By Rear Adm. P. Gardner Howe III, President, U.S. Naval War
College
NEWPORT, R.I. (NNS) -- The following is an abridged version
of the presentation on professionalism and leader development delivered at the
Navy Flag Officer and Senior Executive Symposium in April 2015.
My first year as president of the U.S. Naval War College
(NWC) has been an incredible experience and a real journey of professional
discovery.
My first discovery was simply the scope and depth of the NWC
efforts. While not a graduate, I'd known of the college throughout my career,
and knew of its strong reputation for academic rigor. What I wasn't aware of
were the college's specific missions, and the variety of programs in place to
meet these missions.
As tasked by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the
college has four missions: 1) it educates and develops leaders, 2) it helps
define the future of the Navy, 3) it supports combat readiness, and 4) it
strengthens maritime partnerships with other nation's navies.
Most of you are likely familiar with the key programs at the
college that execute these missions - our two world-class, in-residence Joint
Professional Military Education academic programs, both of which grant an
accredited master's degree; the war gaming in our Center for Naval Warfare
Studies; and our international student programs that bring non-U.S. officers to
the college.
These programs are healthy and evolving. We're in the final
stages of completing our regional accreditation to continue granting masters
degrees, and we're restructuring the Global War Game series to better support
the CNO and the fleet. In addition, we now have the largest number of
international students ever on the campus.
But there is so much more going on across the college. In
addition to the resident program, the college directs the Maritime Advanced
Warfighting School, the Advanced Studies in Naval Strategy Program, and
Advanced Research Programs covering topics such as near-peer competitors,
ballistic missile defense, deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, asymmetric
warfare, and cyber warfare, to name a few. Alongside the Naval Postgraduate
School, we also provide tailored support to flag officers as they transition
between assignments.
We provide direct support to the fleet through the Operational
Level of War Programs, such as the Maritime Staff Officer Course, the Maritime
Operational Planner Course, the Executive-level Operational Level of War
Course, and the Joint/Combined Force Maritime Component Commander Courses.
Additionally, the college has a strong culture of
assessment. Combined with our integration into the Navy's Warfighting
Development Center enterprise, and our role in helping steer the Navy's
Strategic Enterprise, the college's core curriculum and other efforts are
relevant to the needs of the Navy at the tactical, operational and strategic
level, and we've got mechanisms in place to ensure that they remain so.
Besides what I've learned about the war college, I have had
two additional significant discoveries over this first year's journey. These
are things I didn't know nine months ago, but wish that I'd known a long, long
time ago.
The first is that there is an operational imperative - a
warfighting imperative - that we view our Navy as a profession, and ourselves
as members of a true naval profession. The second is that in order to
successfully execute our Navy missions as effectively as possible, there is
nothing more important over the long term than leader development.
A couple of comments before I delve deeper into these statements.
First, the last thing in the world I want is for this
discussion to come across as me preaching from the Ivy Tower in Newport, or
sounding like 'Charlie Brown's teacher.' I believe the things I'm speaking
about are far from mere academic considerations. Quite the contrary, I am
convinced there are practical and operational implications to the subjects of
professionalism and leader development, and that it is vital to engage in much
more explicit discussion of these subjects than has been typical in Navy
culture in the past.
Second, this discussion isn't about trying to fix a
significant problem we have today. It is much more about ensuring we are
prepared for the challenges of tomorrow. In the past, our institution and our
leaders have been largely successful, in some cases exceedingly successful.
Today, however, the world is changing at an increasing rate, and the 'VUCA'
acronym accurately captures the environment for which we need to prepare our
leaders. The operational environment is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous
and promises to become ever more so in the future. What's proven successful in
the past isn't going to fully prepare us for the future.
This discussion is about moving from good to great, and
being ready for the increased challenges we'll face in the future.
Professionalism
Let's return to my first discovery. There is an operational
imperative - a warfighting imperative - that we view ourselves as members of a
profession in a non-trivial sense of the word. It has come as something of a
shock to me that I have had this realization so late in my career. But that is
precisely what makes me think we owe the Navy and the nation a change in our
culture so that the sense of personal identification with the Navy profession
is pervasive through the fleet at all levels of rank.
I imagine most are aware of the discussions across
Department of Defense (DOD) in recent years about the state of our profession.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dempsey, has long been an
advocate of the professionalism in the military, and expressed concerns over
the need to reinvigorate the profession of arms. Over the years I've read
multiple articles in Joint Force Quarterly and other military related
periodicals, on the subject of professionalism.
Frankly, much of those discussions didn't resonate with me.
I had been exposed to the concept of the military as a profession in my early
years at U.S. Naval Academy, but for almost my entire career, to be
professional meant looking good in uniform and being technically and tactically
competent. When I read the Navy ethos, the word 'professional' was simply an
adjective meaning the sailor was squared-away and a good operator.
