planning for conflict operations and planning for post-conflict operations thus being more prepared to tackle the end-game and after-game events, ensuring a smoother transition from conflict to peace.

Begin with the “end in mind.” As Stephen Covey, the leadership and management expert says, all things are created twice – first mentally, and second physically. He goes on to say that if the mental creation is not done – the end-in-min proactively determined – it will be done anyway… by someone else. (Covey, p 96ff) This is certainly true with regard to conflict termination planning. All conflict ends, sooner or later. And when it ends, it will be what it is. Better to have a hand in determining what that end actually looks like than to stand by and accept whatever is delivered up.

Beginning with the end-in-mind is a simple concept, but more complicated in application. Planners must envision the future they want to create, and this vision must be fleshed out beyond a rudimentary or bumper-sticker saying. The catch phrase for the recent Iraqi conflict was “regime change.” In the press and unclassified traffic, the end-state was not described much beyond this. We now have regime change; do we really have the situation we wanted? The missing link was a fully defined and thought-out definition – or vision – of the desired end state.

Colonel James Reed, in his decade-old article from Parameters, suggests the end-in-mind must be created from a collaboration between civilian leaders and military planners. This collaboration between civilian and military leaders is important because civilians and military leaders view the world differently. Their focus, their paradigms, are different. Military leaders are concerned with military issues; civilians view the world through a political lens. These two view must be aligned from the state. The military leaders must know, exactly, what the civilian leadership wants as an end state. The civilian leaders must know what the military can deliver, what the means to deliver such outcomes are, and what the possible costs will be.

Ultimately, both civilian leaders and military leaders (and planners) must have a clear picture of the desired end state.

Link the desired end-state with the grand strategy. Once the end state is known and understood, the military planners must develop a grand strategy for the conflict along with a strategy for post-conflict operations. While conflict planning is primarily a military function, planning for post-conflict operations is both a military and civilian function as it involves both military means and political issues.

The desired end state drives the grand strategy. There must be backward planning. In our current Iraqi situation, the defined, public desired end state was regime change. Our military intervention accomplished regime change, but our military intervention also allowed thousands of Iraqi troops to fade into the countryside – many with their weapons and other arms. The military intervention also did not ensure a decisive military battle, pitting force-on-force. Rather, the strategy involved quick maneuver for real estate. America achieved the publicly stated desired end, but what of the unintended consequences? In this post-conflict stage, we’re really in a low intensity, guerilla-type conflict.

Clearly the military planners and civilian leadership did not adequately prepare for this situation.

Have alternate plans in place. Things never were the way they were meant to be, or so Yogi Beara might suggest. Nothing goes really the way we plan. Not life. Not war. Operation Iraqi Freedom is living proof of this. From all appearances, the plan was American forces would handily defeat the Iraqi army, Saddam would die in a hail of gunfire or be brought to justice for war crimes, and the people of Iraq – long oppressed – would welcome American GI’s like it was Paris in 1944. Needless to say, it did not quite happen like that. We defeated the Iraqi army, but for the most part, they just slipped away to their homes. Saddam, unlike his sons, escaped death and capture and – according to a recent supermarket tabloid – is working as a janitor in Baghdad or Tikrit. And the Iraqi people have been ambivalent to American forces; at it’s best, they now tire of our occupation of their country. At it’s worst, they actively engage in guerilla-type operations, picking American service members off in ones and twos and threes.

Where were the alternate plans? Had any planners thought beyond the best case (or worst case) scenarios? Had they envisioned an evaporated army and a flood of terrorists streaming over the porous boarders? Had the politicians thought beyond the unilateral decision to engage with force with almost not allied support? The President declared major operations over – but we continue to lose American lives and now beg for military assistance from other countries. Apparently, our alternate plans were either not well thought out or deployed.

Link post-conflict planning with conflict planning from the start. When taken into account with the three earlier points, this key becomes almost obvious. The time for post-conflict operations planning is concurrent with planning for conflict. The reason for this is three-fold. First, in order to ensure alignment with actions to create the desired end state, a coherent and coordinated plan is imperative. Civilian leaders and military planners define the desired state; all plans then support this desired state. Second, if planning for post-conflict operations is left until after the conflict is concluded, there will not be enough time to plan appropriately. Sometimes the conflict will end more quickly than anticipated; when this happens and post-conflict operations planning has not been tackled, both the military planners and civilian leaders are caught unprepared, their pants around their ankles. Third, concurrent planning will ensure a coherency of effort through all phases of the conflict.

