Endeavortopersevere.files.wordpress.com



Moral DevelopmentCan you be fair and reach folks at different levels of moral development?Shouldn't the commander be a hub/resource for peer to peer moral & ethics development? Commanders have lots to do. having mentors in ethics while maintaining oversight & advice would also develop leadershipGood point. This becomes even more important as we look at organizational leadership. I had a boss who believed everyone entered military out of sense of patriotism. No. Enter for many reasons. Try the reverse - what would being unfair teach people about morality?Fairness suggests treating everyone the same, but engaging people at their level of moral development suggests otherwise. How be fair and lead different people differently?Perhaps I'm defining fairness incorrectly, but I see it as applying the same rubric/ standards to everyone's actionsOkay, so maybe the standard's the same for everyone, but how you communicate standards differs?That's the follower's development responsibility. Life isn't always fair, so we must adapt.I have to say, I believe in communicating expectations and having people meet them.Does that help avoid perceptions of partiality (if different people are at different places developmentally)?Communicating standards is at times like 'marketing' standards across the 'hearing' spectrum of moral developmentWhat if your expectations are unreasonable or unattainable for one member of your team, based on their abilities?Baby steps towards it? Nervous about it being unattainable. Do you have in mind something specific?I was thinking a field commander who sets a standard their favorites could achieve, but not outsiders… I've seen commanders design unit standards to control unit membership rather than performanceGood. That seems a serious issue.I've seen commanders design unit standards to control unit membership rather than performanceIs that something you find conducive to unit growth, or something to avoid?It's destructive because it breeds conformity and nepotism rather than diversity of critical thinking.If we are focusing on learning how to do it well, let's focus there. Everyone has examples of poor mentorship.Point was to bring into light the ethical perils of using "expectations" in deciding fairness. Can unintentionally discriminate so when you said you had different expectations for NCOs one has to communicate how they set those expectations to others, otherwise you may unintentionally cause people to believe you are making choices based on age, or rank, and not on ability.Well, sometimes you do have to make choices based on rank, but yes, absolutely.Many fewer ranks in LE... we forget how much they matter in the military"RHIP" may be the place to start repairing the institution...Ambiguity here. Fairness also suggests giving people what they deserve, which may vary with moral development.The org has norms, the Commander operationalizes them behaviorally, the led fit them into their orientationHuge point.Are those norms moral minimum or what excellence looks like (C or an A?)Both. Commander sets both the high and low bar. Must be aware of how subs interpret this. That operationalizes itMakes a lot of sense that you have to work from both.Where we are lacking is that Commander's fail to account for sub ethical/moral orientation, and make blanket assumptions.More probably fail to communicate through subordinate leaders than make blanket assumptions. Org leadership a tough jumpAbsolutely. This is the transition our students are making, so it's where we focus. Not easy for everyone!Yet the emphasis on communications at ILC is tiny compared to hours spent on staff planning at CSC and other service ILC's.Is that not a failure of the commander’s training? They should be made aware of orientation differences early onYes. Systemic failure to realize that it is YOU who lead. YOUR Orientation is the critical link.and hence how you connect yours to the subordinates requires awareness. Sun Tzu's know yourself, etc.Self-awareness -- now that requires mentoring if we aren't satisfied to let it hatch in its own good timeYes. If there is a failure right now, it is in this place. Subs show a lot more self-awareness than the bossIf "fair" is the same no matter what, no. If "fair" is what's appropriate for each person's needs, yes.Yes. It may just bring the 'victim' of unfairness an opportunity for moral development.I don't understand what you mean. Say moreRef. Kohlberg's Stages - Movement thru stages is stimulated as a result of cognitive disequilibrium.Ah, I misunderstood your comment about victim.The so-called victim of unfairness doesn't automatically see it as moral development opportunity. May require a mentor/guide.Makes more sense now. The victim is the one being developed! But developee may not be a screw up; just junior, right? What my sister-in-law-the-therapist refers to as an AFGO? (another freaking growth opportunity)Exactly. The 'younger' bro is more likely to seek out a solution, morally developNo fairness is treating people as they deserve, you can treat people differently and still be fair if 4 the proper reasonsThat's the definition of justice