We have all heard someone say, “I am not a pessimist; I am a realist.” It is a phrase that has many different layers to it, and it is definitely a topic worth discussing.
There are many that would argue that the world is a terrible and chaotic place characterised by suffering, confusion, and destruction. In many ways they are right. It is not hard to find mediums depicting the destruction and degradation of our societies. If one were actively looking it would take them less than 10 seconds and would probably be as easy as turning on the news. These people often self-characterised as ‘realists’ would reasonably argue that there is no point in burying one’s head in the sand, and that we should deal in facts, however uncomfortable that might be.
On the other side of the coin there exists a group of people, often called ‘optimists’ who seemingly do not care about the impending doom approaching them, and it would appear to external observers that they are living in blissful ignorance. These people are often characterised as blasé and Laissez-Faire. Some look at these people and become frustrated at their lack of involvement or seriousness in the situations around them. They can even come across as non-committal or immature. What adds salt to a realist’s wounds is that these people often live up to 12-15 percent longer than our aforementioned group.
Friction occurs between these two groups because they are often speaking a different language. Conversations become disjointed as both parties are approaching the detail from different existential viewpoints. Add to the mix people’s ego and pride and we have the perfect concoction for an impassable roadblock.
Like most things in life, finding commonality requires a genuine willingness to listen and learn. It must also be nested alongside an admission that every interaction is an opportunity for growth.
You will find what you are looking for (“confirmation bias”)
Earlier we identified that it would not be difficult to find examples of the world in disrepair if someone were actively looking, and this is true. But what if we chose to actively look for the positive things as well? What if we accepted that the world is one of a balancing act between good and bad things simultaneously?
It is not difficult to find evil things. It is much harder to find positive and admirable things. But, does it have to be? Or is that a choice we make? Is it actually harder, or do we make it harder by releasing ourselves of our ownership of how we react to what happens around us that affects us?
“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.” – Wikipedia
We are all guilty of confirmation bias and it takes a significant amount of discipline and self-awareness to consider that our brains are often seeking to validate our already existing belief structures. This is not good when you are seeking to find commonality with others.
We must enter every discussion with an understanding that we likely have something to learn.
Take your leadership to the next level
Upgrade your leadership skills with our online courses.
Re-framing and empathy
We find commonality with others when we genuinely seek to learn their perspective. What we often find is that both parties are simultaneously right and wrong at the same time, and the distinguishing feature was context and perspective. For example, challenging questions to an optimist:
What challenges do you think you might encounter which could slow your progress toward your goals?
Have you encountered other challenges in the past that you had to overcome, and how did you do it?
Do you have a set of tools in your tool kit to deal with those challenges, to help you overcome them?
Who could you partner with to help you overcome your challenges?
Challenging questions to a realist:
Do you know anyone else who has had this or a similar problem and has overcome it?
Do you know if this has ever been done before?
What do you think is different between the example that was successful, and your situation which you believe cannot be?
Do you believe it is worth it for you to try to overcome this challenge?
It takes a level of discipline to pull yourself out of your own narrative and forcibly see the world through another lens. Your perceptions of other groups run a risky prospect of categorising everything they say as silly, irrelevant, or wrong.
One question we might all ask ourselves: Which is more likely?
Option 1: That they are completely wrong, and I am completely right.
OR
Option 2: We are both partially right and have different pieces of information drawn from different contexts and experiences.
If you are brave enough, you might ask the next question: Am I trying to be right or correct?
Nobody wins a binary argument
The wiser someone gets the more they realise that the world is a complex place. Problems are almost invariably multi-layered and faceted. The temptation is to assume that there is a right answer to every problem, wherein reality it can sometimes be the choice between two or more terrible options. Quite simply we must on occasion, pick the lesser of two evils.
There is a movie starring Harrison Ford from 1994 called “Clear & Present Danger”, in which Harrison Ford plays Jack Ryan (based on Tom Clancy’s series of books.) Jack Ryan is at earlier points in his career quite the do-gooder (and mostly stays that throughout), and in this book, and as reflected in the movie, comes up against Deputy Director CIA Ritter, who is quite the opposite. It’s very much a black-and-white set of characters, and when they finally clash, you have this great scene that details good vs. bad, positive vs. negative, black vs. white, or yin vs. yang…and it’s this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk
Ritter explains simply, “Grey. The world is grey, Jack.”
Moving Forward
It is incredibly easy in the short-term to discard people’s opinions by categorising them as a type (pessimist vs optimist), but it rarely bares fruit in the long-term. Moreover, it speaks to an unwillingness to learn new things due to the risks it might have on our existing belief structures.
What is incredibly important to note is that everyone is winging their way through life. In doing so we are all choosing the schema that we think will best support us at that time. What this means in practical terms is that some people are most likely protecting themselves by choosing to frame the world through a ‘realistic’ (or pessimistic) lens, whilst others are trying to find the positives in a world that can otherwise be quite confusing, depressing, and chaotic.
The moment we realise that our choices lead us through problem-solving and onto solutions, then we also realise that there is a choice to learn something from everyone. In doing so, we might end up one step closer to a more refined and balanced opinion.
The moment inevitably comes in our lives when we realize that we have it within our control to choose, if not the problems we face, then at least the tools we make to deal with them. It is then, at those times, that we truly start growing into our most refined and balanced selves. Particularly, when we use the right tools, make robust and informed choices, and begin directing our own path through the chaos of life.
https://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Blog-Posts.png5001100David Nealhttps://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8th-mile-logo-white-ID-0e8d1f36-8698-4694-c814-e4bb5fc4fdc9-2.pngDavid Neal2022-02-04 09:12:502023-02-08 09:27:14'I am not a pessimist; I am a realist'
I recently posted a number of content pieces that explained ‘The Principles Of War’, a set of broad and overarching guidelines that acted as a filtering system for the operational and strategic efforts we conducted within the Military. In response to these posts many asked me to collate the information in a central source so that they might apply more reasonably to their businesses and teams.