Conclusion
Planning for conflict and planning for post-conflict operations are certainly related. Indeed, planners should not do one without the other. Planning for conflict and post-conflict operations are linked. Ultimate success can be guaranteed only with solid and diligent planning for both phases. The use of the four keys will assist military planners and civilian leaders as they plan for the creation of the defined desired state.

References
Covey, Stephen R. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster/Fireside Books, 1989.

Reed, James W. “Should Deterrence Fail: War Termination in Campaign Planning” in Parameters (Summer 1993), Vol XXIII, No. 2: pp 41-52. Reprinted by the Naval War College, NWC 2171.

A New Vision for the Coast Guard Reserve: Contingency and Customer Focused

2003-04-16T11:42:00.002-04:00

Written for Strategy & Force Planning component of the National Security Decision Making course at the Naval War College and in partial fulfillment of the Master of Arts in national security and decision making.

Overview
Following the events of September 2001, the Coast Guard Reserve has recalled more than six thousand reservists to active duty for periods now extending close to two years. With an authorized Selected Reserve strength of only eight thousand, these recalls have impacted nearly every reservist. The recalls to active duty in FY 2003 have not gone as smoothly as they might have; many reservists were not qualified, and others were not medically fit. The recall and reserve utilization process is broken and in need of an overall. Some reservists recalled for Operation Liberty Shield are merely serving as fillers for normal permanent change of station gaps; others are under worked so much they are standing less than 30-hours of duty a week. The service was not able to sufficiently predict personnel needs before the operation, and the service’s method of slotting personnel to identified needs during the operation is cumbersome, involving line by line searches at each district and area staff for qualified personnel who match the need. Even then, often the person identified to meet the need is not qualified or is not fit for duty. The system is broken.

While “Team Coast Guard” integrated reserve and active duty into single units, the focus has been on peace-time missions; mobilization and contingency preparedness have taken a back seat, and unit commanders have not been held accountable for lapses in preparing reserve personnel for mobilization. The Coast Guard needs a reserve force structure which focuses on contingency preparedness while providing a benefit to units in the day-to-day.

A Brief History: How did we get here?
With much fanfare, in 1994 the Coast Guard announced it was “integrating” its reserve forces with its active duty forces. This was a natural progression from the Coast Guard’s “augmentation” paradigm and reduced administrative overhead. “Integration” put reserve personnel directly into active duty commands. Commanders, commanding officers, and officers-in-charge now had full control of active duty personnel and reserve personnel. The term of the day became “Team Coast Guard,” a vision of an optimized workforce of active duty military, reserve military, civilian employees, and volunteers.

The Coast Guard Reserve was first established in 1941; the Coast Guard Reserve and Auxiliary Act of February 19. 1941, provided for Regular Reservists – a military component modeled after the Naval Reserve – and Temporary Reservists – volunteers “whose paid and unpaid services were still needed in a military capacity for coastal patrols and port security work.” (U.S. Coast Guard, 2003a) During the Second World War, the Coast Guard Reserve had a distinguished service. More than 196,000 Regular Reservists served on active duty (only 8% of the active duty personnel during the war were not reservists) and 125,000 people served in the Temporary Reserve. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2003a) The Temporary Reserve was instrumental in performing port security work throughout the United States. Under the leadership of Dimitri Fedotoff White, a Russian who came to the United States after serving during the First World War in both the Imperial Russian Navy and the British Royal Navy, the Captain of the Port in Philadelphia formed the first port security force of Temporary Reservists. (White) The model was soon in place across the United States, putting volunteers on the front-line of port security work and allowing for Regular Reservists to serve in other vital maritime functions.