for virtue ethics, but works well here. Allows for integrity in unit w different members.Yes; for example, I think it's perfectly fair to hold NCOs/officers to a higher standard than junior soldiers.I'm holding American officers to a higher standard than the Malians we're training, for example...Ethically?Yes. Especially if they have more experience (if we think that's ethically relevant)I would think so. There's a basic floor, but I'd expect NCOs to show greater restraint, better judgment, etc.But how do people learn ethical behavior if they are held to different standards? Do we assume some are incapable of being good? How will they grow if given slack? How is that raising them up?If you're a 2, I can hold you to 6 and get growth. If you're a six, it needs to be 9.A 2 may not comprehend the complexities of 9.Sometimes people don't realize what they can do until challenged.and my concern is that failure to challenge them will not provide the impetus to learn and grow Right. Seen it over and over in civ classroom w all kinds of students. Can still challenge w/o crushing them for 1st lapse. Older/senior should know better.Right. Small steps w chance to learn, rectify issues.OK, but are we holding people to the same goals? Or are junior officers/enlisted allowed to steal? Or lie?We like path of least resistance! I think there's the moral minimum, then moving toward excellence, building on that.If based on their experience or capability then that’s ok. But if its solely based on age or seniority is that ok?To what extent is "fair" based on how leader was treated when he/she was the one being led?Follower’s stage of moral development impacts their perception - situational leaders must account for this.Remember that the standard for discrimination in command is appearance of impropriety whether or not impropriety existed is mootInteresting sense that higher levels of moral development are better. Kohlberg just suggests different stages motivated differently.Interesting. I thought there was clear hierarchy of 'progress.' Am I misreading maybe?There is (one of main critiques), but his point is that folks motivated differently based on stage.Motivating people differently strikes me as different from applying standards differently (un fairly)I agree, but there's a tendency to apply same standard & approach across the board, so teasing idea out.This does seem a serious concern especially in group context like mil.I think moving up the stage is triggered by external stimuli. Individual needs to be internally accepting to moral development.The standard/height of the bar is distinct from the road people choose to get there (their motivation).Agree 100%or the manner they choose to get over it; ethical challenges can have different solutionsI've found people do better with a high bar than a low one. How set attainable ethical challenges when folks motivated differently? Exercise the "powerful influence of the institution," as Robinson explained. It’s been done historically.I find people work up to your expectations or down to them. You can ruin a great worker with low expectations.Absolutely. "If you treat your people like children, they will live up to your expectation." (and v/v)Treating them like children is one thing, but see that moral development is similar for kids/adults.Right, but the way I correct a child/junior will differ from how I correct an adult/senior.And (to some degree) diff in expectations or how they play out.ID the ones you have to "treat like children," meet them where they are, build. The Orientation of all parties is key. Priorities, values, expectations, all through various prisms.Understand the individual's internal ethics (culture, religion, or philosophy) meshing with the unit/command moral code (i.e. ROE).Absolutely. This becomes more complex as size of unit plex as the size of the organization becomes larger?Complexity is in the number of interactions an individual/unit has - that is why an extant chain of command works.Oh! It wouldn't. The leader's ability / method for reaching individuals changes as org size grows.Agree for person to person interactions. Disagree when unit morality faulty AF "individuals sane org insane"Agree. When span of control increases hard to touch each person individually (why command climate key!)Leadership by presence vs leadership by exception: Mattis a master of "being" everywhere at once. Clear communications & exampleHuge. Being out and present sends big signal to everyone, especially the more senior you are.But Mattis also a master at choosing words, adding physical presence at the right time/place. None betterMattis personally delivered a plate of goodies to my duty hut on Thanksgiving Day, 2006. Still impressed.Love him. He's a hero to many of our students.