There is no point in providing a set of principles, guidelines or considerations unless we build a context behind them that establishes relevance. This is my shot at doing that for the Principles of War in a corporate context.
The Principles of War are a set of guiding principles that act as considerations for military planning and strategy. It has become apparent that there is some utility in using them in the corporate environment. In this article, we look at the analysis and interpretation of the principles with that concept in mind.
Simply put, the principles exist to help frame ‘how’ to think and not ‘what’ to think. This means that we are free to explore whatever is needed to solve the problem. However, we must be careful to balance our priorities and resources to enable the best possible outcome.
These are the principles in order but not in importance. Each plan or initiative will see a different prioritisation of each of these principles in order to achieve a different effects or outcome.
The selection and maintenance of the aim
Concentration of force
Cooperation
Economy of effort
Security
Offensive action
Surprise
Flexibility
Sustainment
Maintenance of morale
The situation will see each principle being utilised differently and should be weighted depending on the circumstances, what needs to be achieved and the priorities set out by the planner. As an example, when developing a concept for client focused service (aim) we may need to bring in another organisation to cover an identified need (cooperation) which we could only build ourselves at a much higher cost (economy of effort). This joint venture may necessitate an exchange of restricted information (security) to ensure the team is established, trust is built, and we can be demonstrating our ability to adjust to our client’s needs (flexibility/aim).
For this scenario, the client focused service has primacy. It may look something like this.
Note – ‘the doctrine’ comments are excerpts from Land Warfare Doctrine 1 – The Fundamentals of Land Power 2014 – The Principles of War
THE SELECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE AIM
The doctrine – Once the aim has been decided, all effort must continually be directed towards its attainment so long as this is possible, and every plan or action must be tested by its bearing on the aim.
“ Times and conditions change so rapidly that we must keep our aim constantly focused on the future ” – Walt Disney
In broad terms, it means to keep the object/ end in mind at every level of the operation. The creation of the aim (end state/ outcome) takes time, energy, and some serious thought. This is true for military and corporate action.
When selecting and maintaining the aim:
Ensure it aligns with your values
Communicate it simply and effectively to those involved
Reinforce the aim at all levels
Resist the urge to ad hoc stray from the aim
Maintain open lines of communication with key stakeholders
Test any changes against its impact on the overall aim
Bring subject matter experts in for objectivity
Know where you are heading before you start. It allows you and your team to align to a common outcome and make decisions as well as maintain momentum in your absence. From CEO to a jobseeker, selecting and maintaining your aim provides the purpose to make sound decisions.
CONCENTRATION OF FORCE
The doctrine – Concentration of force is the ability to apply decisive military force at the right place, at the right time and in such a way as to achieve a decisive result.
“ The talent of the strategist is to identify the decisive point and to concentrate everything on it, removing forces from secondary fronts and ignoring lesser objectives. ” – Carl von Clausewitz
To be successful we need to be able to concentrate our capabilities, at the appropriate time and place, to achieve success. This means knowing what we have, what it can do and where it is going to have the most impact. Then doing it. This principle is about be deliberate and even more so, decisive.
In a corporate context this would mean:
Having the funding to support a new project or capitalise on an opportunity
Aligning staff, capital and messaging at a key point to achieve and outcome
Defining areas that are irrelevant for expenditure
Having a surge capability to reinforce success
Knowing the strategy and communicating key locations and times for action
Making decisions within the time to be effective
Building alignment, momentum and energy to decisive points in the plan
We cannot spend everything on anything. Prioritise those actions that will have the highest impact and align to the strategy. Then build up the required resources, staff and capital to seize an opportunity. This is a deliberate and defined process.
COOPERATION
The doctrine – Cooperation within joint combined arms interagency teams, allies and coalition partners is vital for success. Only in this way can the resources and energies of each be harnessed so as to achieve success.
” It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) that those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. ” – Charles Darwin
Vital to success is the ability to bring together multiple agencies to achieve an overall effect. What this means in a practical sense is to build teams that cover each other’s gaps. We cannot know or be great at everything, so we join forces with others to create something better than our own individual capability.
What cooperation looks like:
Admitting that you are not strong in an area
Aligning with a team that is
Leaving your ego at the door and being prepared to be led depending on the priority
Acknowledging a greater purpose
Sharing information freely and in a timely fashion
Synchronising the efforts in space, time, and priority to create the best impact
Putting the team needs first
Protecting each other and representing them in areas where they don’t represent themselves
Combining efforts takes a great deal of trust, authenticity, and respect. It may be for a short period or an enduring strategic partnership. The vulnerabilities of your joined team must be protected at all costs.
ECONOMY OF EFFORT
The doctrine – Economy of effort is the prudent allocation and application of resources to achieve the desired results.
“ The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency. ” – Bill Gates
Economy of effort. This principle deals with ‘playing smart’ and making the full use of available resources. It is in this space that we create a balance in priorities and what we can realistically achieve and sustain. Appropriate allocation must be nested with the strategy as they are finite. Priority allocation must go to the main effort that and supporting efforts will be created to enable it.
In a corporate setting this might look like:
Priority resourcing to finding new opportunities
Supporting effort in retaining and consolidated current projects
Reserve resources segregated for identified contingencies
A changing environment requires adaptability and if the main effort/ supporting efforts evolve then the priority of resourcing will change. At all times maintaining your economy of effort must be nested with the other principles like sustainment. Appropriate allocation of effort can mean the difference between success and failure.
