Archive for category Jundism

Law Enforcement: Florida Trooper Arrests Miami Police Officer In Marked Car For Speeding

Nov 1

Posted by Matt in Florida, Jundism, Law Enforcement | 1 Comment

Wow, and good on this trooper for pulling over this Miami cop. And you know, she could have easily looked the other way and followed some kind of a ‘blue code’. But she did not, and she had the courage to do the right thing. I would give her a Jundism award for this one!

Hopefully she doesn’t get any reprisals for what she did, and yet again, that whole ‘blue code’ thing could pop up and her life as a trooper could get real lonely. Still, I certainly hope her department takes the right side of this deal, and makes a point that this is exactly what they want in a trooper, and slam any dork that thinks otherwise.

The Miami cop was also off duty and violating the speed limit because he was late for a job. Talk about an abuse of authority? -Matt

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Jundism: The Milgram Experiment And The Importance Of Leadership And Questioning Authority

Oct 30

Posted by Matt in Jundism, Leadership, Video | No Comments

I highly suggest watching this entire show on Discovery Channel called ‘Curiosity: How Evil Are You?‘ The show basically conducts the original Stanley Milgram Experiment with modern day participants.

The results are shocking. The experiment showed that today’s society is equally as susceptible as those participants in the original experiment 50 years ago.

Milgram wanted to answer the question on how humans could violate their consciousness and moral code in the name of ‘following orders’. Here is a quote from wikipedia about the experiment:

“Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?” In other words, “Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?” Milgram’s testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.

So here is the really motivating part about this experiment that I wanted to share and get out there. In the show towards the end, they modified the experiment to have two teachers, with one of the teachers being an actor. That actor would refuse administering the shock as it got higher, and the experiment was to see if their fellow teacher who thought this was real, would refuse with them. That they would not follow orders, and follow the path of someone that chose not to shock the learner.

In the show, the non-actor ‘real’ teacher did refuse, and that is very significant to this post.

Jundism is about being the guy that does question authority or leads by example. To be a positive influence within your team, and not fall within the trap of group think. Within a group setting, everyone might have the same doubts about a certain task or person, but until someone comes forward and acts on those doubts, everyone will just go along. It is my hope that you the reader will recognize how important this is. Just watch the experiments if you don’t believe me.

In the video below, this woman was a real participant and practitioner of Jundism, who actually said no right off the get go. She did not go along with the experiment because she actually thought about it. She had the courage to do what is right and go with her guts and moral code.

But she was also very rare, and the show identified how very few people actually said no to giving shocks to the learner. Let alone giving the ‘killing’ or life threatening shock to a learner. It is quite the thing to watch all of these normal everyday people, actually go through the act of harming an innocent person, all because someone said to do it.

What I want to leave the reader with is that if you can fight peer pressure, fight the urge to just go along with the group, and actually question authority or the group, then you could potentially save lives or serious heartache within your company. And it doesn’t have to be serious stuff, and it could be just leadership by example for everyday things like ‘training, fitness, decision making, ideas, innovations, leadership, etc.’. But it could also be leadership by example in ‘integrity’ situations, or deals where a line could be crossed by individuals, and no one else is stepping up to say ‘hey, this is not right’.

There are many facets of a contract and mission where you have the opportunity to show how it is done correctly.  If you are the guy that does things right, then you will have a good chance at bringing other folks with you on that path. -Matt

 

Milgram Experiment v2Jundism: The Milgram Experiment And The Importance Of Leadership And Questioning Authority

The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Leadership: Rooting Out Toxic Leaders–The Army’s 360 Degree Evaluations

Oct 10

Posted by Matt in Jundism, Leadership, Military News | No Comments

A recent survey of more than 22,630 soldiers from the rank of E-5 through O-6 and Army civilians showed that roughly one in five sees his superior as “toxic and unethical,” while 27 percent said they believe their organization allows the frank and free flow of ideas.

Very interesting. I have talked about evaluations in the past as a valuable tool for companies to track how policy and leadership interact out in the field. It is a metric, and it is something that most companies of various industries use to great effect–if they are done properly, and used properly….

So I can see where the Army is going with this, and I would be very interested to see the impact of this program. And I also think any leader that truly cares about doing a good job, will actually take a great interest in this kind of feedback from their subordinates. I know I would. It would be really cool if they applied this to NCO’s as well?

This also addresses the reality of what today’s forces are composed of. Millennials make up a large component of today’s military, and these guys like feedback. They want to know if they are screwing up or if there is something they can improve upon, and they seek feedback. Part of the reason for this is that technology has kind of molded this generation into a group that appreciates feedback more.

A guy posts a picture of his kit on an online forum or Facebook, and he will get multiple guys giving input about that equipment. You will see all sorts of replies addressing the pro’s and con’s of that individual’s gear. That is just one example, and technology makes it very easy to ask the group what they think.

