After seven hours of fighting our way through the central corridor the support by fire was set, obscuration smoke was out, our task force engineers were reducing the breach and my assault force began moving forward to quickly secure the far side objective and seize a foothold in the city. After months of preparation and midway through our combined arms breach the brigade was poised to take the largest city in the national training center and my battalion was about to lead the assault. That’s when things started to go wrong and failure ensued.
As soon as the breach force began reducing the obstacle the support by fire element was destroyed by an enemy mechanized infantry platoon hiding behind a nearby hill. We adjusted indirect fires and committed another platoon to the support. They too took heavy casualties but the breach was almost open and we were ready. Minutes later “touchdown” was called over the radio and the assault force sped from their assault position towards the breach and directly into a minefield. The company stopped, half in the minefield – half outside. Looking to their right they recognized that instead of driving THROUGH the breach, they had driven next to it and straight into the obstacle.
The enemy platoon began engaging a company’s worth of immobile Strykers bunched up in its engagement area, destroying 70% of the fleet in minutes. We adjusted the plan and pushed the next company through the breach and began seizing a foothold in the town, continuing to lose personnel and vehicles to enemy BMPs and BRDMs inside and adjacent to the city. We consolidated forces and pushed our remaining infantrymen through the breach and into the first zone, when the “Suspension of Battlefield Effects” (SOBE) call came over the radio. Our fight was over before it had really begun. We hadn’t even secured a foothold.
The after action report followed and we heard the phrase that no rotational unit ever wants to here, “we’re re-cocking the attack on Razish.” What followed was a licking of wounds and soul-searching on how we could have stumbled so hard. We were better than this; but our plan, synchronization, and rehearsals were not where they needed to be for us to be successful. Prior to the rotation we said that we would get punched in the face and how we reacted to it would determine the type of unit we were. How would we respond?
Why Don’t We Always Bounce Back?
Recovering and learning from failure isn’t a right. I’ve seen just as many units tank on their second attempt as find success. One of my first company commanders told me, “The most important thing you bring to work every day is your attitude.” And attitude is key to bouncing back. While this is the same advice I’ve given every one of my leaders since then, they aren’t always able to turn things around. Why not?
Perhaps it’s because of the ambiguity in that cliché. Perhaps it’s because determining the right approach is actually a lot harder than it sounds. Or, maybe it’s because we just don’t like failing and avoid being disparaged. I believe military leaders often struggle to accept the criticism which comes from failure simply because we are part of a profession whose entire purpose is to win. Many leaders ask themselves,“How can I maintain a winning culture while simultaneously tolerating and accepting failure?” We all prefer our senior rater to think of our wins instead of our failures when it’s evaluation time. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a high-enumeration / top block OER read, “He failed more than any other leader in this unit!”
The reality is that we expect units to win. We also want them to be comfortable with failure, to learn, and ultimately grow. The goal is to be the unit that consistently delivers results but also challenges itself and takes prudent risks.Often though, units find themselves unable to find this sweet spot of winning, learning, and growing. Instead, they find themselves at one extreme or the other on the winning but arrogant / humble but failing scale. At one end you consistently deliver results but resist criticism to keep your #1 seed, eventually plateauing. On the other end you can accept failure, are great at taking feedback, but continually underperform.
Over the years, I’ve served in units all over this scale. I’ve personally been all over this scale. While I certainly don’t have the answer (nor is there really one answer to this very big question), I have picked up tips from mentors, peers, and leaders of all ages to refine my perspective. Here’s how I currently frame my approach to cultivating growth in a winning culture.
U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, move to cover while clearing a city during Decisive Action Rotation 16-06 at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, Calif., May 11, 2016. (U.S. Army Photo by Spc. Kyle Edwards, Operations Group, National Training Center)
Cultivating Growth in a Winning Culture
Most military leaders learn best from failure. Probably because we don’t like it and desperately want to be winners again! But to grow, leaders have to seek out challenges and push themselves to failure. Most military leaders are also competitive, which means they want to be the best. And when you are the best you can be reticent to take on challenges that chip away at that perception. To prevent that inevitable plateau and continue to grow, units have to develop the right culture which prides itself on winning but also seeks opportunities for growth. Here are five key things our organization did to recover from failure and grow during our National Training Center rotation earlier this year.
1. Rationalize Failure
In my experience, the way leaders rationalize the contrast between winning and failing determines where their units fall on the growth scale. Personally, I am willing to fail as long as I can use the experience to figure out why, fix the problem, and do better next time. As a military our goal is to remain the best fighting force in the world. We will only maintain that position and reach our potential by training against the best possible adversary in the most challenging conditions. If I am trying something that is difficult and hard, then I can rationalize and even accept failure as long as I know that the experience will make me better and stronger.
I also rationalize failure by scoping my endeavor. Am I training? Or is this a test? If it’s a test, then the maximum score is my goal. If I’m training, well then I’m likely facing a scenario designed to challenge me. So failure here is ok. It is important for leaders to differentiate between training and testing and communicate that to the force. There are plenty of times for tests and certifications, but if you’re really trying to challenge yourself and break the machine…its training. If a unit perceives the event as a test they are going to try and max the score. Criticism, which diminishes your test score, is seen as a threat and discarded along with any real chance for learning or growth. If you create an environment where the score isn’t the ultimate goal and failure is ok…then the opportunity for growth exists.
Like most things, balance is key. Training without measurable objectives or high standards is a waste of time. Set high standards, build a challenging scenario, and give them the toughest fight they expect to face; just don’t make it a test. So when they fail, it’s because they were supposed to. Not because they failed to measure up.