@MichaelParkyn speaks to @Martin_Dempsey mission command and setting conditions for ethical climate/cultureInteresting tangent: begins with Athenians explaining to Melians why "fairness" only exists between equals, otherwise only "interest"It begins with Thucydides. Say more.With Thucydides, we get the opposition between prudence (Athenians) & justice (Melians) that is Walzer's dominant opposition. Also sets stages for ideas in Plato and Cicero about how "fairness" w/each other determines "fairness" with enemiesSure, but there is a lot more to military ethics than Walzer. Not really our topic for tonight!Right, that's why I mentioned Thucydides/Plato/Cicero connection too.I've been distracted with another task. What's the connection to moral development?Thucydides = Treating each other "fairly" (Plato) -> Treating enemies "fairly" (Cicero). Unfairness = comes back to bite youI follow all of that, and it would probably resonate with a stage 5 individual. How motivate someone at stage 3?Try to move them to stage 4. The organization instills duty/respect/team. Some osmosis required.Is "moral development" in military means to an end or end-in-itself?Seems like many would argue MD integral to successful/professionalism in military and it improves mission performance.So it a means to an end then, correct? Not entirely. Not mere means. Some intrinsic value but hard to separate out. I'm skeptical.Interesting idea. A lot of what I see around MD in mil seems to tie to professionalism.1) If Means->End then can be avoided if better means arises. 2) if End, military vs. society. I say "military vs. society" to suggest that military moral development and e.g. US moral development aren't the same, not same goalsAgree it improves professionalism/effectiveness, but only if not approached as a means.I disagree. If it’s merely a means yes, but I think it’s more complex. Not a clean line.I wonder though if lack of accountability in leaders comes from this kind of confusion.I agree but I think it’s not always clear; there seem some practical benefits, so easy to confuseKohlberg suggests most young adults are stage 3 (motivated by group). How speak to this w/o breeding dangerous conformity? Mass punishment. (kidding!)Tactical Decision Games force junior leader to be pushed into ethical choice. Actions are personal; result shared w/ groupAbsolutely, and can tailor so one TDG works to hit different objectives throughout a unit.Or at least highlights disparities in thinking and moral cognitive choices. Especially critical for bottom and top of organization. Pvt - Bn CdrWe know the group can motivate good actions like courage & selflessness, as well as bad actions like abuse. How manage this tendency?J. Glenn Gray worries that group-encouraged courage and selflessness also bad, just misunderstood. Morality = Individuality So the leader partly by knowing your informal leaders and motivating them to lead for good.Next Q: As you move from positions of direct to organizational leadership, how can you develop your subordinates morally & ethically?You can show them the path and open the door with good examples. They must walk thru door & tread that path.Take it as a matter of fact that no matter what we discuss, every individual is responsible for their actions at all times. Period. The problem is that this up and coming generation doesn't believe that. It is always someone else's fault. How do you battle that?This hasn't been my experience of Marines coming into service. Have you seen this often?My experience with the Marines was not like this but my more recent stint with the Army had more examples of this.I wonder if it's a difference in who joins each or in the socialization process in each. Haven't done comparative studyBut this is an overall frustration that I have seen of the young people in general and those young people are joining up. You could also consider the size of each organization as a factor.Agreed.We're working to better understand why people do what they do so we can motivate ethical action. Folks always responsible for actsDisagree. Your assumption of 'fact' is part of the problem. Folks do not think they are responsible. That is not their view."Not their view" is no excuse. Any more that ignorance of the law absolves you. That is the first moral to learnIt IS the key though. Ethical/moral choices being made with a different frame of reference. Leaders must know the start point.I understand. I have no problem framing the message differently according to the audience so long as the message is the sameAgreed. Must know understand the generational differences in interpretation and value and then work from there.I get what you're saying! Don't fight the problem; work with the starting point. Sorry, misunderstood.UCMJ isn't concerned with their opinion; will hold them accountable for their actions. That's what I mean.We struggle because we don't find out the sub view then mold it into the org ethic. Boss's ethic becomes org ethicTo deter unethical behavior, must make clear they are responsible to report unethical behavior (like academy)Group dynamics and fear work against this. Kill Squad is a good example of why easier said than done.Part of the strength of the small peer group -- conformity over obedience (or am I missing something else?)Part of problem is that in most organizations there is not an explicit requirement made to report unethical behaviorAre you suggesting mandatory whistle blowing?Yes (to deter unethical behavior and foster ethical climate). Greatest deterrence is achieved by raising certainty