You see very simple examples of this all over the place. Open source software is stuff built by the crowd, and critiqued by the crowd. It absolutely must have feedback in order to work. And this feedback loop is what a lot of people come to rely upon. Google lives for that feedback, or if you go onto Amazon.com, you see numerous folks giving feedback about all sorts books and products. All of this is very valuable to those who desire to build a better product or buy the best product. ‘Get feedback’ is also a jundism.

But I will hold judgement on this program until it has been applied and tested. The benefits could be many, just as long as it is not abused. Imagine a higher retention rate of troops, all because they have more respect for their management? That they actually feel that their feedback has value, and those in their command actually listen. Or imagine the residual effect of good leaders, and how that rubs off on the subordinates. You would be amazed at how much damage a bad leader can cause with their ‘poor example’.

On the other hand, an evaluation system like this should not be abused to the point where officers feel they cannot do what they gotta do to accomplish the mission. In war, ordering men and women to risk their lives, or to kill people is a reality. Hopefully an evaluation system like this does not weaken an officer’s ability to give those orders or to do the hard things. So we will see if this program actually adds value.

Another point I wanted to make with this is that if a leader is surrounded by yes men, or is plagued by group think with his immediate group of supervisors, then how would they ever know if they are being effective?  If everyone agrees with him all of the time, or that everyone thinks alike, then how will that management team ever know if they are doing well?  Or how will they sniff out problems, if all they care about is the input of one another?  Boyd would call this a ‘closed system’, and closed systems are bad.

By reaching out or by giving your subordinates the means to communicate their thoughts and ideas, you are turning your closed system into an open system.  Thus turning it into a system that can reach ‘equilibrium’. Or in the terms of the military or private industry, every one in the unit feels like they are actually part of a team.  Problems will not build to a point where things blow up and get ugly. That everyone’s ideas matter, and that they too can help build a better team, a better idea, a better business. Stuff like this is essential for unit cohesion, and that is why I refer to this as ‘feedback gold’. -Matt

 

Rooting out toxic leaders
By Michelle Tan
Sunday Oct 9, 2011
Soldiers will now be asked — and expected — to rate their bosses.
Effective Oct. 1, officers will be required to assert that they have completed a 360-degree evaluation — where the officer is graded by his subordinates, peers, subordinates and superiors — within the past three years.
Requiring officers to complete 360-degree evaluations should encourage them to grow and, at the same time, weed out potential toxic habits among officers, officials said.
A recent survey of more than 22,630 soldiers from the rank of E-5 through O-6 and Army civilians showed that roughly one in five sees his superior as “toxic and unethical,” while 27 percent said they believe their organization allows the frank and free flow of ideas.
The survey, conducted by the Center for Army Leadership, also stated that rooting out toxic leadership from the ranks requires “accurate and consistent assessment, input from subordinates, and a focus beyond what gets done in the short-term.”
Gen. Martin Dempsey, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said when he was the Army chief of staff that senior leaders must “change the culture of the Army to embrace 360s” and develop a culture where leaders want to know how they’re viewed by their peers and subordinates.
The 360-degree evaluation now required of officers is called the Army 360 Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback. This addition to the Officer Evaluation Record is among a list of changes the Army is making to the officer evaluation policy. The changes apply to OERs with a “thru date” of Nov. 1 and later.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said he believes “multidimensional feedback is an important component to holistic leader development.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Jundism: Steve Jobs On Life And Death–”Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish”

Oct 6

Posted by Matt in Jundism | No Comments

What a sad deal. Steve Jobs of Apple fame just died, and the world just lost an incredible innovator. With that said, I wanted to post a speech he gave that was incredibly inspirational. I will also be writing this post on my trusty Mac.

Steve Jobs outlines the mental tools or philosophies of his life, that he thought would help these students. He gave three stories that described exactly what he thought was important. Anyone from any industry and walk of life can be inspired by these concepts and lessons.

The first story is about connecting the dots.  Or basically, building snowmobiles. You take everything that you have learned in your past, analyze and synthesize, and build a better idea/product/service/strategy/tactic.  Jobs dropped out of college, but took a calligraphy in his final days at that college. Low and behold, he was fascinated with calligraphy and was able to draw upon that class and experience years later when he and his partners created the Mac computer. That bit of knowledge and experience, was like the skies of his ‘snow mobile’ called the Mac computer. He connected the dots of his past to create something new. Quote from speech:

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it’s likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.
Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

The second story is about love and loss. He talks about finding your passion or love, and recognize how valuable that is.  And he talks about how valuable failure or loss can be.  It forces you to re-evaluate your love affair with your subject, and it also forces you to re-invent yourself and the process. Steve goes into the story about him being let go by Apple at age 30, or to be fired by the company you started.  But then talks about the rebuilding process after that incident. That he went on to find other companies that were immensely successful, went on to find his wife, and then years later was brought back on to work at Apple–which was faltering at the time. When Jobs came back to Apple, he breathed new life and direction into the company, and lead a come back of all comebacks.