In my current job, I've been re-exposed to the basic ideas
of what it means to be a member of the profession of arms. I've been able to
spend a good amount of time with retired Rear Adm. Jamie Kelly and the NWC team
on these issues. I have been in regular communication with Rear Adm. Margaret
Klein and her team in the Pentagon, where she works directly for the Secretary
of Defense examining questions of professionalism throughout the department. I
have spoken regularly with my counterparts in the other services, discussing
the meaning and implications of professionalism for our services and the means
by which we attempt to inculcate professional identity into their members.
Now, after this extensive engagement with and immersion in
these issues, the chairman's dialogue about the profession rings loud and true
in ways it hadn't before this immersion in these issues.
Here's what I've come to understand. Our Navy has a dual
character. On one hand, it is a military department organized as a bureaucracy.
The bureaucratic dimension of our organization is unavoidable for any
organization of our size and complexity. But on the other, it is an
organization dedicated to supporting a military profession. It is this dual
nature as both a bureaucracy and a profession that shapes our key challenge as
Navy leaders.
Bureaucracies originated out of society's need for efficient,
routine work. The focus on efficiency drives an organization characterized by
centralized planning and control, little delegation of discretionary authority,
and compliance-based behavior.
Professions originated out of society's need for the expert application
of specialized knowledge. In order for professions to most effectively provide
that expert knowledge, they need autonomy. That autonomy is based on trust;
trust between society and the profession, and trust among the members of the
profession. This trust is based on shared values/ethos, and demonstrated
actions in accordance with these values/ethos.
The dual character of our Navy is important to understand.
The attributes and strengths of both the bureaucracy and the profession are
needed to execute the wide variety of functions across the Navy every day, and
tension between the two is necessary and natural. As the leaders of the Navy,
however, our challenge is to ensure the overarching characteristic of the Navy
is - and remains - that of a military profession. Why? Because a bureaucratic
organization will never succeed in combat; only a professional organization can
and will.
The operational environment - on the land, the sea or the
air - is violent and complex, dominated by uncertainty and ambiguity. Success
in this environment requires much more than tactical competence; it requires
judicious and decentralized employment of that competence at all levels;
tactically, operationally and strategically. And the key enabler of
decentralized employment is trust; trust up, down, left and right within an
organization, and trust between the military and the nation it serves.
My colleagues that study organizations have taught me that
trust is largely absent from bureaucracies. In fact, such organizations are
specifically designed to function in low-trust environments. By contrast, trust
is the central characteristic of a professional organization. Trust in a
profession is built upon each member's core identity being associated with the
profession, and each member's actions being guided by an ethic shared across
the profession.
It is here, in this difference in the nature of trust in
bureaucracies and professions that I've come to understand the warfighting
relevance of professionalism. I now clearly see the absolute operational
imperative to thinking, seeing and being a profession, only this identity
engenders the trust necessary to fight and win in today's operational
environment.
This updated understanding of professionalism has also
improved my thinking about ethics. For most of my time in the military I have
been a bit confused when discussing ethics. Were we discussing the religious
notions of right and wrong from my parochial high school education? Were we
discussing a branch of philosophy? Or were we discussing what's allowed or not
allowed within DOD's standards of conduct or the Joint Ethics Regulation?
I now see ethics through the lens of professionalism. As
members of the maritime profession of arms, our ethic is what guides and steers
our actions. That ethic certainly includes laws, regulations and policies, but
those are a mere baseline of legal compliance. Far more important for guiding
our discretionary professional judgments are the non-legal professional
expectations established by our Navy culture, its values and its highest
aspirations. Our ethic guides us to always act in a manner that supports the
values of the nation we serve, and enhances the trust within the organization,
and with our civilian leadership and nation. In a complex world, our ethic
helps us understand not only what we can or what we must do, but more
importantly, what we should do.
This idea of being a professional is renewed in me. This
framework for thinking about the profession of arms and our professional ethic
has clarified and refined my thinking. It has created a mindset that has
positively influenced my behavior and decisions. The Navy ethos has new meaning
for me. As I reflect on the years gone by, I'm convinced I would have been a
better naval officer and leader if I had this framework for thinking about
professionalism earlier in my career. Without a doubt, I know now that I'm
better prepared for the challenges I may still face.
It's this impact on my thinking and decision-making,
combined with the operational imperative of a genuine professional identity
that has made me a true believer in the chairman's call to renew our commitment
to the profession of arms.
The tension between our Navy's bureaucratic and professional
attributes will grow greater as we move into times of fiscal pressure and away
from sustained combat. We have a choice in how we see ourselves, in how we
think about ourselves, and as we think about what we're doing from day to day.