person will be caught…with everyone watching and not toleratingAgree w you both; can't let unethical acts slide but can't be a unit of narcs. Will think on thisDifference is tone, better to inspire than force (know coming in will not be tolerated because affects org)Hard to say. Blackhearts and Kill Squad both small groups. Difference may be isolation and norm forming in a vacuum.Marines have potential for this in certain communities.Potential for what? Ethical/moral breakdown or violation reporting? It's the rub between being a member of team & an individual.Both.Need training tailored to their inherent situational factors which can cause/allow unethical behaviorFrom the negative perspective, I have been where no training before hand is possible. No one believes they will do wrong.When high morale becomes elite becomes exception, trouble lies anizational leadership is all about systems. Build systems on moral principles and ensure understanding w/subordinates.I think that's what Bentham thought his infamous Panopticon would achieveHey, the panopticon was the inspiration for the design for the pentagon...A system of bottom up feedback may help show those holding to account are held to accountInteresting -- so the leader holds himself / herself accountable publicly the same as subordinates?That is part of leading by example, is it not?It certainly frames the nature of an organization I would like to be part of -speaks to motivation - and speaks to the bedrock of Western ethical practice = Golden RuleThe do unto others version or the he who has the gold version? The 1st is hopefully the bedrock butThe first is the bedrock. The second is its corruption.I still think best acct of moral development is Book VII of Republic, must be "converted" to "the good" by "violence"Okay, but how do you communicate those ideas to an 18YO motivated more by his mates than his leaders?W/ true "violence" = Being shown misconceptions about reality are false. But that's an individual "showing," not general. If mates > leaders, must be shown, as others have said tonight, that leaders have your back, trust and support you.You communicate them to 21YO that leads 18YO. Subordinates emulate their leaders more than youFoster ethical climate thru authentic leadership, regularly communicate and reward/enforce ethical standards, role modelCommand climate. Even without direct leadership the command climate set by commander trickles downBecause of social learning influence, it is critical leaders set up newcomers w/authentic supervisors & climate/culture supports them.We struggle because we don't find out the sub view then mold it into the org ethic. Boss's ethic becomes organization’s ethic.Leadership has to be cognizant that they are being observed as examples setters/role models. Deeds must match words.Yeah, integrity has been a pretty strong theme over the past two weeks. Seems non-negotiable for bo of lead by example, also point out wrong ways and consequences of such, and confront/deal with wrongdoings. Confront/deal with wrongdoings especially by superiors important, otherwise juniors see you as all talk but coward to deal with issueThomas talks about growth from compliance to moral understanding, moral maturity, & moral ambition. How do you facilitate this development in your troops?Does the unit work together as a team to develop or is the leader the only facilitator?Great question - who are the 'teachers'?Yeah, where did that tweet go? Commander must be part, but all leaders can lead (so long as reinforcing)Everyone on (relative) same page, why integration w institutional ethic criticalDo we ever sit and talk with subordinates like we're doing now?Do you mean, have these conversations in units?Only after the fact... Once a problem arisesAlways true. Always time to fix it, never enough time to do it right.Significantly less useful as a decision tool ex post factoIf that's true and you think it's a problem, why don't you do it differently? It should become the cultural norm to be proactive in communicating. After a problem it’s too lateCynically? Only do what bosses inspect. If not their priority, there's no time. Values became buzzword and then a bumper sticker in many orgs. We have to guard against the 1/2 life of trendsYes, but I'd take a trend and a bumper sticker over total ignorance any day...There is, after all, sound theory behind subliminal messagingEthical messages piggy backing on radio messages?I'm open to all suggestions - the more off the wall the better. We're challenged throughout societyAgreed, it was the era of the Somalia inquiry and many failures at all levelsHad this discussion tonight. Folks don't want to talk ethical behavior / fine with talking the ethic.What do you mean? Aren't they related?Ethics are theoretical, ethical behavior is YOUR conductGiven the high rates of crime, sex abuse/assault, war crime etc., I don't think we have.There's stopping bad behavior & building good behavior. Maybe we need attention to building good?YES YES YESFollowing the law is ethical behavior...teaching the rules helps some understandLaw and Ethics aren't taught the same. I teach Ethics about development / Law = punishmentThey