I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.
During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.
I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. I’m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.

The final story is about death.  Something this industry deals with in the war, and a reality that Jobs was certainly dealing with at the time of this speech. His view on death as a ‘change agent’, is awesome.

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

Don’t be trapped by dogma……have the courage to follow your heart and intuition….your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.  Incredible words to live by, and an incredible view about something all of us will face one day. And Steve lived these words until he died. Steve also reminds me of Boyd when it comes to idea creation and battling dogma, and having the courage to follow your heart and intuition.

I really liked the last bit of his speech. It is important to note, because this is what he felt summed up all of his thoughts on life and death, and what will get you through. It is also the back story to the title of this post.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960′s, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.
Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.” It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.
Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Good stuff, and Steve Jobs is quite the man. Transcripts for the speech here. -Matt

 

Tags: , , , ,

Call To Action: On 9/11, Remember The Fighting Spirit And Courage Of Civilians On Flight 93

Sep 10

Posted by Matt in Call To Action, Jundism | 3 Comments

I am a civilian and on September 11th 2001, my fellow civilians (and citizens) of the US were attacked by terrorists. They were killed at the World Trade Center, they were killed at the Pentagon, and they were killed on Flight 93. My fellow civilians were also maimed in these attacks, and they live with those mental and physical scars every day.

On September 11th 2001, we lost many. This may have been an attack on US soil, but this was not just an attack on the US. Civilians were the main target, and the victims held nationalities from all over the world. On that day, a war was declared on civilians.

We also lost soldiers, policemen, firemen, contractors and federal employees. These men and women gave all in the defense of civilians that day. They did their job and paid an incredible sacrifice, and we will never forget what they did for us.

But my fellow civilians did not go quietly either. On Flight 93, after recognizing what the intent of the terrorists were, they decided to fight. On that flight, civilians came together to stop the evil that hijacked their plane. They charged the cockpit, wrestled control of the plane from the terrorist, and were able to prevent that plane from crashing into the capital of the United States. During that struggle, the plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania and terrorists and civilians alike all perished.

This is something to ponder. A group of civilians on a random flight, coming together for one cause to stop evil and survive. No one trained them to do what they did, no one briefed them on what to expect, no one told them to sacrifice for this country…..but they did. They decided to fight for their lives, and they were intent on stopping this evil from achieving it’s goal.

I think it is still important to pay tribute to all that died.  It is a significant world wide memory that is forever seared into all of our brains. But what is even more important to me is to remember this event as a day where civilians were empowered to fight back, and make a difference.

It is human to be sad about such loss, but we should also celebrate the fighting spirit of these civilians. It is that fighting spirit, courage, and resolve that we can all use in our daily lives, and in our world wide war against this enemy. Every flight, every subway, every public gathering should be looked at as an opportunity for civilians to stand up to our enemy. We physically ‘stand up’ by having the courage to fight this enemy where ever they may be, and we mentally ‘stand up’ by not living in fear. And of course morally, we maintain the high ground when the enemy intentionally targets our civilian populations.

We are stronger. We are more determined. We will never forget, and this ends when the enemy is reduced to a pitiful memory. It also ends when the enemy is not able to count on the fear of civilians, or that the enemy fears the very population that it targets. Not only must we never forget the loss on this terrible day, but we must also celebrate the fighting spirit and courage of these civilians on Flight 93. -Matt

Flight 93 National Memorial Campaign here.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Jundism: In Praise Of Those Who ‘Do’….

Jun 30

Posted by Matt in Jundism, Kaizen, Leadership | 3 Comments

‘Only accurate rifles are interesting.’ -Townsend Whelen

This is a quick post, but important. For Townsend, only accurate rifles are interesting. I like that quote, and I think it works well with what I believe in, and that is ‘only those that do are interesting’. Over the years, I have received numerous emails from readers who had the courage ‘to do’ what is right. To quote Col. John Boyd, they chose the route of ‘to do’ when they came to that great crossroads of life that everyone experiences, and they wanted to share that with me.

These men and women are my heroes, and they are what inspire me every time I work on this blog or think about how to improve this industry and war effort. They are the unsung heroes of every company, military unit or government, that had the courage to stand up and demand excellence or battle with those who are unjust.  They have also done these things at peril to self, all because being righteous sometimes equates to being unpopular or not advancing in an organization. But at least they did not compromise what they believed in, and this is what makes them more interesting and more of a leader than any of those that strive ‘to be’.

There are other moments of jundism that I hear about that motivates me. Those that came up with the better idea, and fought hard for that better idea and won, are also my heroes. They might have built a snowmobile, and created a new idea, which is really awesome. Or they might have lost the battle, all because of someone else’s ego or pride.  Either way, that individual get’s my respect for fighting the good fight.

The other thing I like to focus in on with my exchanges with the readership, either here or at Facebook, is to empower those individuals in their personal battles. To actually give them the means to win those battles through sound strategy and good intelligence. ‘Know yourself, know your enemy’, as Sun Tzu would say.  But most importantly, win without fighting.