Following the War, the Regular Reserve drew down; in 1950 with the Cold War heating up, Congress established a paid drilling reserve. The first reserve unit was formed in Boston in October 1950. (U.S. Coast Guard, 2003a) These early reserve units met weekly, usually in the evenings, and focused on training for port security and other mobilization responsibilities. Many reserve units were located away from the traditional Coast Guard coastal environment. Reserve units existed in places like Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Roanoke, Virginia, locations more known for their mountain vistas than tide-influenced shores. In the early 1970s, reserve units began to “augment” active duty commands. For a weekend a month, unit personnel would travel – often together by chartered bus – to a Coast Guard unit where they would “augment” the active duty personnel, training and gaining real experience in Coast Guard missions using Coast Guard assets. Some reserve units also had their own vessels which they maintained and used as training platforms.

By 1980, the mantra for the purpose of the Coast Guard Reserve was still “mobilization,” but the purpose was waning. Within several years, the deck plate mantra was “mobilization through augmentation” and then just “augmentation.” (Stinson) And rightly so; prior to 1990, the Coast Guard had only twice invoked involuntary recalls to active duty. The first was in 1973 for flood relief in the mid-west; 134 reservists were recalled. In 1980, 600 reservists were recalled to assist in the Mariel Boat Lift, when thousands of Cubans fled their homeland by vessels and make-shift craft. (Coast Guard, 2003b)

But, even with the focus of the Coast Guard Reserve on augmentation, reservists were still reminded of their mobilization requirements. Every reservist held “hip pocket” mobilization orders, providing them with their mobilization location, billet, and required qualifications. These mobilization orders provided guidance for members as they determined their training and professional development – including annual training – during yearly sessions completing “career development plans.”

In 1990, the first major recall of Coast Guard Reservists occurred with Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Three primarily “notional” port security units, all home ported in the Great Lakes area, were involuntarily recalled to active duty. The personnel in these units all held mobilization orders for the port security unit, but many of them had never performed much duty with the unit, having focused on their augmentation unit. Their recalls to active duty were truly involuntary, as has been the continuing case for Coast Guard Reservists serving in the Naval Coastal Warfare community in support of theatre combatant commanders. Most other recalls during this time, and for the next decade, were not truly involuntary. While the authority for recall was involuntary, most personnel volunteered to be tapped for recall. A sense of duty or honor or patriotism drove many to raise their hands, but nearly everyone gave tacit permission to be recalled.

The Current Recall Process
This “kindler, gentler” method of recall was in keeping with the service’s “kindler, gentler” approach to human resource management. While certainly the needs of the service came first, the needs of the service were balanced with the needs of the individual member, when possible. This was true even following the events of September 2001. Within hours of the attacks in New York and Arlington, hundreds of Coast Guard Reservists had reported, uncalled, to their units for duty. Operation Noble Eagle, as it the duty became known, saw more than 3100 reservists recalled to active duty. (Commander, Atlantic Area)

Many of these recalls were based on short-focus unit needs or the reserve personnel resources available. While the Coast Guard did have a mobilization plan, the plan was not used at all. The plan remained on the shelf. During FY 2002, planners re-racked the mobilization plan and created a Contingency Personnel Resource List (CPRL). The CPRL delineated requirements, primarily based on military outloads, and required active duty commands list individuals to fill the CPRL billets. The names associated with CPRL billets could be active duty or reserve personnel, the primary requirement being the person listed had to have the required qualifications and match rate & rating. All Coast Guard units with reserve personnel assigned – units having billets on the Reserve Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) – were ‘providing” units in the CPRL. Some units provided to themselves; many units provided CPRL billets to other commands, usually large ports with military outload responsibilities. Little incentive existed to ensure personnel listed on the CPRL actually held current qualifications as required by the billet.

The RPAL had been created in 1994 with the integration of reserve forces. In large measure, the RPAL reflected bodies-on-hand rather than defined needs. The RPAL, which became the driver for reserve drilling assignments, was based on a snapshot and commander’s desires, not a systematic, resource-driven, needs analysis.

While in theory, commands were required to drop a qualified person in the CPRL – and told to use active duty personnel if needed – command senior leadership knew they’d have to maintain current operations – such as search & rescue – even in the face of an outload. To list an active duty member ensured an unfilled gap if the CPRL were activated; better to list an unqualified reservist and let the receiving command worry about it. Additionally, the Coast Guard had never actually implemented a mobilization plan; the chances of a mobilization following the CPRL were thought by many at the deckplate level to be slim, if at all.

