We are in a daily…scratch that…a moment-to-moment fight against our biases. They blur our sight-picture and color our perceptions. This is especially true in our mentorship of junior NCOs and officers. It’s human nature to build a picture of success that is predicated on our own experiences and views. It’s even more prevalent among successful leaders who believe they got where they are by doing what they’ve done. In “October Baseball,” a recent post on The Field Grade Leader, Major Jim Plutt provides some insightful advice on the development of captains and the transition to major. His point about broadening assignments provides a lens through which to assess the dangers of the Mirror Bias when mentoring our leaders.
Let me start by saying that Maj. Plutt’s piece in The Field Grade Leader covers more than just broadening assignments. He discusses the need for building technical and tactical competence through company grade billets. Jim addresses the need for majors to seek out and remain open to additional mentorship from their battalion and brigade commanders. And he puts much needed onus on personal responsibility and the self-development domain. However, the paragraph he dedicates to broadening, in my opinion, slightly misses the mark.
Jim outlines three options along ONE general path for post KD broadening–serving as a Small Group Leader (SGL) at the Maneuver Captains Career Course (MCCC), an OC/T at a Combined Training Center (CTC), or both (referred to as Project Warrior). These are great options for post KD captains. They steep a leader in doctrine, focused on tactical competency, and provide invaluable repetitions at observation. But this is just ONE path. Below are three things we need to consider when advising and mentoring junior officers.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Mirror imaging is a form of cognitive bias where the observer views subjects through the lens of their own experiences and environments. As leaders, we need to think critically about two questions. First, we must examine if our current successes are the direct result of our chosen path, merely a by product of it, or somewhere in between. Secondly, we should determine if we are developing leaders in the context of their individual strengths and talents–or if we are trying to create clones of ourselves.
To the first question, it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that our experiences were the direct catalyst for our success. In this case, we fall victim to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. We believe that just because y follows x, x must have caused y. Are you really succeeding as a company commander because you decided to take a position as a company XO when you were a lieutenant instead of assessing for Ranger Regiment? Are you succeeding as a Battalion S3 because you chose to be an MCCC SGL or NTC OC/T rather than going to grad school? And even if you are, should you then be forcefully pushing that decision on those you are mentoring? Was your path the only/optimal path for all?
Talent tends to rise to the top, and performance trumps most other factors (aside from character and maturity shortfalls). If you are a talented leader, with the right skills, the agility to understand that what got you “here” won’t necessarily get you “there,” and possess a solid work-ethic, the chances are that you will continue to succeed regardless of whether you capitalized on your GradSo, was an OC/T, or took a different opportunity. Likewise, just because you served as an OC/T or SGL doesn’t mean you will succeed as an S3 and XO. Broadening doesn’t maketh the leader.
To the second question–our job as mentors is to help our subordinate leaders to become the best versions of themselves and to achieve their goals. It’s not to super-impose our goals or perspectives on them. As many would probably agree, it’s a good thing we don’t have a bunch of mini-mes running around the Army. And I would agree with that, because no one can be a better me than me–and no one can be a better you than you. We each bring our individual strengths, talents, perspectives, and personalities to the teams of which we are a part. Our focus shouldn’t be on forcing or even promoting that our leaders follow the same broadening path that we chose simply because we chose it. We should help them to discover the right path for them–one that matches their goals, their strengths, and their areas of needed improvement.
Not All Broadening is Equal
Jim is absolutely correct–your broadening matters. We could do an entire series–and we might–on the available broadening opportunities for post KD captains. But let’s be clear, not all broadening is equal. The Army as a whole, and your individual branch specifically, has a general ranking of the “best” broadening assignments. Note: This does not mean “best for you,” it means identified as top performing/prestigious. The “top” broadening opportunities are generally nominative, competitive, and strategically aligned to the service’s talent management and generation goals.
Broadening Opportunity Programs (BOPs) offered to post KD captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels are among these. BOPs include programs like Office of Chief Legislative Liaison (OCLL) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Internship. They do a phenomenal job of broadening senior captains/junior majors and preparing them for future billets across the Army. The data shows a high success rate (promotion and CSL) for these graduates. It’s that success rate, among other qualitative factors, that justifies the investment the Army makes in them.
Meanwhile, opportunities like ROTC Instructor and USMA Tactical (TAC) Officer provide valuable development in teaching, mentoring, and building teams. Serving on higher headquarters (division, corps, service, and CCMD) staffs can provide leader training in effective, and perhaps ineffective, staff work and practices. They instill organizational leadership lessons that will serve the officer well during KD billets as a major and beyond.
Each broadening program, like any other billet, carries with it an opportunity for the individual to make the most of an experience to learn, grow, and prepare. Determining which positions or opportunities to pursue post KD requires introspection, an understanding of your own goals/strengths/needs, and an honest conversation with your mentor(s).
A Mentor’s Responsibility
Mentors, leaders, raters (not all synonymous) owe their mentees a few things. One of these is honest feedback and assessment. So you want to go to Grad School, but aren’t an enumerated, Most Qualified (MQ) company commander and you lack tactical proficiency and organizational leadership skills. Perhaps the conversation point is, grad school is an option but maybe not the best option depending on your goals in the profession. A mentor/leader should give you that honest assessment and a few recommendations that meet your goals and your needs. Maybe your best broadening position is one that gives you additional tactical experience. The opportunity to get another OERs to raise your pool and overall profile might help too. It is still your decision and depends on your goals in the profession and in life.
–
Some people get lucky–it happens. Sometimes you have great leaders, great teams, and great circumstances that set you up to thrive. These people still have to make the most of their opportunities, but the foundation is there. Some people people don’t get so lucky; experiences vary. I’ve been lucky with the leaders, NCOs, and soldiers with whom I’ve served. While this has benefited me, if I am not careful it can also bias me. My experiences can tunnel my mentorship and lead me into a mirror image bias. As a mentor, remember that your experiences are just ONE set and don’t necessarily reflect the whole. They are anecdotal and, although they are still valid, they are not definitive. The best mentors and leaders I have had gave me honest feedback, open dialogue, and an unbiased (as much as possible) assessment of the paths laid out before me.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!