That last part is very important.  I want my readership to win their battles, and not face casualty. That is very hard to do though, and even in my personal battles, I have lost. But I have also won some battles, and the key is to learn from those losses and continuously improve upon your ability to win future battles. And of course, the ultimate in war fighting, or the battle of wills and ideas, is to win without fighting at all.

To do this, you must know your adversaries well, and know yourself so you can figure out what ‘winning’ really means. Studying strategy, and borrowing brilliance is crucial. You must also avoid fights that end up in pyrrhic victories. Seek fights where your strength can defeat their weakness, and get that win. I want you to continue working in this industry and become a force of change, or to be the example.  That is winning.  To destroy yourself while destroying your opponent is losing in my book. Remember this when thinking of conducting legal battles, or battles with management and other individuals in your particular occupation.

Finally, it gives me great pleasure to know that jundism and this blog is bringing about a revolution in thought process. I have readers who are now students of good leadership, who are innovators, who are not afraid to do what is right, etc. They are also students of strategy and are continuously improving. These  readers and leaders have embraced these ideas, and have used them to their advantage.  It is a privilege and honor to be a part of that process and serve this family.

For those that fall under the category of ‘to be’, all I have to say is that you do not earn my respect. Although there is something I do like about this loathsome group…..  I like to study you, so I can empower those that aspire ‘to do’, to defeat you. -Matt

“Tiger, one day you will come to a fork in the road,” he said. “And you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go.” He raised his hand and pointed. “If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.”
Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed another direction. “Or you can go that way and you can do something – something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference.”
He paused and stared into the officer’s eyes and heart. “To be somebody or to do something.” In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do. Which way will you go?”- Col. John Boyd

Tags: , , , , ,

Leadership: Lecture Series–The Art Of Critical Decision Making, By Professor Michael Roberto

Nov 24

Posted by Matt in Cuba, Disaster Response, Industry Talk, Jundism, Leadership, Podcasts, Strategy | No Comments

     After the Bay of Pigs failure, President Kennedy and his advisors reflected on their mistakes and created a new process for group discussion and decision making to prevent future groupthink and promote diverse perspectives. Here, Professor Roberto introduces the concept of developing a decision-making process. -From the Lecture ‘Deciding How To Decide’

paragraph dividerLeadership: Lecture Series The Art Of Critical Decision Making, By Professor Michael Roberto

     This is a great lecture series that a friend of mine hooked me up with, and I highly recommend it. It was engaging and thought provoking, and there were so many cool ideas to take away from this if you are looking for leadership guidance. As I listened to it, there were many Jundism concepts that kept popping up in various forms and examples.

     The particular lecture that I will highlight in this post is the ‘deciding how to decide’ portion.  I took notice, because this method of decision making was born out of the highest levels of leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion failure.  The Bay of Pigs invasion was an embarrassing mistake that resulted from poor decision making at the top.  Or what the professor referred to as ‘group think’ (being surrounded by ‘yes men’ and folks unwilling to question the group or leadership out of fear of being wrong or just assuming everyone else is right)

     The Cuban Missile Crisis was an extreme test of wills, and required the best possible strategy that would prevent the US and the Soviet Union wiping each other out with nuclear weapons. President Kennedy devised a system of decision making that would produce the best product or solution possible, that was not a victim of group think.  He used a system of subgroups that would develop solutions independently, then those groups would exchange their solutions with the other groups and critique.

    A second set of devils advocates or eyes would also review the solutions, and further nitpick the possible solutions until the best idea was standing. So this solution was hammered out of truly honest debate, and any influences that would cause people to not speak up was eliminated.  I thought it was an ingenious way of problem solving, and especially during crisis. (be sure to listen to the series to get the specifics on how to set up this system) The situation with North Korea bombing South Korea, and the US and China reaction to it is a prime example of modern day critical decision making with high stakes involved.  How President Obama decides, will really be based more on deciding how to decide first, so that the solution he gets is strategically sound and not at all influenced by group think.

    Military leaders and CEO’s can learn from this as well.  Leaders should strive hard to have honest debate about strategy and it takes listening to your people, and being open to ideas to get there.  It also requires breaking down those walls that limit honest debate, and really being aware of group think and it’s dangers. Check out the series to learn more, and let me know what you think. Also check out Professor Roberto’s blog if you want to follow his ideas or contact him. -Matt

rule dividerLeadership: Lecture Series The Art Of Critical Decision Making, By Professor Michael Roberto

THE ART OF CRITICAL DECISION MAKING

Genre: Audio or video CourseLength: Twenty-four, thirty-minute lecturesTeacher: Prof. Michael Roberto, Bryant UniversityPublisher: The Teaching Company