are, but different. Have to find a way to make my personal ethics match the institutions ethicHow does the institution know what its ethics are?Determining / thinking about that is at the pinnacle of Moral Development. In business, "Strategic Planning" all the craze; discussion starts thereIs it just the top echelon who develop the morals?No! And we'd better recognize it soon!No. Senior leaders set tone; all leaders develop subordinates @ their levelI would imagine the top dictates them; implementation would be delegated down. But there is certainly room for bottom-up development, so far as there is some mechanism to capture, weed, mesh, evaluate, standardize and codifyThen where is document that defines our ethics?It would be reinforced as all levels add that input and share the processAgreed. Joint ownership at all levels.You build it into your regular training. That part's actually very doable. Not huge time requirement.Why not build it into PT chants? "I don't know but I been told / ethics training’s as good as gold"PT cadences, genius! "Up in the morning, with integrity..."Up in the mornin’ ‘bout a quarter to four...Requires a leader who can define help define grey in larger context and diffuse tensions Haven't we pushed that issue enough? Do people still not know?How many hours dedicated to ethics or law on BN TNG calendar?Only a few hours annually. Depends on the unitYes. It’s just integrated w everything, so it gets to be habit, naturalIt's not that easy… Take Loyalty… Part of Ethic… Until you are faced with loyalty to peersAgainst the institution I'd like to see more of what this looks like so we can train for it (thinking of my ROTC studentI think this is EXACTLY what it looks like: care enough to ask the question and see what goesRobinson touches on this. Discuss @ their level, while framing from larger perspective - Scratch that. It was end of Thomas reading. Really useful stuff.It's not hard…Pick any hard choice that violates an Army Value. Then just watch it unravel.Right. True 4 most of the values I think.Has to be more depth. ROTC students know core values (list) not what they meanAsk them if they have ever cheated on an exam… Ever…Unravel it little at a timeHave you WITNESSED cheating? (Hands)Did you report them? (Awkward silence)I could do this with my biz tomorrow. Ethics translate. Kids are smart and as soon as we talked definition + application, they seemed really lost (seniors btw)So at what level does their reporting kick in?This is Kohlberg's point; values list doesn’t resonate with stage 3 folks.Has to resonate if they're going to internalize it Honestly values list received when in Canadian Army reserves was read once and filed That is a singular point of failureI doubt I was the only one but yes. The lecture was a little more effective.It will in time; just have to start where they are.Agreed. W/out judgment of our own for starting somewhere else on the lineYes + help them work thru themselves (w guidance)The cheating topic works with kids. I've used itExactlyI doubt I was the only one but yes. The lecture was a little more effective.Might be interesting to get their take on where the line for cheating is.Ok for relationships? / Sports? / Cards? / Stealing for mission?Haven't seen fatal compromiseI can't even begin to imagine the "re-mixes." Would strike me like AFN commercials!The list is the foundation; understanding takes years of experience + mentors.But someone has to want to mentor in this area!!The point is to drive them to internal moral confusion for a bitYes and how to get them to think it thru a bit, so can start to apply/take seriouslyMake them think thoughts they haven't thought beforeTo find the lines where they personally standFirst sergeant asking whether it’s more important to be true to my morality or succeed with a mission?Unit level may work for younger/junior folks, but need to be one-on-one for higher, older.Know where they stand 2 levels down. Level 4 LT with Level 5 SGT, needs help(Do you really believe ethical maturity corresponds with rank?)The expectation exists; higher rank, higher ethical maturity.It should: correlates with age, plus there's an opportunity to removeAbsolutely not! Disagree... Ask COL Johnson! Or COL Tunnell. (Tunnell being the gray I keep speaking of!)I know the expectation is there, but I wonder about empirical reality.A qualitative relationship perhaps, but not quant & certainly not linear. Absolutely individualI didn't say they live up to it, but there is an expectation.You know, fish rot from the head down...We certainly fall short in many high-profile instancesThat's the point... It has to be from the whole of the organization. The spiritOkay, it's understandable that we want to chase bad apples, but how do we develop good apples? Tunnel's a concern, but how do we build good ethical foundation? Not chasing bad behavior, but building good behavior.By studying the climate that he created. And why and how he did it. TALK. Open frank discussion. (But public punishment of bad behavior helps too!)Is leading by example too simple?Necessary! (but not sufficient)No. But that example is likely to be very human and real. Not