2. Define Good Failure v. Bad Failure
Clearly, there are good and bad types of failure. Good failure is when you’ve prepared, tried your best, but come up short. This is the type of honest failure leaders must underwrite. Supporting people when they fail not only creates space for growth, it also builds trust. Subordinates trust leaders who give them time to grow instead of immediately demanding perfection. They trust leaders who support them after they’ve made an honest mistake.
But, that type of trust is only built when subordinates fail despite doing things the right way. Real growth is only possible when one fails the right way. If people fail because they weren’t prepared or were lazy and their boss supports them anyway, then he is just reinforcing bad behavior. A leader must describe the difference in the conduct that leads to good versus bad failure if he prefers one type of behavior over the other. Leaders must stake their claim. Define the difference in good failure vs bad failure to reinforce the culture you want in your formation. Here is how I define good versus bad failure:
Failing when you’re prepared is ok.
It’s NOT ok to fail because you are unprepared.
Failing because you are trying something hard is encouraged.
3. Make Your Own Rules
The best way to measure your unit’s success is against the goals and metrics that you lay out for them. If your higher headquarter is putting on a training event and the evaluation measures are unclear, then make your own. If you think that a specific metric may stifle initiative, then add your own perspective. At the end of the day your formation will respond to rules the way that you do. You have to remain authentic and make the exercise objectives your own if you want buy-in from your leaders. For NTC, I tried to nest my intent with my boss’s, couch the exercise in a way that would encourage learning, and reinforce a few key themes:
Soldiers with 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), engage opposing forces in a simulated exercise during Saber Junction 18 at Hohenfels Training Area, Germany, Sept. 26, 2018. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Gabrielle Weaver)
“The purpose of NTC is to not only validate this BN’s readiness to defeat a lethal and determined hybrid adversary as part of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team but to also grow, stretch, and challenge this unit against the best Opposition Force in the world. We will only reach our true potential as a fighting force by eagerly inviting the challenges that lie ahead, seeing our own struggles as an opportunity to become the best possible fighting formation we can be, and having the courage to enforce discipline to ensure we are survivable and lethal on the battlefield. At end-state we will depart the NTC at the peak of our lethality, effectiveness, cohesion, and overall readiness because of our attitude, discipline, trust in team, and our unshakable determination to win.”
In addition to describing why the exercise was important we also defined our own training objectives, providing tangible goals we could reach by phase. I established objectives for the BN, staff, and companies. Subordinate units did the same for their formations. So before the exercise had even begun the collective group of battalion leaders had personal skin in the game for where we wanted our formations to be.
With enough humility to recognize that despite how brilliant we thought our own training objectives may be, we both nested our objectives with our higher headquarters and included the evaluation measures our military’s training experts, NTC’s Operations Group, were using. Ultimately, I correlated our unit’s success against these three metrics:
- NTC CSM’s BIG 12 (see HERE)
- The ratio of enemy vs friendly killed
- Our own training objectives
Executing the NTC CSM’s Big 12 standards to a high level ensured superior performance, lethality, and survivability across all war-fighting functions. Measuring ourselves against the enemy was a reminder to each and every Soldier that ultimately near-peer combat is about killing more of the enemy than they kill of you. And finally, our own objectives provided us unit specific goals that allowed us incremental improvement in areas which were important to us.
4. Lead by Example – Especially When it Counts
A mature leader knows he cannot espouse that he accepts failure but display behavior that suggests otherwise. Just like we expect units to practice reacting to contact when training small unit drills, leaders must be prepared to “react to contact” when “the enemy” is highlighting your deficiencies during an AAR. When criticized for an action that you thought went well, how do you respond? Do you deflect and blame or do you own your mistakes and accept responsibility? How do you respond when your rater or senior rater is leading the AAR? How do you respond when you don’t respect or are at odds with your evaluator?
It’s not what you say. It’s what you do that truly sets the example for your subordinates. Resist the urge to walk away with the top score and instead make your goal to take the most out of the AAR process and grow your organization. Again, this seems obvious. But it doesn’t always happen. And it won’t happen unless you are consciously aware that your subconscious may want to deflect and dismiss feedback to help you move all the way to that #1 spot.
Mentally prepare for actions on contact during the AAR, set the example by taking responsibility, and genuinely seek feedback from the team on how to fix the problem. The senior leader’s actions during an AAR will set the organizational tone for learning and allow for constructive dialogue. In my mind this is the only way to truly lead organizational growth and deliver greater results in the future. The organizational leader must put his winning reputation on the line and accept responsibility for failure if there is any hope for his subordinates to do the same and grow from their failure.
5. Rinse & Repeat
It’s refreshing when you see a senior leader take the blame the first time. It becomes culture when she does it over and over.
A unit’s culture is the sum of its organizational habits, and to have a culture of organizational growth, leaders must habitually set conditions for learning. To have a culture of high performance, leaders must habitually deliver results. To have a unit that always exceeds expectations, its culture must encourage both. Performing and learning are very simple and obvious goals for every organization. Yet despite their simplicity, consistently delivering them escape us as often as they are attained. Rationalizing failure has always been the first step for me. Effectively communicating, setting conditions, and leading by example have to be the next steps that follow.
—
Each leader must find their own way through failure. This is the approach that has worked well for me and the unit I’m lucky enough to lead. I think it served us well during NTC. Our second attempt on Razish, by the way, was much more successful. We were far from perfect, but at “SOBE” we had destroyed all but two enemy on the objective. We had control of the town and we retained nearly 90% of our combat power. Detailed planning, coordination between adjacent units, and rehearsals ultimately made the difference. But the first step to improving our performance was collectively overcoming our failure.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!