By Tom Alderman

July 23, 2009

Following the disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy asked former President Eisenhower to the White House to seek the old soldier’s counsel. The new president wanted to know what he could learn from the whole sorry mess. Instead of the expected military hoo-hah, Ike wanted to know how the decision was made to go ahead with the Cuban invasion? How did the president gather advice from his advisors? Not a surprising question considering the five-star general led a contentious military coalition during World War II, not because of his martial skills, but because of his extraordinary leadership abilities which included understanding the core ingredient in all critical decision making: whether you’re launching a D-Day invasion, a career, a product or service, HOW you decide is more important than WHAT you decide. The process you use determines a successful outcome and if that process is not clear and effective, you’re going down.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Industry Talk: AGNA Report News–Sloppy Reporting And Range Violations By The IG In Afghanistan

Oct 31

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Industry Talk, Jundism, Leadership | No Comments

     A senior level review of the misconduct allegations against AGNA personnel, combined with AGNA’s history of contract compliance de?ciencies, led DS, AQM, and Embassy Kabul to conclude that it was in the best interests of the Government to compete a new contract. In light of recent legislation, the KESF contract has been combined with the Baghdad Embassy Security Force and Worldwide Personal Protective Services II (WPPS II) contracts into one base Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) contract.  The new WPS contract is a multi-award, inde?nite delivery, inde?nite quantity (IDIQ) contract that will be awarded on a best value basis. Individual requirements, such as the KESF, will be awarded as task orders under the base WPS contract. The current KESF contract with AGNA expired on June 30, 2010, but performance has been extended until the end of December 2010 to allow for the completion of the acquisition process for the new WPS contract and KESF task order and to provide for an orderly transition to the next provider. -From the Bureau of DS Comments in Report 

paragraph dividerIndustry Talk: AGNA Report News Sloppy Reporting And Range Violations By The IG In Afghanistan

     What I wanted to do here is give the former contractors and managers of Armorgroup North America a chance to voice their opinion of the latest report. My inbox is filled with numerous emails from former employees and managers of AGNA, all wanting to tell their side of story. Partly because Congress, State or the IG really could care less about the little guy on the ground, and partly because the report is sloppy. So call this a rebuttal from the little guy.

     This particular email was from a former manager at AGNA, whose identity I will refer to as ‘former manager’. I would hope that this would have some significance to those that are reading this, and that what he has to say pretty much conflicts with what the IG is reporting. Specifically that the weapons issue pointed out in the report was lacking some key points, and that the IG violated the range rules during their inspection.

     I might also add that there is nothing in the report that discusses how AGNA came to be contracted in the first place. The Commission on Wartime Contracting came out with an excellent and damning report about how Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable contracting is what created the environment that forced State to contract with the lowest bidder.

     It is also interesting to me that Danielle Brian of POGO still asserts that LPTA is a legitimate contracting mechanism for security contracting in war zones, when there has been several reports presented that have identified the horrific secondary affects of this type of contracting in war-zones.

     Best Value contracting would have given State more choice and flexibility in the matter, and they could have gone with the best company for the job and not with the cheapest or technically acceptable. It would not have been a race to the bottom, but a race to the best value company for the job.

    Furthermore, why is POGO so silent about the TWISS program, another example of the failure of LPTA? (did I mention that companies are now considering Sierra Leone contractors as guards because they are cheaper than Ugandans?) I know POGO reads the blog and I have directed everyone that has complained to me, to go to POGO and voice their concern. I would like to think that POGO would actually listen to what the guys on the ground have to say about such things?

     Or why is the Army using LPTA for FOB security in Afghanistan, when the CWC is so opposed to it? I posted a ton of contracts flying that were all LPTA, and here we are trying to convince Karzai to not ban PSC companies. With LPTA, we are giving him more ammunition by putting our lowest bidders, ‘junior varsity squads’ out there. Pffft.

     The other thing that pisses me off about LPTA, is that the troops see the direct result of this on the FOBs. How would you feel if you were being protected by the lowest bidder? It is a simple question, that pisses off most when they come to the conclusion that they don’t like it. Especially if their base has been attacked, like what has happened frequently in Afghanistan.

     LPTA doesn’t work for picking a doctor to cure your sick mother, and it doesn’t work for picking a company to protect your people in a war zone. LPTA is great for picking a company to rake your leaves though. lol You get what you pay for, and that is the lesson I got out of the reports.

    Thats not to say that State or AGNA doesn’t share any fault here, but Congress must take more blame, and all because they insisted on lowballing the security for Embassy protection in the first place.

    Finally, this post is about the guys on the ground who were contracted to operate in this environment. They are the ones that take on the task of trying to make this mess work. No one signs on to a contract to do bad. They sign on so they can be employed and pay their bills/feed their family at home. They sign on because they care about participating in the war. They are also sacrificing by being away from family, or facing death and injury in war-zones–and all for their country and for the war effort. We should support them, not hate them.

