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.”
“By encouraging input from peers, subordinates and superiors alike, leaders can better ‘see themselves’ and increase self-awareness,” Odierno said in a statement to Army Times. “A 360-degree approach applies equally to junior leaders at the squad, platoon and company levels, as well as to senior leaders. The ability to receive honest and candid feedback, in an anonymous manner, is a great opportunity to facilitate positive leadership growth.”
The MSAF program is not new but until now has been voluntary and was not tied to the OER, said Col. Thomas Guthrie, director of the Center for Army Leadership, which developed the MSAF.
Commander’s Assessment Tool
In addition to the 360 MSAF, the Army is working on a Commander’s Assessment Tool, which also is an initiative from Dempsey, Guthrie said.
The tool, which is being developed by the Center for Army Leadership, is similar to a 360-degree evaluation and will be used to inform a command selection board as it evaluates officers for command.
The Army this year has relieved four brigade commanders, the highest number since 2005. At least two of the firings had nothing to do with misconduct or battlefield performance, but were related to toxic leadership issues.
The goal is to launch a pilot program in fiscal 2012 to test the assessment tool in the brigade command selection board, Guthrie said. If things go well, the assessment tool will be implemented in fiscal 2013 and could be added to command selection boards at the battalion level, he said.
Since Jan. 1, about 10,000 officers and about 10,000 noncommissioned officers have chosen to complete a 360 MSAF, Guthrie said.
He said he anticipates the number of officers taking the evaluation to grow with this new requirement on the OER. However, officers only have to show that they have completed a 360 MSAF. The results of the 360 MSAF will not be part of their OER, Guthrie said.
“The Army is trying to get its leaders to be lifelong learners,” Guthrie said. “If you check ‘No,’ [on your OER], it doesn’t mean you’ll be kicked out of the Army or get a bad OER. Right now, the intent is to encourage people to acknowledge they need to be self-developed.”
Once every 3 years
However, in the future, Guthrie said he expects the 360 MSAF to be mandatory at least once every three years and be included in the Army regulation governing training and leader development.
“We don’t want people rushing to an MSAF event just because they have an OER coming up in 45 days,” Guthrie said. “Checking ‘No’ is not a discriminator right now, but certainly with it becoming mandatory, I would expect that unless under extreme circumstances, everyone will be able to check ‘Yes’ [on their OERs].”
Once all the responses are submitted, they are pulled together by the MSAF experts and a report is provided to the officer who’s being evaluated.
Individual responses will not be available. Instead, the officer will see an aggregate of the responses from each category of soldiers — superiors, peers and subordinates, Guthrie said. That means the officer will not be able to attribute specific comments to a specific soldier, guaranteeing anonymity, he said.
The officer will then be able to compare the report with his self-evaluation, Guthrie said.
The officer being evaluated is the only person who receives a copy of the report, he said.
“It was designed to be for the individual’s self-development, self-awareness and growth,” Guthrie said.
Commanders receiving a unit MSAF also will receive, in addition to an individual assessment, a picture of how his command climate is viewed by the evaluating soldiers, Guthrie said.
As an officer reviews his report, he should find what Guthrie calls blind spots and hidden strengths.
“If you use how you view yourself as a baseline and you compare it, you should say, ‘Hey, I rated myself very high on this attribute, but my subordinates rated me low.’ We call that a blind spot,” Guthrie said. “On the converse side, you may think you rate yourself pretty average on these few competencies and everyone else rates you as superior. I like to say you pat yourself on the back for the hidden strengths.”
But don’t stop there, Guthrie said.
For blind spots or areas where officers want or need improvement, MSAF offers coaches — retired senior officers and NCOs — who will work directly with an individual and provide advice or a developmental plan. Officers also can access the Army’s Virtual Improvement Center for online workshops, videos and slides. These two resources, however, are voluntary and must be requested by the officer being evaluated, Guthrie said.
“Quite frankly, there are probably guys who look at [their report] and go, ‘That was mildly interesting, and I disagree with what everyone said,’” Guthrie said. “But we’re trying to encourage people to work on self-development.”
Positive responses
Several officers contacted by Army Times found the evaluations valuable. Maj. Nate Palisca, an armor officer attending Intermediate-Level Education at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., said he has completed two 360-degree evaluations, one when he was a young captain and the second when he was preparing to attend ILE.
“I wanted to get an azimuth check of where I stood,” Palisca said. “It’s not always easy to see yourself, and I think that’s the value of the MSAF, to get that take on how people see you.”
“I don’t mind honest feedback … but I’m glad to see the feedback given on the MSAF will not impact the OER,” he said.
Palisca said that even if the MSAF was not required, he likely would continue seeking 360-degree evaluations. One of the lessons Palisca said he took away from his 360-degree evaluations was feedback that told him he didn’t give enough recognition to subordinates for their contributions.
“I thought I was, but I’ve made a conscious decision to make a concerted effort to recognize the contributions of the people I’m working with,” he said. “There’s a reason you ask for feedback from subordinates, peers and superiors, because they look at you through different lenses.”
Story here.