SECURITY
The doctrine – Security is concerned with measures taken by a command to protect itself from espionage, sabotage, subversion, observation, or surprise. It is of basic concern during any campaign or operation. Security is required to operate effectively with minimal interference from the enemy.
“ Protection and security are only valuable if they do not cramp life excessively. ” – Carl Jung
To be able to continue to operate and/ or obtain opportunities we must first ensure that our own capabilities are as secure as required by the strategy. Now in times of need, sacrificing security for speed may be that strategy but it must be a planned, deliberate, and precise decision. Offensive strategies can also be a method of security as we stay mobile, maintain momentum and aren’t targetable.
In a corporate context, this could mean:
Securing your information, strategies and plans from your competitors
Ensuring you have consolidated resources to mitigate uncertainties
Future proof your employee relevance by developing them
Maintain quick and deliberate decision-making cycles to stay ahead of the competition
Securing financial viability by maintaining cashflow
Diversifying to create redundancy to secure operational viability
Mitigating priority risks to reduce critical events
Security of our businesses in physical, financial, strategic, operational and resource-based decisions is important to enable us to operate effectively with minimal disturbance. This principle allows us to analyse risk and mitigate it before crisis occurs.
OFFENSIVE ACTION
The doctrine – Military forces take offensive action to gain and retain the initiative. This has often taken the form of building momentum and fueling it to snowball the opposition. In most circumstances, such action is essential to the achievement of victory.
“ A little deed done very well is better than a mighty plan kept on paper, undone. Wishes don’t change the world; it’s actions that do this business! ” – Israelmore Ayivor
We need an offensive action (read, a bias for action in this case) to either regain or maintain initiative, or in a corporate context; maintain your competitive advantage, be first to market, launch on a project or create and seize opportunities. This action must be deliberate and decisive and must be driven towards achieving the established aim.
To effectively implement offensive actions, we should:
Empower people who have a bias for action (as long the strategy supports it)
Consolidate and make use of adequate resources
Ensure the action is sustainable to the end
Be linked to other key stakeholders to support
Use an element of surprise
Make effective use of available resources
Be deliberate and decisive
Be oriented towards the overarching aim or strategy
Be balanced with security of our own capabilities
In a military context this may necessitate combat however, it can also be the use of information actions and achieving influence as well. Overall, it is important to understand the importance of having a bias for action as it creates momentum, speed in decision making and advantage over your competitors. This bias will ultimately allow you to create opportunities not just be reactive to them.
SURPRISE
The doctrine – Surprise can produce results out of all proportion to the effort expended and is closely related to security.
“ In conflict, straightforward actions generally lead to engagement, surprising actions generally lead to victory ” – Sun Tzu
In a military term this might require deception or simply being able to disperse and concentrate rapidly, concealing your activity, appearing weak when you are strong etc. The idea is to be where you are unexpected or where you are expected at a time when you are not, in forces that weren’t planned for. In a corporate context, this may mean the release of a new strategy, software, market entry, product release in a time and manner that is not expected so that your competitors can’t mimic or get the inside track.
To achieve successful surprise:
Be where you are not expected to be
Appear vulnerable when you are in fact strong
Appear strong when you are weak
Approach markets from different methods
Create strong allies who enable you to scale and disperse rapidly
Know your environment in detail
Understand the importance of timing
Have a strategy and a plan
Show the minimum amount of activity in an area people are expecting so that they don’t know what your actual aim is. It is called a feint.
Be adaptable and ready to respond to your changing environment
This list is ultimately endless but, in a nutshell, utilising surprise not only keeps you and your team excited about new plans, it also enables you to capitalise on opportunities before others know you are even looking at them.
FLEXIBILITY
The doctrine – Flexibility is the capacity to adapt plans to take account of unforeseen circumstances to ensure success in the face of friction, unexpected resistance, or setbacks, or to capitalise on unexpected opportunities.
“ It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. ” – Charles Darwin
This is your ability to adapt to an ever-changing environment (your AQ). I would also include your resilience to setbacks, ability to deal with friction, chaos and complexity and to make decisions in uncertainty. The aim of flexibility is to maintain dynamic decision making across multiple lines of operation and still be synchronised.
To build flexibility:
Identify and communicate the overall aim
Understand your environment
Build a redundancy or reserve of resources
Empower decision making at the lowest level
Simplify communication
Provide realistic and relevant boundaries
Create an environment of innovation
Absorb risk, friction and anxiety for your team
Giving your team and organisation the confidence and capability to accept risk and seize opportunities is a deliberate process. As leaders we have a responsibility to create the environment and set the conditions for success. Build and train your teams to be able to understand intent and feel confident to take risks knowing that you have their backs. Ultimately, gaps and opportunities will be found by them. If they feel confident and capable, you will be able to pivot early and often.
SUSTAINMENT
The doctrine – Sustainment refers to the support arrangements necessary to implement strategies and operational plans.
“ You won’t find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics ” – General Dwight. D. Eisenhower
The new executive with the grand ideas will often forget about the sustainability of a project or strategy. Logistics and sustainability don’t just happen and can underpin an entire campaign.
Deliberate planning of time and resources for both offensive and defensive strategies should be a priority if you want an enduring impact. The sustainability or logistical elements of are also those things that are easily targetable by a competitor who can bring more support to the game.