They were wrong. Operation Liberty Shield, the Department of Homeland Security’s newest operation to protect the homeland, and military operations in support – both at home and abroad – of Operation Iraqi Freedom, have seen the recall of more than 3500 reservists. (Toves) Coast Guard senior leadership decided to use the CPRL. As such, most recalls were truly involuntary. And with these recalls have come a host of problems. A worrisome number of reservists have not been qualified for their billets; an additional worrisome number have been medically unfit for duty. Once senior leadership determined that the CPRL was not providing trained reservists to meet defined needs, the CPRL was tossed out. Managers at the district and area level began to fill requests by operational commanders for reserve personnel one-by-one, billet by billet, culling through lists of personnel who had not yet been recalled, determining matches, and issuing orders.

Focus for Reserve Forces
The Coast Guard must decide whether Coast Guard Reserve forces are a primary operational tool or a support tool. Does the service want reservists in key operational roles or relegated to support roles which might not need such intense training or ongoing maintenance to ensure current qualifications? During the initial recall for Operation Liberty Shield & Iraqi Freedom, hundreds of reservists reported either not operationally qualified or medically not fit for duty. Can the Coast Guard rely on Coast Guard Reserve resources to perform mission critical roles? Or does the service relegate the Coast Guard Reserve to support and backfill requirements? While there have been bumps in the road, integration has shown Coast Guard Reservists can perform more than adequately in operations. Reservists have shown excellence in a myriad of operations including Exxon Valdez response (Coast Guard 2003a), Desert Shield & Storm (Riker), and Liberty Shield (Bush). The service must ensure – however – current training, qualifications, and medical readiness.

Integration and augmentation were both unit-needs paradigms. A Coast Guard unit needed a boat crewmember or and inport officer-of-the-day or a force protection watch officer. The need was generally always peacetime defined and generally short-lived in nature. The thinking was to meet the drilling-site’s needs through the RPAL; the CPRL, and contingency training, was secondary. The mobilization cards of the 1980s and the CPRL of the late 1990s & early 2000s were contingency based, but placed no accountability on the chain of command and relied heavily on individual reservists. Reservists were individual players, not team players, gaining individual skills and almost never training with other reservists assigned to the same mobilization force element. The most recent fiasco with the CPRL, and the subsequent ad hoc filling of billets without regard to the CPRL billets or needs, shows no one continues to be held accountable. What the Coast Guard needs is a change in focus, moving from a unit-needs based forces to a contingency-based forces with a supporting structure, responsibility, and accountability.

Contingency Readiness the View to the Future
According to the Department of Defense, reserve forces “must be trained, ready and available for operational and contingency planning.” The report goes on to say reserve forces “are increasingly being called upon to provide operations tempo relief to Active forces.” While real-world missions improve reserve readiness and training proficiency, “repeated or lengthy peacetime operational mission participation can degrade the training level and readiness capability... to perform their specified wartime mission.” The Coast Guard needs to take this to heart as it looks to develop systems and processes which develop and maintain readiness over time.

The last two years have shown the Coast Guard Reserve must move from mobilization, augmentation, and integration to contingency readiness. The Coast Guard Reserve must be able to provide agile forces for a variety of contingencies, be they natural disasters such as hurricanes or floods, or man-made contingencies such as immigrant surges or terrorist attacks. The basic building block for Coast Guard Reserve readiness, response, and deployment should be skill-based contingency readiness teams (CRT). The service needs to move beyond individual-level mobilization requirements. A CRT is laser-focused in capability, fully trained, and self-standing for mission. While past Coast Guard Reserve mobilization plans have rested on the individual member, the CRT uses teams as the building block. Certainly, in the days of mobilization orders, a member’s billet was a part of a boat crew or other asset; however, the individual member usually never knew the other members of the crew or asset and never trained with those individuals. A CRT would perform inactive duty for training (IDT, also known as drills) and annual training together. Ideally, members of a CRT would remain together over a period of years, building expertise, camaraderie, and cross training.