     Most guys whom have done the contracting thing for awhile have also worked for numerous companies. A contractor could have worked for Xe, Custer Battles, Erinys, Aegis, AGNA etc., and that is not abnormal nor does that mean the contractor is a bad guy. They are going where the work is so they can continue to earn a living and serve in the war. I am sure when EODT takes over this contract in Kabul, AGNA guys will be ‘switching t-shirts’ and transition under the management of this new company.

     I want to make sure that Congress, State, AGNA, and now EODT knows that these men need leaders who can manage a ‘properly funded, staffed, and equipped’ contract at all levels. These men are not the bad guys, and they deserve the best management we can give them.

     This work force will move mountains for you, if you actually apply a little Jundism to your management principles as well. Know your stuff, have the courage to do what is right, and take care of your people. Trust, but verify. Lead by example. Lead from the front. Your people will support what they help to create. Obtain feedback gold. Create a learning organization and gain a shared reality. Continuous improvement and customer service and satisfaction. Have fun.  All of this stuff is important, and all of it should be geared towards results and getting the job done. -Matt

 rule dividerIndustry Talk: AGNA Report News Sloppy Reporting And Range Violations By The IG In Afghanistan

From Former Manager at AGNA

     “Sorry I cannot be more forthcoming with dates and witnesses, most have left. A number of the team in Kabul are upset as great progress has been made and this is rarely acknowledged, we just get the old issues regurgitated and inaccurate reporting. No organisation, or individual, is perfect and mistakes will be made, but, this report is poor and has an impact on individuals and corporations. How can organizations be expected to work with the IG if they produce sloppy reports, it is counter productive. Instead of working on ways to improve the contracting process and performance; it erodes it – people do not put things in writing, everyone tries to cover their backs all the time, every decision takes a long time/ or make poor ones, as people try to assess what an inspector or congressman (who has to be re-elected every two years) might say three years from now and with 20/20 hindsight.”

From IG Report In Regards To The Firing Range

      AGNA does not adequately maintain training records. AGNA firearms instructors failed to sufficiently instruct guards to help correct firing errors. Instructors also qualified guards who did not achieve the minimum qualifying score at the firing range.

From Former Manager at AGNA

     “There are other areas that need to be looked at – such as the statement that AGNA fails to conduct weapon training properly – how can they make this a key finding from a visit to one range? The same range the inspector is removed from the firing line by a former ranger chief instructor for moving in front of the firing line. The same inspector who, in front of the project manager, grabbed an M4 from a guard to check the serial number, not checking the weapon status/ clearing it and muzzle sweeping personnel in the process – we would be disciplined for handling a weapon in this way. How can they say AGNA put guards on post who failed the weapons qual, without checking the source documentation? (which they found difficult to navigate but did not ask the training staff to assist them in finding). Have you looked at the equation they used with regard to rifle quals? It makes no sense to me and I believe the two personnel they say failed actually had passed if you looked at the source document, not the spreadsheet where results are collated. They say guards were on post for 8 months without training, yet they interviewed some of these guards, I would imagine that they should have asked them if they had undergone training and when? If they were trained prior to standing post (which they were) then it is an issue of maintenance of records, which is still a problem to be highlighted and resolved, but does not effect the security of the Embassy.”

From IG Report In Regards To Weapons

     AGNA’s current control of U.S. Government-furnished property is generally satisfactory, but AGNA cannot account for 101 U.S. Government-furnished weapons that have been missing since 2007. Additionally, from July 2007 until September 2009, AGNA used U.S. Government-furnished weapons to train guards when contractor-furnished weapons were required by its contract. OIG calculates that AGNA’s loss and misuse of these U.S. Government-furnished weapons cost the government $431,000.

*****

     OIG found that AGNA cannot account for 101 U.S. Government-furnished assault ri?es of a lot of 116 that was to be returned to the U.S. Government in July 2007 under a contract modi?cation. OIG found one missing assault ri?e of this lot under a desk in an AGNA of?ce. The photo on the right in Figure 3 shows the assault ri?e as found under the desk. DS was able to locate an addition 14 weapons that had been transferred to other State Department of?ces and US Government agencies. Neither AGNA nor DS could provide documentation verifying the return or location of the remaining 101 assault ri?es. OIG calculates this assault ri?e lot is worth approximately $50,000.

     According to correspondence between the Department and AGNA management, from July 2007 until September 2009, AGNA did not provide a suf?cient number of contractor-furnished weapons to the KESF guards. Instead, AGNA used U.S. Government-furnished weapons for training, although the contract required contractor-furnished weapons (U.S. Government-furnished weapons are to be used for guard duty). AGNA and the Department negotiated a ?nancial settlement in which AGNA was to reimburse the U.S. Government $381,000 for the use of these weapons. However, OIG reviewed invoices and found that AGNA has not yet reimbursed the Department. DS of? cials con?rmed that AGNA has yet to reimburse the Department.