To be sustainable we must:
Accurately plan the requirements of our missions
Have a redundancy
Identify the needs and requirements of our teams
Be prepared to do more with less (should not be the ‘go to’ move)
Be creative and use initiative
Allocate resources to those areas with the greatest impact
Prioritise resources (especially time and energy)
Have a strategy and a plan
Sustainability of our initiatives is the life blood of enduring impact. In change management, fatigue and obstruction are the result. In projects, loss of capability occurs or a failure to meet scope.
Be clinical and decisive in your application of resources.
MAINTENANCE OF MORALE
The doctrine – Morale is an essential element of combat power. High morale engenders courage, energy, cohesion, endurance, steadfastness, determination and a bold, offensive spirit.
“ An army’s effectiveness depends on its size, training, experience, and morale, and morale is worth more than any of the other factors combined. ” – Napoleon Bonaparte
For those that know and understand the power of good morale, it is understood that this can be the power that turns the tide and make the unachievable…achievable.
Teams with high morale based on being highly trained, determined people with a shared value set, cohesion and trust will outperform even the best ‘qualified’ teams (on paper) with low morale. This is the secret force multiplier that changes the game.
Morale is built on:
Trust
Shared experience
Open communication
Success (short/long term) and performance
Influential leadership (at all levels)
A shared purpose and identity
Commitment and conviction to succeed
A genuine and authentic care for each other and the team
Culture and a feeling of belonging
A willingness to put the team above yourself
If you have worked in a team with high morale, you will understand the power and addictive nature of it. You feel indestructible and associate the impossible as the possible. However, it takes work and commitment to being a part of something bigger than yourself.
SUMMARY
The principles of war have been developed over the years as a set of factors and considerations for successful planning and implementation of strategy.
Depending on the environment, the adversary, experience, available time and any other amount of identifiable conditions will determine what weight is applied to each principle. We cannot achieve every principle perfectly every time. Sometimes we may have to sacrifice one to achieve another as a priority of circumstance. That means that careful consideration and analysis must be applied to each strategy and plan. The consideration itself will lead to a better plan than had it not been done at all.
Ultimately, having a set of principles that can help aid in planning and decision making helps you to create better outcomes. The principles of war are one such set.
https://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/The-principles-of-war-1.jpeg302536Jonathan Clarkhttps://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8th-mile-logo-white-ID-0e8d1f36-8698-4694-c814-e4bb5fc4fdc9-2.pngJonathan Clark2020-10-28 14:43:522020-10-28 17:03:40The Principles of War - A Corporate Translation
One of the most distinctive memories from my early days within the Army was one of my respected Sergeants suddenly and abruptly correcting one of my trainee peers.
My mate had mentioned the unmentionable…
We were discussing what we should do if we encounter an enemy that was larger or more dangerous than we had originally predicted, and someone mentioned the word ‘retreat’. The response from my sergeant was immediate, ‘Australians DO NOT retreat!’. He went on to explain that we might withdraw in the interest of finding a terrain that was more conducive and favourable for us, but we do not retreat.
This is a statement that has stuck with me since that time. It speaks of the importance of always moving forward and regaining the initiative. Of remaining focused and deliberate in everything we do. It accepts that at times we might have to take a step back, but this should only be done to regain our footing in which to be able to take more steps moving forward. Over the years this phrase has spread its utility into most aspects of my life such as:
But here is the catch, it is predisposed on an assumption that we know what direction we should be heading. What point is there moving forward if it is entirely the wrong direction?
This is why having a strategy is so incredibly important. A strategy is a framework which sanity tests our decisions in short time, in order to allow us to stay focused on heading in the right cardinal direction. I have seen so many people get this wrong at their detriment.
We need to ask ourselves does our strategy (personal or professional):
Detail what we are seeking to achieve (Mission)?
Explain what it looks like when we achieve it (Vision)?
Include a sequence of how we might actually transit there (Goals, pillars, objectives, measures of success)?
Contain an acknowledgement of what we are willing to invest (or give up) in order to achieve it (resource allocations)?
It is an area that is too often paid lip service, but it is this defining feature that separates good teams from the absolute best.
A strategy allows a team to make quicker decisions, allocate precious resources towards those efforts with the highest impact and effect, as well ignore those shiny distractions which enticingly seduce people off of the centre line of their success.
Stopping the rot
‘Moving forward’ all the time is extremely difficult. It requires consistency, dedication and focus. Traits that can be increasingly hard to come by these days.
Our world is full of ever-increasing distractions and information that act as ‘white noise’ to our concentration. This white noise can incrementally increase for some people to the point where it becomes debilitating to their decision-making abilities. Some teams can become so confused by the pressures associated with these distractions that they reactively overcompensate by creating more and more high priorities. Leaders become withdrawn as the idea of moving forward appears less and less tenable.
For these teams, a ‘circuit breaker’ is required. Something that can stop the spiralling confusion and provide some level of clarity. This often requires a combination of the following:
Strong leaders & managers with clear roles and responsibilities. Kotter once described the distinction between Leadership and Management, explaining that leaders coordinate ‘change’ and managers coordinate ‘complexity’. I particularly like this description as it is a simple reference for teams to make in order to refocus and distribute their team’s efforts. It is a common observation that the teams that are drowning have not clearly identified the distinction in roles and responsibilities between key roles. Everyone is trying to do everything, and no one is doing it well.
Objectivity. Sometimes people are so saturated in their problems that they cannot see the overall context. They are literally living minute by minute and the idea of popping their head about the parapet in order to refocus their direction is unimaginable. This is where objectivity is so key. A third set of eyes, from someone who is not so absorbed in the problem, can be invaluable in asking the right questions and assisting in resetting the focus.