Like the days of mobilization cards, where each member was assigned a mobilization location, CRTs would have pre-determined contingency locations. With a wide range of contingencies possible, each CRT would have three contingency locations. One of those contingency locations would be the CRT’s drilling location. The CRT would perform annual training at each contingency location during a six year cycle, spending three annual training periods at the primary contingency location, two annual training periods at the secondary location, and one period at the tertiary. In this way, the members of the CRT would be more than vaguely familiar with the operational area of the contingency location and would also be familiar with the command. Certainly, as has been demonstrated in the spring of 2003, the possibility exists a CRT might be needed at another location; the CRT could still be shifted based on the needs of the overall operational commander. CRT personnel would need to be flexible enough to perform their duties wherever needed.

Contingency response teams would be constructed in such a way as to meet the needs of operational commanders. Examples of CRTs are many:

Small boat crew (coxswain, engineer, crewmember, and two person boarding team)

Engineering support team (such as boat assist teams for small boat
engineering support, cutter assist teams for cutter engineering support similar
to current maintenance assist teams at each Naval Engineering Support Unit, or
weapons assist team)

Sea Marshall team

Command and control

Personnel support

The power behind these CRTs is three fold: they would perform IDT and annual training together, developing expertise, qualifications, and cross-training; they would be focused first on maintaining readiness for contingencies, rather than providing base-line augmentation and integration with active forces; and, they will become familiar with a variety of operating areas and operating conditions and will be better prepared when the time comes for contingency deployment.

In three specific instances, Coast Guard Reserve personnel would be assigned directly to a unit and not a CRT:

Port Security Units and other Naval Coastal Warfare dedicated assets (for OCONUS deployment in support of combatant commanders)

Maritime Safety & Security Teams (for INCONUS deployment in support of Coast Guard Forces commanders or NORTHCOM)

Joint command staff personnel

Even with the creation of CRTs, we are left with three important assumptions; while these are “givens” for this force creation, a change in any or all would not impact the CRT, support, and accountability structure. First, the Coast Guard Reserve will remain at a funded strength of 8,000 members. Second, members of the selected reserve will be capped at 48 IDT periods a year and 15 days of annual training. And, third, the Coast Guard Reserve will maintain an overall pyramid force structure.

Structure to Provide Accountability
The creation of contingency readiness teams is only part of the answer, however. How will the Coast Guard ensure accountability, while also maintaining the flexibility necessary to put resources, on short notice, where they are needed the most? The old reserve unit structure provided accountability; it also provided a huge administrative overhead some people thought excessive. Why duplicate effort? The active command had a training officer and an administrative staff; why have another catering just to part-timers? Perhaps the answer is reserve issues are mostly important, but hardly ever urgent. A missed physical isn’t all that urgent – until the service can’t recall the member because of a not-fit-for duty chit.

What the Coast Guard needs is a balance between the days of augmentation and the days of integration. Under augmentation, reservists were operationally assigned to the active duty command, but administratively remained attached to the reserve unit. The relationship between the reservist and the active duty command was very similar to an active duty member’s temporary additional duty assignment to a command. With augmentation, the command had the ability to use both active duty and reserve personnel as they saw fit, meeting the unit’s needs at a whim, if need be. Perhaps the answer lies with the Coast Guard’s twelve integrated support commands (ISC) and 39 commanders of Coast Guard Forces (CGF). (Coast Guard, 2002, pages 15 & 36)

Each ISC provides a regional (usually by Coast Guard District) integrated support command, overseeing all logistics, support, and depot level maintenance within their area of responsibility. A large part of this support is through the force optimization staff, home to the experts in training and reserve management. The CGF structure places all Coast Guard forces – be they traditional operational or marine safety or support assets – under one operational commander. Rather than reservists being integrated into active duty commands, reservists – by CRT – should be assigned to the regional ISC. Placing the administrative control with a single command, ultimately responsible to the operational commander, would provide for true accountability, and would place the burden on a command which is built for support. The ISC would “own” all reservists in CRTs, including the support and evaluation chains. The ISC would be responsible for ensuring the needs of the contingency commanders – the CGF – are met. In addition, the ISC would ensure the drill-sites’ needs are also met, but the deciding balance would be on contingency preparedness, not day-to-day operations as have been emphasized for more than two decades. Each CRT would have a memorandum of understanding to provide services and use the assets of the drill-site commander.