From Former Manager at AGNA

     “The original contract and mod 1 contained 116 soviet block weapons that were used on the previous contract, before the Govt supplied US weapons. As these weapons were not going to be used on the program DoS moved them to their own storage unit prior to 1 July 2007 (when AGNA took responsibility for the contract). Consequently these weapons were never part of the equipment handover and AGNA did not sign for them on handover. Because of this the contract was modified in mid July 2007 reflecting this. How can AGNA provide handover documentation for items they were never responsible for? It seems as if the IG assumed AGNA was responsible because the contract mod was mid July, but that is a poor assumption, and the IG was informed of the situation by DS.”

     “From what I understand DoS then gave AGNA some of the weapons (7 or so) to use for identification training (they were generally kept on the training/ briefing room in full view), but they were demilitarized (welded bolt, soldered and bent barrel etc). One of these weapons is the one seen in the photograph in the report. Other weapons were sent to the US for use at DS facilites and the rest were disposed of, although I do not know how. Most of the people involved in this are DoS personnel who oversaw the program handover. Those from AGNA have since left the company. However, with all the scrutiny on this program you would think that DoS would have mentioned AGNA ‘losing’ 100+ weapons before now…”

Comments from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in Report

     A senior level review of the misconduct allegations against AGNA personnel, combined with AGNA’s history of contract compliance de?ciencies, led DS, AQM, and Embassy Kabul to conclude that it was in the best interests of the Government to compete a new contract. In light of recent legislation, the KESF contract has been combined with the Baghdad Embassy Security Force and Worldwide Personal Protective Services II (WPPS II) contracts into one base Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) contract.  The new WPS contract is a multi-award, inde?nite delivery, inde?nite quantity (IDIQ) contract that will be awarded on a best value basis. Individual requirements, such as the KESF, will be awarded as task orders under the base WPS contract. The current KESF contract with AGNA expired on June 30, 2010, but performance has been extended until the end of December 2010 to allow for the completion of the acquisition process for the new WPS contract and KESF task order and to provide for an orderly transition to the next provider.

Link to report here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leadership: Harvard Business Review–Leadership Lessons From The Military

Oct 23

Posted by Matt in Jundism, Leadership, Military News | No Comments

     Imagine a company with a new board of directors, charged with entering complex markets while managing rapid growth, both organic and through M&A. This company is struggling to hit its performance targets. It has been hemorrhaging money and hasn’t turned a profit in over eight years. Needless to say, shareholders are upset. How would most senior management teams handle these problems? In today’s competitive business space, chances are they would go outside the organization for highly skilled, industry knowledgeable, impartial consultants to work with them to solve strategic-level inefficiencies. 

     Now consider that this troubled company is actually NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). ISAF (the “Coalition”) faces real business problems in Afghanistan and are pressured by a global audience to make significant progress by the end of 2010. The Coalition is at a tipping point and should use every resource available to improve their bottom line — promote stability and support security sector reforms throughout Afghanistan. Who are they bringing in to help them expand, operate efficiently, measure success, and develop a unified strategy?- HBR Blog, Consultants: Help Wanted In Afghanistan

*****

    I have thoroughly enjoyed this series at Harvard Business Review. The military needs this kind of perspective, because just like business can learn from the military, the military can certainly learn from business. Especially in the realm of getting results. Because lets face it, a military can be highly advanced and well equipped all day long, but if it cannot produce the desired results or win, then what good is it?

    In the past I have touched on this idea that private industry has the power of failure that drives it. But when the US Army fails, who fires them?  What will replace the the Army if it fails? So in essence, today’s military branches must succeed and they must tap into any and all ways of getting the desired results they are seeking in a war.

    Back to this post though. This is about what private industry can learn from military leadership, and I always like reading about these lessons learned. It is always fun to see what professionals in other industries are surprised at or intrigued with in today’s military. They too are trying to get results and win their business wars, so this kind of article is an outcome of their learning organization. And Harvard Business Review is quite the learning organization.

     Below I posted all the executive summaries. But if you follow the blog link and website link, you will find other related materials. So definitely take your time and read through everything. I thought it was cool that Admiral Thad Allen was a big fan of Peter Senge and his books. Books like The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, which has themes that you see echoed in other military thinker’s and business folk’s publications. John Nagl mentions ‘learning organization’ in his books, and I have talked about that stuff here on the blog in the past. It is also a Jundism. Check it out and let me know what you think. -Matt

——————————————————————

Harvard Business Review

Leadership Lessons From The Military

November 2010

Executive Summaries

Extreme Negotiations

Jeff Weiss, Aram Donigian, and Jonathan Hughes

CEOs and other senior executives must make countless complex, high-stakes deals across functional areas and divisions, with alliance partners and critical suppliers, and with customers and regulators. The pressure of such negotiations may make them feel a lot like U.S. military officers in an Afghan village, fending off enemy fire while trying to win trust and get intelligence from the local populace.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Publications: Breaking Ranks–Dissent And The Military Professional, By Andrew Milburn

Oct 6

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Jundism, Military News | No Comments

Should dissent be founded on the right action or the right effect? A third of the MCWAR officers surveyed argued that in the face of a moral dilemma, the military professional should focus on the effect desired: mitigation of the immoral order, rather than the conscience- salving but possibly ineffectual act of resignation. These officers advocated an indirect approach: addressing higher authority, leaking the story to trusted journalists or politicians, and dragging their feet in execution— “slow rolling” in military parlance. “What else can I do?” asked one officer rhetorically. “My only option is to conduct covert actions to reduce the risks of misfortune and of American casualties.”18 This approach is certainly not without precedent. As one Army colonel commented in response to the survey, “The most (commonly) used form of disobeying an order I’ve seen is slow-rolling.”19 This option does have some prima facie appeal, combining its own moral logic with a pragmatic focus on effects.