Horsepower. Some teams are under-resourced and under-supported – plain and simple. These teams have often been heading in the right direction but just do not have the horsepower or workforce to get their project over the line. They have been doing ‘more with less’ for so long that they have reached culmination, and they just need reinforcement. Jonathan Clark once said to me, ‘sometimes you don’t need more people standing around the hole telling you how to dig better, you just need them to jump in and help dig’.
Prioritisation. It is common to see teams that have a massive list of ‘what to do’ they have forgotten to detail what they ‘do not need to do’. The list of what is not required is often more important than what need to do. It stops people being lured down the enticing trip falls we eluded to earlier…
Some of the readers might resonate with some of these observations. If you have, I would love to hear your comments, case studies, and ideas.
The Eighth Mile Consulting team has founded a reputation for helping teams navigate through this confusion. There is an amazing feeling of elation as a team steps over the line of success when things months prior looked dire and unachievable.
For those slugging their way through problems at this very time, remember:
We don’t retreat, we withdraw to more favourable conditions
We ensure the actions we are doing are working to an overarching strategy or design.
https://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/british-library-8US1_1QMHi0-unsplash-scaled.jpg25601984David Nealhttps://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8th-mile-logo-white-ID-0e8d1f36-8698-4694-c814-e4bb5fc4fdc9-2.pngDavid Neal2020-08-03 20:05:212020-08-07 14:05:57We Do Not Retreat
Have you ever completed an obstacle course… On your own?
Picture this, you have just scraped your knees crawling through a tunnel, mud all over you and heavy with water. Your feet are blistered, sweat is stinging your eyes. You hear your heartbeat in your ears and the sharp panting of breath. You are fatigued and in survival mode. You look up to see the dreaded wall. It is ten feet high.
Too high to jump up, no ropes and it is stopping you from reaching your goal. If only you had a team… Even one other person and you could complete the course.
In crisis, much like obstacle courses there are those who choose to go it alone and self-protect, preferring to minimise personal risk at the expense of the team. They are 50/50 on success and failure. Then there are those that double down on teams and increase their odds of succeeding by sharing a common vision and providing different perspectives to problem solving and communicating effectively.
Share the load
In an average or sub performing team, people are happy to watch other people do the lion’s share of the work, the late hours and own all the pressure and responsibility. They would rather see themselves succeed and the team fail so that they appear strong. In a High Performing Team (HPT), people focus on the overall success and reputation of the team. They put team success before self and proactively search for work. They understand that sharing the fatigue and the burn so that everyone can perform means that nobody gets left behind. While they share the work and their fatigue so that the team achieves more, they all actively seek to be involved in planning at all levels.
Shared planning and supportive decision making
There is a place for planning in isolation and it usually means there are substantial time pressures or trust issues within the team. A leader who doesn’t trust the team will not value their input into decisions. If they have been burned before, they will want to remove that possibility. In an HPT, everyone’s opinion is valued. It is understood that a wide range of perspectives on an issue may yield a better solution. The team also knows that when a decision is made, the time for shared planning is over, and its implementation time!!
They align and get it done. They support the decision because they understand the importance of achieving the goal and they were involved in the planning. They leverage and reinforce their relationships and maintain open, supportive communication.
Build relationships and a team language
Ever wondered how HPTs can work with minimal communication, or when they do you can’t really understand them. It is like watching a group of soldiers use hand signals and you are standing there, having no idea. They have refined the way they speak to include their history, shared experiences, values and connection to remove superfluous chat. They still have fun and they still care for each other. However, when work needs to get done, they can streamline their language. They know they work from a position of care and support. The HPT will work to strengthen relationships and networks in the good times so that they can lean on each other in crisis. They are calm and deliberate in their actions and communication because they understand that the team’s reputation is more important than their own. These relationships and shared language help understand and communicate the context while implementing the vision.
Clear context and vision
A team that works to understand and communicate the context in which they operate will be able to make decisions in the absence of leadership, direction and under extreme pressure. They share a common vision for success and work within the boundaries of the defined context. Pushing authorities and decision making as far down as you can, will allow a team to create momentum and take advantage of opportunities. This also mitigates risks associated with slow decision making. The key part of owning the context and implementing the vision is a shared trust in every member of the team.
Trust
HPTs trust each other to a point where they receive feedback without feeling hurt. They understand that the feedback is coming from a place of love and respect to build the overall team and is not a personal attack. They trust that when someone says they will do something, they do it. The behaviour and trust are forged through shared experience and values. They also understand that they will be represented well even when they aren’t in the room.
The steps
The theory of teams is built on a model originally published by Dr Bruce Tuckman. It encapsulates Forming, Storming. Norming. Performing. Adjourning. These steps are normal, linear (step through to build a team) and cyclical in nature (it can relapse back steps at any time) and cannot be skipped. Friction in the storming phase is normal, temporary and MUST happen. A HPT will minimise their time in both storming and norming to accelerate reaching performing. They will also have limited relapses to storming by:
1. Sharing the workload
2. Conducting shared planning and supportive decision making
3. Building relationships and a team language
4. Having a clear context and shared vision
5. Building trust
6. Acknowledging the steps.
The point
By understanding what a successful team looks like, how it operates and some of their characteristics, we can work to constantly improve our own teams. There is no secret that, teams are always evolving and constantly changing. Understanding the context allows you to have clarity and accommodate for the disruptions. The steps above are not exhaustive and based on my experiences and opinions. I will say this though, once you have been part of a HPT, you will understand the addictive nature of it. You want it back all the time and will fight to have it again.