Each ISC would also be responsible for providing reservists with Commandant-mandated, non-operational training as well as for ensuring the completion of operational training. The ISC would monitor readiness, including qualifications, certifications, and currency. These added responsibilities would require additional full-time personnel at each ISC. Each force optimization staff would need to be enlarged. In addition, each ISC would need a senior officer to serve as the Commanding Officer for reserve personnel (in the same way the admin officer of a large shore staff services as the enlisted members’ commanding officer).

Perhaps the greatest increase for the ISC would be the creation of a training team focused on providing contingency training to both reserve and active personnel throughout their area of responsibility. The training team, which would include reservists as a part of a training CRT, would provide operational (such as small boat crewmember training) and non-operational (such as critical incident stress management familiarization) training.

Lastly, each CGF would have a full-time military member serve in their planning department who was the primary liaison between the ISCs and the other units. While each unit would have a designated reservist serving as the “senior reserve individual,” the CGF’s full time liaison would help bridge the gap between operations and support, and the liaison would help define the contingency commander’s needs.

Alternatives to the Contingency Readiness Teams
What are the other alternatives and are they viable? Certainly, the Coast Guard could return to either stand-alone reserve units or reserve units augmenting active duty commands. Or the Coast Guard could leave the integrated unit approach and create checks to ensure readiness. Stand-alone reserve units have an appeal from a contingency preparedness point of view. Reserve units would be able to solely dedicate all training time to contingency preparedness, with no diversion to real-world operations. The downfall of stand-alone reserve units is the flip side to the same coin: reservists would gain no real world experience, would be unable to train with operational equipment (or the Coast Guard would need to obtain boats and training aids just for reservists). Augmentation does not fair much better as an option. Reserve units had a substantial overhead dedicated to non-training and non-contingency issues. Commissioned officers spent almost all their time performing administrative work, rather than engaged in operational training or augmentation. If the Coast Guard leaves the force alone, the service will be faced with continued lack of accountability with regard to contingency preparedness. Many active duty commands, particularly the multi-mission small boat stations, have a difficult time just maintaining the status quo without regard to training part-time personnel for contingency support which will benefit another (receiving) command.

Some sort of CPRL or mobilization order system is another possibility. The CPRL system had a number of deficiencies. One of the greatest deficiencies was that reserve members did not know what CPRL billet they had been assigned to. In addition, no one was held accountable to ensure that people in CPRL billets actually had current qualifications required by the billet. The mobilization card system, while it didn’t have all of the CPRL weaknesses, was deficient in that it did not provide for flexibility in putting resources to emergent needs and provided no opportunity for personnel assigned to the same force element to train together.

Finally, the Coast Guard could resort to the Fedotoff White solution and have the Coast Guard Auxiliary – the service’s current “temporary reservists” – conduct all contingency operations. While this suggestion is slightly tongue-in-cheek, the Auxiliarists have been instrumental in both backfilling for search & rescue at multi-mission, small boat stations and in providing additional eyes and ears on America’s waterways as the nation creates a layered defense against terrorism.

Possible Problems with CRTs
The plan as presented has several problems which will need to be overcome. The first is that the plan, as delineated, will require at least 41 full-time military billets, minimum. This might be more than the Coast Guard can or will want to dedicate to this. Certainly, this could be trimmed by not placing dedicated personnel at each CGF or dual-hatting people. This degradation would negatively impact the deployment of the plan; an analysis of the negative impact is beyond the scope of this paper. Another stumbling block is that the CRT system would re-rack the entire reserve billet structure by location and specialty. A rough wag for the CRT structure is included as Appendix 1. The Coast Guard would need to create a transition plan to take the service from the current RPAL/CPRL structure to the CRT structure without drastically and severely negatively impact drilling reservists. In addition, the CRT structure as provided puts a premium on “doing work” and command & control; implementation of the CRT structure in a manner close to Appendix 1 would increase the enlisted ranks and reduce the officer corps. This might be politically unfeasible.

In Conclusion
While the last decade has seen an increase in the use of Coast Guard Reservists for surge and contingency operations through the use of voluntary and involuntary recalls, the service has not had a corresponding emphasis on the contingency preparedness for the reserve force. The emphasis at nearly every level of the organization has been the integration of active and reserve forces or the augmentation of active forces by reserve forces in order to provide training opportunities and accomplish the daily Coast Guard missions. While the Coast Guard has relied on active duty commanders to ensure mobilization readiness – under the banner or Team Coast Guard – no one has been held accountable for reserve readiness. By redirecting the emphasis of the Coast Guard Reserve to contingency readiness – and by creating systems to support and maintain this new emphasis – the Coast Guard will create a reserve force capable of supporting any number of contingencies in the maritime environment.