definitive. COL Tunnell worked because he was definitive.Training based on effective messaging?ID high-level people on Kohlberg's scale. Make them leaders.Bingo - find the naturals and empower them as role models; they are natural trainersBut what if they can't communicate effectively w people at lower stages? Being @ a higher stage doesn't necessarily translate into ability to reach lower stages.Bring Malcolm Gladwell into play - look for the alpha dogs and tipping points to lead the charge. The philosopher king doesn't necessarily sell at the troop levelBring Daniel Goleman into play. Talking above somebody's level of awareness is like a dog whistle to humans -- inaudible.I'd suggest what makes them 'natural' is ability to connect, not being at higher stage. You can connect all day, but if YOU can't move past stage 4(-), = difficult to bring others higher.But are they faking it to get promotion or position of influence?Ouch! That's a really good question - but if they're faking moral behavior and others follow...Character is best defined by what one does when one thinks nobody is looking. Have way of observing during such moments.Right, but who cares if you're stage 5 so long as you act morally. Can be stage 3 & ethical leaderAgree. I'm thinking higher level. I don't need a stage 3 lieutenant.Yes b/9 swayed as much by peers as those @ the topIMHO, higher stage is less important than highly effective change agents. Let the HS write doctrine. You're looking for effective implementers and change agents to raise the general level of awareness. Stage refers to development of consciousness, not behavior; we need to reach 3s and not make 5s. Find the people who can communicate effectively, train and empower them. The point being, I don't see this as something that can be imparted by rote, short of the basic ideasYes. Effective change agents and a message that can be internalized. Coupled w/ pos.How can you tell where your leaders are? (Who's stage 3, 4, etc.)?When you ring the bell, who turns their head? It's about responsiveness, and the leader's ability to see it in othersShort of the Defining Issues Test, leaders need to see subordinates actually in action - we keep getting back to that.Shouldn't a good leader recognize leadership qualities in others and then develop them.w/ ethics, leaders need to be identified and empowered- not necessarily officers, or positioned in chain of commandStrengths covering weakness in ethics etc.Sorry I read Snakes in Suits and may cloud my view of things. Red flags from the 'perfect' leader depends if they rise to a level where they can be prevented from leading astray Most of us can be led astray under the right conditions; even folks @ stage 5 & 6Therein lies the horrorUnfortunately trueArrogance leads us to believe that we can't be led astray, none above temptation. Thus, the JAG. Regardless of the training effectiveness, still need watchersAnd hopefully effective civilian oversightTraining scenarios should be used to burst the arrogance.Are you thinking of "Kobayashi Maru" test?Time to re-watch Platoon...Worth thinking of Petraeus here, and view that "great leader" -> megalomaniaDo you expect the arrogant to humble the arrogant?I’ve no faith in civilian integrity, sorry, even tho I be one...I don't understand your point. Can you explain?Me thinks he is suggesting that civilians don't have a lock on ethical behaviorShocked by lack of faith...really.Ethically challenged overseeing the ethically challengedSeems to be a truth of the human condition. What pop isn't ethically challenged?Because of 1996 Aberdeen Scandal Congress had to tell Army how to train.You don't have to go that high; company to battalion, battalion to brigade…This is why I asked earlier about perceived role of chaplaincy/religion I don't know. LA just severed its relations w/Cardinal Mahoney...I was thinking along the lines of an ombudsman for when system failsAny discussion of political-science centers on incentive, not ethics. We would go nowhere.Agreed - that was my pointThat would be a culture of arrogance. Massive failure that needs outside helpShall we discuss Congress?Since we're focused on moral development of subordinates, not civ-mil relations, not now.That is one big can of worms to openGood, but let’s remember that the people who make our laws are no better than our troopsDon't think anyone was claiming otherwise!I am thinking MAMIE - Monitoring and Modifying Internal Ethics - a morality/ethics role playing game to be developed.Sounds interesting, when can we try out this RPG?That might be a winner - subtly impart learning through cyber role play; master concepts to advance levelsIsn't that also the purpose of "Iraq," in California desert, that was portrayed in "Full Battle Rattle" doc?Exactly! Level 1 Obedience to Level 6 - Universality. Log as initial program seed. Could be a co-operative job. Seed the idea and you can make it happen- feedback epistemology. Hold ideas until the right time and place so it actualizesInteresting, will think more about it, thanks.How is good behavior publically acknowledged?Different approach. Did we establish that all troops have to operate at the same level of