I would like to perhaps push your argument in two slightly different, and some might say harsh, directions. The first deals with organizational culture and the US Army not only rewards/preferences quantity of time in most cases, it also preferences tactical mastery. Those with large quantities of time often became successful because of …
I would like to perhaps push your argument in two slightly different, and some might say harsh, directions. The first deals with organizational culture and the US Army not only rewards/preferences quantity of time in most cases, it also preferences tactical mastery. Those with large quantities of time often became successful because of their hard earned tactical mastery leading formations conducting tactical tasks. Those skills do not always translate and the individuals have learned what gets rewards - tactical success. The second direction is related - cognitive flexibility. Again, being reductive, but most humans as they get older tend to become less flexible in their approaches to problem solving. They create heuristics in the areas in which they often deal or where problems arise and begin to rely on those more and more rather than continually seeking to challenge and adjust the principles and concepts they frequently use. As individuals spend ever longer times in the Army advancing in rank, building up that time quantity that is rewarded, many often lose that flexibility of thought. That does not bode well for strategic output.
Louis: muchas gracias! Great points. I don't see those directions as harsh at all, I think they're just facts of the career-lives we've got. What would be worse is if we didn't look at the way people really are and just avoided uncomfortable truths. I hinted at your points in the essay by noting that learning isn't linear...so, we may leap quite a bit in one way of thinking in a certain assignment, then plateau a bit in another, then experience another leap forward. And, yes, unfortunately, as we age we do get a bit more set in our ways. But...my understanding is also that with age comes context - the accumulated gains start to pile up and you do tend to see the bigger picture (even if it is a bit more hardened and inflexible). I guess in the end I see benefits to strategists at all age-levels...but, and here's the big "but" - we should rank and sort them based on their work-product, and not presumed goodness based only on how long they've hung around.
I dunno about not harsh and uncomfortable truths bit dove tailing well with the Army. I've worked with some O6s (and a few O5s) who take great umbrage and get a bit pouty when you point out that individual X or Y (tends to be junior) has a more appropriate, grounded, or valid take and/or certain biases are very evident in the argument. Then again, this may just be an artifact of how I frame it ("Bit too much sunk cost fallacy there, bub." "Soooo, that's a tautology.")
If we can extend just this point (uncomfortable truths) just a bit (and the singular of data is not anecdote, but anecdote is what I've got) - in the recent extremism stand-down there seemed to be great hesitation to have uncomfortable discussions. Rather than say, "Here we have a problem, let us examine why we got to this point and how we should correct and move above and beyond it" the discussion was presented as "This is wrong, don't do it (with a side order of whataboutism)." I would suggest that tack is taken to avoid having very explicit conversations that will be very uncomfortable for many involved. There is some long, dark tea-time of the soul searching that needs to happen on this subject, and many subjects. But as an organization there is some hesitancy to do too much self-reflection.
I'd like to caveat my negativity in the above paras by pointing out that there are some positive developments in talent management, etc. Perhaps not enough, but it's a start.
I would like to perhaps push your argument in two slightly different, and some might say harsh, directions. The first deals with organizational culture and the US Army not only rewards/preferences quantity of time in most cases, it also preferences tactical mastery. Those with large quantities of time often became successful because of their hard earned tactical mastery leading formations conducting tactical tasks. Those skills do not always translate and the individuals have learned what gets rewards - tactical success. The second direction is related - cognitive flexibility. Again, being reductive, but most humans as they get older tend to become less flexible in their approaches to problem solving. They create heuristics in the areas in which they often deal or where problems arise and begin to rely on those more and more rather than continually seeking to challenge and adjust the principles and concepts they frequently use. As individuals spend ever longer times in the Army advancing in rank, building up that time quantity that is rewarded, many often lose that flexibility of thought. That does not bode well for strategic output.
Louis: muchas gracias! Great points. I don't see those directions as harsh at all, I think they're just facts of the career-lives we've got. What would be worse is if we didn't look at the way people really are and just avoided uncomfortable truths. I hinted at your points in the essay by noting that learning isn't linear...so, we may leap quite a bit in one way of thinking in a certain assignment, then plateau a bit in another, then experience another leap forward. And, yes, unfortunately, as we age we do get a bit more set in our ways. But...my understanding is also that with age comes context - the accumulated gains start to pile up and you do tend to see the bigger picture (even if it is a bit more hardened and inflexible). I guess in the end I see benefits to strategists at all age-levels...but, and here's the big "but" - we should rank and sort them based on their work-product, and not presumed goodness based only on how long they've hung around.
I dunno about not harsh and uncomfortable truths bit dove tailing well with the Army. I've worked with some O6s (and a few O5s) who take great umbrage and get a bit pouty when you point out that individual X or Y (tends to be junior) has a more appropriate, grounded, or valid take and/or certain biases are very evident in the argument. Then again, this may just be an artifact of how I frame it ("Bit too much sunk cost fallacy there, bub." "Soooo, that's a tautology.")
If we can extend just this point (uncomfortable truths) just a bit (and the singular of data is not anecdote, but anecdote is what I've got) - in the recent extremism stand-down there seemed to be great hesitation to have uncomfortable discussions. Rather than say, "Here we have a problem, let us examine why we got to this point and how we should correct and move above and beyond it" the discussion was presented as "This is wrong, don't do it (with a side order of whataboutism)." I would suggest that tack is taken to avoid having very explicit conversations that will be very uncomfortable for many involved. There is some long, dark tea-time of the soul searching that needs to happen on this subject, and many subjects. But as an organization there is some hesitancy to do too much self-reflection.
I'd like to caveat my negativity in the above paras by pointing out that there are some positive developments in talent management, etc. Perhaps not enough, but it's a start.