So, if I return to the scenario above. Imagine you are back in that obstacle course and you are looking up at the wall. You are fatigued, tired, wet and sore. Suddenly someone says, “you got this!” A hand reaches down from the top to grab yours and at the same time you are lifted to grasp it. Doesn’t it make a difference?
https://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/twenty20_d302bf80-d846-4390-a99b-7fe77dcfae9a.jpg519932Jonathan Clarkhttps://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8th-mile-logo-white-ID-0e8d1f36-8698-4694-c814-e4bb5fc4fdc9-2.pngJonathan Clark2020-03-31 14:14:002023-05-08 13:46:04Invest in your teams, it will save you
We hear a lot of positive stories, and the ‘how to’ of successful leadership scenarios. This is not one of those. Let me tell you about the time when I got it completely wrong.
I thought as a junior officer I knew the intricacies of leadership and command. I didn’t know at the time how much I had left to learn, and still do to this day. Specific to this incident, was my lack of E.Q. understanding of stressor impacts, and conflict resolution skills.
Do not mistake my lack of experience for a lack of willingness to do good. I cared about my team, their families, their prospects and life goals but, the in-depth knowledge of how they all interconnected to either support or undermine the team was limited. Retrospectively, I believe that in this instance, I subscribed too heavily towards a ‘mission’ first mentality, at the expense of the team.
The Scenario.
For the purposes of this article let’s call the other person Bill.
On return from an Army exercise, a piece of very important equipment couldn’t be located. It was Bill’s responsibility. He was in a position of leadership at the time, and not being able to find it meant that my team was still working, when the rest of the unit had been home for hours. A terrible outcome for the soldiers and their families desperately craving to be reunited.
In this instance, I was unaware of the life stressors occurring in Bill’s life. Bill was always so cool, calm and collected at every turn that, it never occurred to me that his life was literally burning down around him. I had known Bill prior to us working together and he had a reputation for being a strong, fit, competent and professional man. However, I was focused on preparing the team for operations, fixing the overt issues and working on ensuring the team was at a ‘high performance’ level. I was thinking about the group as a whole and did not make the crucial connection of the group being made up of individuals.
Once the item was found, in his kit, I was livid. I counselled the person in a fashion completely contrary to my character. There are no excuses. Stress from a pending deployment, embarrassment from the counselling I received from my commander or even the disappointment that my team had missed out on even more time with their families, were no reasons for my behaviour.
My counselling of Bill was aggressively vocal. It was completely uncharacteristic of me and shameful. An interaction that wasn’t lost on my team. Bill also did not take it very well and it had a lasting impact on him. It took time to gain the trust of my team back.
Lesson 1 – Provide clear vision and intent, the mission will happen.
If I had looked after Bill, provided a clear vision and intent, I would have enabled him to a way to tell me what was going on outside of work. Then, I could have worked with him to fix it and ultimately, set the conditions for him to succeed. Instead, I undermined his faith in me as a leader.
Lesson 2 – Stick to your values.
My response at the time did not align with my values (accountability and service). Where was my service to this man and how was I being accountable to him? It was my job to protect him and ensure that his faith in me as a leader was paramount.
Lesson 3 – Find space between the stimulus and the reaction. (Bram Connelly in his Warrior U podcast, Episode 01: KC Finnegan – USSF Major, he explains this well.
When the incident occurred, I should have taken the time to analyse and decipher the variables and considerations. The equipment had been found, that was a positive. While the team was the only one left, they were together and all unified in their search. This was uncharacteristic of him, what is wrong? If I had taken the time to absorb all the variables, I may have found out something that could have prevented a greater impact on Bill later.
Lesson 4 – Make the best decision you can with the information you have.
At the time, with the information I had, this was not the best decision I could make. I knew this man extremely well and I knew it was out of character. Instead of confirming information, I sought to transfer anxiety from my Commander to him.
Lesson 5 – Know your people, they are not their behaviours.
I didn’t find out until later that the interaction had a long term and devastating impact on him. It impacted his Afghan deployment and contributed to some long-term issues. To his credit, he reached out. He explained how the incident had impacted him and it was something that he had never really let go. I had no idea that the interaction had hurt him. It hadn’t registered to me as something that would have.
Lesson 6 – If you are wrong in your approach, own it, TRY TO MAKE IT RIGHT!!
After he told me the impact the event had on him, I was gutted. So, I did the only thing I could and owned my mistake. There was an explanation of my thought process at the time and how with the benefit of hindsight and experience, I would have done things differently. Now, I am doing what I can to make it right. I keep in contact with him regularly and it is a constant reminder to stick to my values.
Dave and I have unpacked this a hundred times so that we can learn from it and never make these mistakes again. So, feel free to take a free one from my error. We use our experiences and lessons like these at The Eighth Mile Consulting because it keeps us accountable to ourselves and the good people we work with.
Dont be a jerk and never underestimate the impact your actions have on other people.
https://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/0.png720904Jonathan Clarkhttps://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8th-mile-logo-white-ID-0e8d1f36-8698-4694-c814-e4bb5fc4fdc9-2.pngJonathan Clark2019-07-30 15:06:002020-04-04 15:23:59Leadership. When I got it WRONG.
“I always likened the STAR method to that of a quick SMEAC. It was much easier as the interviewer when the interviewee presented their thoughts in a logical manner, not only because I had to write them down but also it’s easier to digest.“
Rob, Recruiter, ex-military
“Hard to break the barrier sometimes not through lack of experience or relevance, but simple/subtle differences in lexicon.“
Dave, transitioning from Military
I [Tim Cook] wanted to carry on from a theme that fell out of my last post. I am not a proponent of the STAR (situation, task, action, result) interview technique. Most would be familiar with it, as it appears to be the dominant technique for organisations seeking to recruit new talent. I have had difficulty using it as the interviewee, and I’ve had feedback from other job seekers, as well as selection board members, that it doesn’t work for them either.