References
Bush, George W. “Remarks by the President at the Port of Philadelphia, 31 March 2003.” (14 April 2003).

Commander, Atlantic Area. “Daily Status Report – Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom – 18 Mar 03.” COMLANTAREA COGARD PORTSMOUTH VA 190533Z MAR 03.

Department of Defense. “Training and Readiness.” (11 April 2003)

Riker, J. T. “Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm After Action Report.”
(11 April 2003).

Stinson, Peter A. “Integration Roundtable: Tying up the loose ends following integration.” Coast Guard Reserve Magazine. March 1998.
(11 April 2003).

Toves, Scott. “Letter from the CGR Webmaster.” Coast Guard Reservist, March-April 2003, page 2.

U.S. Coast Guard. Standard Distribution List. 140. COMDTNOTE 5605. Washingon, DC: October 2002.

U.S. Coast Guard. “U.S. Coast Guard: History of the Coast Guard Reserve.” (11 April 2003a).

U.S. Coast Guard. “U.S. Coast Guard Reserve: Involuntary Recalls to Active Duty.” (11 April 2003b).

White, Dimitri Fedotoff. Grave Marker. Washington Memorial Chapel, Valley Forge, PA. (30 December 2002).

Appendix 1
Coast Guard Reserve Billet Strength
Contingency Response Teams
Click here to see appendix

World View 2025-2030 and the Impact on National Security

2003-01-21T16:56:00.000-05:00

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of National Security Decision Making and the Master of Arts in national security and decision making.

What will the world be like 25-30 years from now? What influences will impact the world within which the United States will operate with regard to national security?

Some would say that world has changed radically in the last two years. The September 2001 terrorist attacks were, indeed, a wake-up call, but they were not “new.” They were, rather, a continuation of trends which have been developing for the last 10-20 years. The next 25-30 years will continue to see shifts and trends in the world environment. These trends, like tides, will rise and fall with a gentleness, but will make all the difference in successful piloting and navigation.

Increased religious fundamentalism and religious populism: As has become painfully clear in the last several years, religion plays a huge role in the international arena. Bin Laden has used Islam as a rallying cry for his jihad; but, he is not alone. Religious fundamentalism, whether it be Islamic or Christian or Hindu or some other religion, has become a force to be reckoned with. Religious fundamentalists are willing to take up arms to show that their way is “the” way; let the infidels be damned. Religious fundamentalism will be both a wedge and a weapon in the years to come.

Continued Anti-American sentiment and blowback from American foreign policy: The United States has attempted to “take the high road” with many foreign policy issues. But, we don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Not only is there anti-American sentiment, but we are experiencing “blowback” from certain foreign policy decisions. The Lockerbie Pan Am bombing was in direct response to the death of Kadaffi’s daughter. This terrorist act was not an isolated incident. The September 2001 attacks were Bin Laden’s response to American presence in the Middle East. Again, blowback; for every foreign policy action, a reaction.

Increased power for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs): IGOs – such as the European Union, the World Bank, and the United Nations – will see increased power. States will, in many respects, turn power over to IGOs.

A stronger, more integrated Europe: We will continue to see Europe integrate, consolidating the European Union, NATO, and other European IGOs into a single, huge, force.

A developing pan-Asian union: Like Europe today, Asia will begin to act together, developing an Asian Union to better flex their collective muscles.

Non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) playing a larger role in the international arena: Like IGOs, NGOs will play a larger role in the international arena.

Increased operations from non-state terrorist actors or armed resistance groups (ARGs): If the last two years have shown us anything, they have shown us that ARGs are a force to be reckoned with. Loose, nimble, and powerful ARGs will continue to attack America and Americans.

Additional areas of impact include health crises, including AIDS, other viruses, and bacteria; continued divide between the “haves” and the “have nots”; Water shortages world-wide, particularly in Africa; new energy sources and, thus, less dependence on fossil fuels; and an increased proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).