ethical maturity, so long as they are operating ethically, according to expected levels of morality?Ah, no. Folks will be at different levels; just need to speak to the different levels so everyone's motivated, right?So then we have to develop mechanisms that impart the unit goals and expectations to each level; and id/ameliorate defectsI'd say yes -- this keeps people from over-identifying with small group and losing larger foundationLast question for the night: How help subordinates grow from moral failure?Like a coach breaking it down and reviewing it make sure it happens in training not on opsAre we talking personal failure, unit failure, or command failure? Have to have ready mechanisms to debrief and discuss lessons learnedAnd how things might have gone differently, alternate endings, other paths.Is there not a system of after action reviews to add ethical review in?Command is about people - know your resource - Personal failure @ command=Unit failure Put them in charge of next exercise.Must know the tolerance the service has for recoverability from particular failure.Provide opportunities for recoverable failure and make them into teachable moments. Make + example of well-intended failure1st step is sub accepts responsibility for action. Hardest challengeThey need to understand the failure to learn from it.Stress human frailty & growth opportunity thru responsibility & perseveranceGive them chances to fail early on & at tasks that are critical, then provide good feedbackYES! YES!Don't wait for the failure to happen but bring out past examples to use as scenariosPersonal failures - drop some Kohlberg. They will be drawn in.Agree 100% w this: We just have tendency to nail person to wall or ignore failure, rather than teach through itWhich in its self is a failureSecond law of thermodynamics -- when the heat's on somebody else, it isn't on you. Sad, but trueDoesn't sound good for the institution that practices that & not the Second law on WikiMy last refers to tension between ethics & incentive -- right vs. survival. Doesn't matter if it's on wiki, it's in lifeOK I was thinking physics. Still getting the balance of ethics & instinct wrong can result in disaster"Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” – BeckettGood. What does it mean to fail better?(Though of course I think Beckett more generally meant that to try to avoid failure was to only avoid living)Can't think "failure" = only something to teach away, but also something to teach with." Failure" might just mean bad system Agree 100%. What do you do with that to improve the members of your unit?Their failure might be your fault.Perhaps we should rephrase "failure" as "lapse" to de-stigmatize it.Why would you want to de stigmatize failure?Because success breeds successIt’s a matter of degree - some things (like urinating on the dead) are of a different magnitude than other possible moral missteps...Fair.Some failures are worse than others, depends on how dealt with (why zero tolerance can b problem)Zero tolerance also can limit admission of failure. Need path to redemptionRight. This is my worry.Want to encourage troops to open up... discuss shortcomings so as to growWhere leaders can lead by example by seeking feedback on their shortcomingsTop down AND bottom up!Yes, let’s not conflate expense report "oversights" with urinating on the dead...Watch the slippery slope. "Misfiled" expense reports lead to greater things, no?Absolutely; but not the same as a fragging, is it? Zero tolerance, w/ perspectiveFor an expense report? No, either JAG or the next level upI meant an expense report "failure is not the same level lapse as a fragging. (!) but we can leave both to the JAG100% agree when it comes to recoverabilityThat is where checks & balances should act as failsafeRight, hence my point about severity of 'failure' some failure gets people killed.Team work at all levels for combined ethical developmentSeems we could use six sigma program for ethical training; continuous improvement w/positive feedback loop. With suitable positive reinforcement/ reward structures for "right" behaviors; unit citationsYes. How do you issue citations at the critical training stage? A training citation?Or simply meeting a continuously higher level of achievement - so many days/ missions/ w/out lapsePerhaps review Maoist criticism/ self-criticism, albeit an abusive approach to behavioral conformity w/r/t ethicsI think this is when you give latitude, let "failure" lead others. If it works, it works. If not, not. All learn regardlessI'm seeing importance of leaders to reflect on own potential failings when subordinates fail (& not all failure equal). Makes senseCounsel, explain, have to also see if person capable of redemptionStray Questions:What is the role of narrative/ cultural myth in describing the boundaries & aspirations?What is the connection between moral development/maturity and religion/chaplaincy? Norwegian approach based on recognizing need for bothHow does #METC respond to Asa Kasher's view that moral development shouldn't be aim of military training? Changing character beyond mil. aim ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download