My position no doubt comes from a personal bias. I have always left an interview that used the technique feeling like I had not done well, and true to form I’ve not progressed through those recruiting rounds. I believe it is also an ex-military bias as we suffer from using a different business lexicon in our daily affairs. Many of us struggle to translate this lexicon when presenting for industry roles when we transition out of uniform. This makes answering questions about our capabilities and past experience difficult at the best of times. Having to do so using an answer format of situation, task, action and response, becomes that much harder.
Having said this I’ve also had others (again from all sides of the equation) tell me they are big fans. Many see it as the only viable method to test and compare job candidates’ suitability, and argue convincingly that if better methods existed they would be dominant. This has led to me to explain my position here. I’m a STAR challenger. I’m also a realist, and a job seeker. Whether I like it or not, it is the dominant interview technique, particularly for the kind of roles I seek out (professional services or middle to senior management positions). Whilst maintaining my position as a STAR challenger I need to become a STAR performer, or else I risk remaining a job seeker indefinitely.
Because I have heard such polarising positions on this matter I have reached out to my network to get their thoughts on it and include their opinions in a way that tells both sides. I’ve always found every opinion has merit if you seek to challenge the status quo.
I’ve also recruited in some help from an old colleague to co-author. We hope that in reading our thoughts below you begin to challenge whether the STAR technique is the best way to conduct interviews when recruiting for roles. And for those job seekers out there, we hope to provide some useful tips on how to become a STAR performer, regardless of whether you are also a STAR challenger.
What is the STAR interview method? When can it work?
The STAR technique is a widely utilised tool for a reason. It provides structure and design in a recruiting environment which is often saturated with applicants and information.
“The recruiter doesn’t know anything about you. The STAR technique lets them test how appropriate your experience is for the role without giving away too much so they can make a judgement about your ability to do the job.” Becky, Recruiter.
This being said, the STAR technique is best utilised when recruiting for technical and trade specific positions as it provides a logical and structured way to draw out specifics around a technical skill or past experience. In this way it is best used in multi-stage recruitment processes, such as where a second interview with a candidate focuses solely on technical capability. It is less suited as an initial interview technique or to roles that require a more generic or holistic approach to problem solving such as managerial, or leadership positions. The reasons for this will be discussed in greater detail below.
Why I’m a STAR challenger
So in the right circumstances, the STAR technique has merit and deserves it’s place as a tool for recruiters and interviewers to shortlist candidates and select the best for the role. It’s a tried and true method, and one that is comfortable for many; however, others have been expressing dissatisfaction with the technique for some time
“It is cumbersome and restrictive.”
Deb, Group Facilitator
It has flaws, and there are equally many circumstances when other techniques are more appropriate. So let’s look at the flaws:
It tests the wrong things. In general the process tests against skills or competencies rather than cultural fit for the recruiting organisation. Fit and the potential to find a sense of purpose in the organisation or career path is much more important than perfect skills match. We never stop learning and can learn new skills when provided an environment that allows you to do so. When recruiters emphasise perfect skills fit I’m left wondering whether the organisation is willing to invest in their people at all.
Also many interviewers will try to use the STAR method to test cultural fit, attitude and values. This results in questions being very vague or broad, demanding “a particular time in space” response due to the format of the answer. Integrity, ambition, resourcefulness etc are demonstrated over time, not because a person did the right thing once and can provide a great STAR response. Also the demand for metrics in answering questions around culture, attitudes and values is nonsensical. What metric can you place against integrity?
It’s too specific and hence removes context. The STAR technique leads the candidate to “Tell me about ONE time you did this?” That they’ve done it once doesn’t indicate experience or competence. Anyone can cite a few experiences that meet a question. Sometimes they got lucky and were in the right place and time to have an amazing tale. But if they didn’t learn as much from it or weren’t as involved in the solution as the represent, then are they the best candidate just because they had the most impressive story? To come to grasps with a person’s potential is more difficult than asking for a few snapshots in time.
Another significant concern is that the technique does not allow the individual to adequately define or explain the broader context of a situation due to the need for brevity. This has significance when certain high-performing individuals have completed a task under the broader context of larger organisational changes or evolutions. For example, a candidate may explain how they were able to develop efficiencies within one aspect of their previous job role, however this will have been completed alongside numerous competing, and potentially more relevant events such as personnel shortfalls, budget cuts, stakeholder complexities and inhibiting risk management restrictions. This cannot be communicated easily when describing one challenge. Identifying an individual that can complete one task does not mean that they can adequately complete two or more. The STAR technique can channel organisations into missing out on individuals who can adequately prioritise work, operate under increased stress, and demonstrate adaptability.
Too often it’s about the past rather than a conversation about the future. The entire premise revolves around what you’ve already done, rather than your potential to do something in the future, and isn’t the latter what recruiting is really about?
Yes it is important to know whether the person has the qualifications (whether formal or informal) to do the job. This is answered in the candidates CV. It is also important that candidates demonstrate competence in those qualifications through their experience. This is also answered in the CV, and reinforced by referees. The real question is which candidate could do the job best. This is about the future, not the past.
It’s done badly. Often I’ve been asked questions that I couldn’t fathom had anything to do with the job for which I was applying. The questions danced around a theme and seemed to be hiding the purpose of why it was asked or sometimes the theme just seemed irrelevant. The STAR technique inhibits the applicant’s ability to provide a meaningful or creative answer or to explore why the question was asked, and therefore often competes against the recruiter’s priorities which may be to identify creativity, and influential leadership potential.