***** 

     Thanks to Paul from Facebook for bringing this to my attention.  This paper is actually causing quite a stir amongst the military crowd, and is certainly thought provoking. It also is relevant considering the General McChrystal firing a couple months back.

     What struck me as extremely interesting, is the conclusion and the preferred method of dissent with today’s command. That would be covert dissent, because it allows the commander to stay in their position of power and continue to protect their people and others.

     Commanders have a choice when they have decided that an order is immoral. They could be overt or covert with their protest. If they are overt, they would be fired or have to resign, but their message would be loud and clear. This is a symbolic stance, and can be successful if used properly.  The problem with that one though, is their men would still be a victim of that order because the replacement leadership would probably be selected for it’s ability to carry out the order and not question the higher command. You would hope that the symbolic open protest would stop the activity, but what if it doesn’t? Now you are no longer in the loop to stop the source of this terrible and life threatening decision making.

     Or an officer can stay in that position, yet covertly protest the order using a number of methods. You can fight it from within. Slow rolling or ‘dragging your feet’ was mentioned as the most commonly used way to disobey an order. Other methods were to leak the immoral or unethical order to the press or appealing to higher authorities. With these methods, an officer can stay in command, achieve the goal of commanding and protecting their troops, while at the same time disobeying the order. In other words, to stay in their position of power and dissent covertly is preferred.

     Now if I was to compare this to the private industry, there are similar themes. On the blog I have talked about some of this stuff under the category of Jundism. ‘Have the courage to do what is right’ is one of those topics that I have touched on. I have also discussed ways in which managers or contractors can report wrong doing within the company. You can be an overt whistleblower, or you can dissent covertly.  My thoughts on it are to dissent covertly, use whatever strategy you can to protect self and others, and leave the company as soon as you can find another gig. With this last method, you can also educate your subordinates to do the same and as a manager you can protect them until they too can leave. Just leave and don’t waste your time and life on a pathetic company. With this method, the company will either suffer massive attrition, damage to their reputation and a loss of money. Or if they care to be competitive in today’s market, they will learn that ‘taking care of your people’ is pretty darn important.

     The only time I advocate open protest is when lives are needlessly put at risk because of a company policy, and time is of the essence. You must protect yourself and others, and do it the smartest way possible. But I also realize that the situation dictates.

     Another point to bring up for those of you that have an interest in monitoring companies.  Probably one of the best indicators of the quality and health of a company, is to review how many folks have resigned or were fired. Those companies with high attrition rates are usually the ones that do a terrible job of taking care of their people. Or to review those companies with numerous defaults on contracts.

     I have even heard of guards organizing and striking, and that would be another area to investigate. Or better yet, guards collectively jumping contract, and crossing over to another company.  That way they maintain work and their team cohesion,  and they overtly hurt the company by costing them money (training, transport, etc.) or causing a default on contract.

     But these contractors can also become blacklisted by said company with both of these incidents. A contractor’s reputation might be negatively impacted by an action like this as well. So with that said, a contractor really has to be smart as to the best course of action.

    With that whole blacklist thing, I will have to do a separate post.  You can get blacklisted or put on a ‘do not hire’ list for all sorts of reasons and it is another reason why dissent must really be thought through before you take action. Good stuff and definitely some ‘to be, or to do‘ related ideas. -Matt

——————————————————————

Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional

By Andrew R. Milburn

Click here to download the PDF

Lieutenant Colonel Andrew R. Milburn, USMC, is assigned to Special Operations Command, Europe, Future Operations (J3).

There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer’s customary obligation to obey and his moral obligation to dissent. This topic defies black-and-white specificity but is nevertheless fundamental to an understanding of the military professional’s role in the execution of policy. It involves complex issues—among them, the question of balance between strategy and policy, and between military leaders and their civilian masters.

Any member of the military has a commonly understood obligation to disobey an illegal order; such cases are not controversial and therefore do not fall within the purview of this article. Instead, the focus is on orders that present military professionals with moral dilemmas, decisions wherein the needs of the institution appear to weigh on both sides of the equation. Whether the issuer of the order is a superior officer or a civilian leader, the same principles apply. However, because issues at the strategic level of decisionmaking have greater consequences and raise wider issues, I focus on dissent at this level.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,