Too expand further, a well designed question should be open ended to allow the applicant to explain in great enough detail, and should not be presumptive, nor leading its delivery. For example, “tell me about a time you failed at something, and how you turned it around into a win,” will undoubtedly channel the applicant into a certain method of answering the question, covering the same reoccurrence of industry buzz words. Ultimately it results in duplicity and poor differentiation between candidates. The question is generic, demonstrates poor imagination, and it is questionable whether it was asked for the purposes of determining an organisational shortfall or gap in the first place.
Lastly the method is old and tedious. Recruitment as a discipline in HR has not undergone any real innovation in a few decades. Linkedin and mass recruitment sites are excellent and useful, but haven’t transformed the industry. We still look for jobs (on whatever medium they’re advertised including referrals), apply for one by sending in a CV & covering letter, and finally go to an interview most often expecting the STAR technique. We’ve been doing that for years.
How can recruitment be done better without using the STAR technique?
Do the preparation and ask relevant questions. If an organisation wants to hire adaptive, creative, and forward thinking managers and leaders, then it needs to provide the same level of commitment and investment into finding the right people. If this requires more time to conduct recruitment, then plan for it appropriately. Questions should target key attributes or skills required to rectify identified shortfalls within the organisation. For instance, if the individual is likely to move into the position and experience a high proportion of pre-existing personnel welfare, and human resourcing cases in their team, then a weight of effort should be applied in order to test how the person will react with the potential problem. This can be tested through the use of behavioral hypothetical questioning, with fake characters, locations and events.
If an organisation wanted to identify a potential leader, then the questioning would likely require an individual to demonstrate their creativity, and ability to communicate in different ways. In this instance, providing a question that requires multiple levels of analysis, a breakdown of competing priorities, and appropriate distribution of tasks within a defined timeline would be appropriate. Then have the individual present their approach to the problem in a medium of their choosing.
Role playing. Having an applicant face to face with another individual is a proven method of determining desirable behaviors. This coupled with relevant questioning modeled on likely issues to be seen in the workplace will improve the chances of identifying individuals who demonstrate similarly aligned cultural values, the ability to engage with stakeholders, and most importantly the ability to communicate. Role playing and rehearsal makes up a significant proportion of the training conducted within the military, as it tests an individuals tact, tone and ability to adapt to changing situations.
How do I become a STAR performer?
As an ex-military job seeker facing the STAR technique can be a daunting prospect. The reasons for this are many and varied, but centre on translating relevant experiences into language the interviewer understands and values and then making them fit the technique. Having to do so already sets you behind other candidates. The other is that our proudest or best examples may not be relevant to civilian jobs.
If we accept that in some cases STAR is here to stay, here are some tips to help you become a STAR performer.
Prepare. Like a stage performer, a political orator or a soldier, preparation is key. As much as possible try to think about the job you are going for, and what is important about the role from the perspective of the interviewer. Then match your experience and skills to that and prepare some outline responses. In doing the preparation try to use terms that are used in the new industry to break down the language barrier. If you don’t know the terms then do the research.
Rehearse. Once you’ve prepared some responses test them by rehearsing. Work with someone you trust; friends, family or your professional network and role-play. It may feel silly, but rehearsals are important. We practice processes, drills, orders or speeches. A job interview is no less important. Don’t leave yourself in a position where you are “winging it”. If the examples you use go over the head of the average person, then go back a step and try again. It will be tedious at first, but will get quicker and easier the more you try.
Leave pride at the door. Professionals (and all servicemen and women are professionals) are proud people, and deservedly so given the hard work they demonstrate. But pride is also a sin. If you are crossing industries or transitioning from the military your best examples to questions may not be relevant to the recruiting organisation. For instance a soldier’s honest response to questions about hardship, challenge or working with difficult people are going to be very specific to the military environment. Conversely, this doesn’t mean all your experience is irrelevant.
If you are asked a question by a recruiter that leaves you thinking about an extreme and specific military situation then you may need to leave that behind. Instead in your own mind extend that question to end with “…. in a way that is relevant to me, this job or this industry”. Find a response from your history that is closely aligned to what you can expect in future roles and use those, even if they aren’t your proudest or most impressive achievement. When describing them avoid jargon. Instead use the language you rehearsed so you can be confident you will be understood.
Be confident the skills you have are valuable. Having worked in both the military and industry we can say that the training you receive in uniform is professional, world class and transferrable. Don’t be put off that it was “military training” or focused heavily on combat skills. Whilst learning about how to act in combat you learned other things like planning, leadership and administration. Those skills and who you became as a person is valuable and transferrable to industry. If you do the previous steps you will have numerous examples in language the interviewer can understand. This will give you confidence, and that confidence will shine through to the interviewer. If you really can’t see how your skills were transferrable, find a role model and turn them into a mentor so they can assist you.
We hope you found this post interesting, informative and helpful. Please comment and share if you feel it would be helpful to others. We are very interested to hear and share thoughts on the STAR technique, and especially different ways of preparing for interviews as a job seeker. We plan on continuing this thread by drawing out common military skills and behaviours and mapping them across to industry language to assist with translating that lexicon.
Tim Cook is a management consultant and professional with vast supply chain and operations management experience who served in the ADF for 14 years. David Neal is a current serving ADF member with 11 years of experience, with additional experience in operations management, leadership and human resourcing.
https://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/one-big-universe_t20_6l0o9p.jpg6871030David Nealhttps://learning.eighthmile.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/8th-mile-logo-white-ID-0e8d1f36-8698-4694-c814-e4bb5fc4fdc9-2.pngDavid Neal2016-07-11 13:52:002020-04-05 13:53:33Are you a STAR Challenger? Or a STAR Performer?