As we all head back to our day-to-day assignments, I'd ask
that we make a conscious effort to let the framework of the Navy as a
profession drive our vision, thinking and decisions. We'll be a better Navy if
we do.
Leader Development
So if we understand that seeing ourselves as a profession is
an operational imperative, then it's important to ask, "How can we
propagate that vision and inculcate that mindset across the force?" And
that brings us to the critical role of leader development, the second huge
lesson I've learned over the last nine months.
I'd like to begin with the following quote from Adm. Arleigh
Burke; he clearly understood the importance of developing the Navy's leaders:
"There is one element in the profession of arms that
transcends all others in importance; this is the human element. No matter what
the weapons of the future may be, no matter how they are to be employed in war
or international diplomacy, man will still be the most important factor in
naval operations. This is why it is so important that under the greater
pressure of our continuing need to develop the finest aircraft, the most modern
submarines, the most far ranging carriers and the whole complex of nuclear
weapons, we must keep uppermost in mind that leadership remains our most
important task."
For most of my career, I too understood that leader
development was important, and an inherent part of my job. But it was just
that, an inherent part of my job. I saw it as an ancillary task to my 'real
job.' I saw as my primary responsibility serving as a good role model for my
subordinates and peers as I executed my job. Of course, I would provide
counseling when required and make efforts to find leadership training and
opportunities for my juniors. But since I wasn't a leadership 'expert,' I
remember often feeling I wasn't qualified in leading a discussion on
leadership. So I stayed in my comfort zone, tried to be a good role model, and
hoped that this was sufficient.
This seemed to be the approach of most of the leaders I
observed, and from what I could tell, it seemed to work. Over the years, my
focus was primarily on getting the work of my real job done and took for
granted that leader development was occurring through operational experience
and osmosis.
My assignment as president of the NWC has afforded me the
opportunity to have a wide variety of discussions on leader development. As a
result of those discussions, I've come to understand that this approach to
leader development, while likely a common one, was incomplete and insufficient.
Sadly, I have acknowledged that I had on many counts failed in my
responsibility to execute the critical role of a leader in leader development
anywhere as well as I could and should have.
My passive approach of serving as a role model was good but
insufficient. As I argued earlier, the world is changing at an increasing rate,
and the operational environment continues to grow more volatile, uncertain,
complex and ambiguous. We can't rely only on experience and observation to
develop our future leaders. Nor can we rely solely on the schoolhouse, Mobile
Training Teams or General Military Training programs. I have come to believe
that the single most effective means of improving leadership across the Navy is
'leaders engaging leaders.'
Leaders at all levels must be actively involved in
development of those in their charge. Preparing them for the challenges of the
future is not an ancillary aspect of their real job; in some respects, it is
their most important job. There is no need for one to be a leadership expert in
order to move out with leader development efforts; one doesn't need to have all
the answers. In many respects, the most important thing we can do to make us
all cognizant of our professional identity is simply ensuring that conversation
about leadership, ethics and the naval profession is a routine aspect of our
interactions with each other.
Explicitly raising such issues in the midst of routine
operational activity will have a significant impact on our personnel as they
realize it is a shared expectation that the profession is part of what it is to
be a member of our Navy. And no one is in a better position to do so than
leaders at all levels. Leaders engaging leaders ... this is the key.
Making professional identity, ethics and the Navy ethos an
integral part of Navy life will do far more to encourage and embed professional
identity than any number of PowerPoint presentations by leadership experts.
If I could go back in time to my days as a platoon
commander, or executive officer, and I knew then what I know now, I would
ensure that time was routinely scheduled for discussions and reflections on the
profession of arms, leadership and ethics.
Since I can't go back in time, I'm trying to do the next
best thing, and that's driving these discussions in my engagements at the
college, at the Naval Leadership and Ethic Center, and at the Senior Enlisted
Academy.
As you return to your command, I ask that you too drive
these discussions every chance you get, and help get leaders engaging leaders
in development efforts across the force.
So these are my two key discoveries since reporting to the
NWC; the operational imperative of seeing ourselves as a profession, and the
critical role of leaders in leader development. As I look to the future, I
believe we need to acknowledge that there is an operational necessity for the
Navy to recognize the tension between bureaucracy and profession in our Navy,
and to deliberately choose to view ourselves as members of a profession.
We also need to recognize the critical role of leaders
engaging leaders in our development efforts and to recognize that explicit
attention to issues of leader development and ethics are vital and important
aspects of leaders' responsibilities at every level and rank.
As stewards of the maritime profession of arms, we must
return to our assignments across the Navy with a renewed commitment to engender
the trust necessary to fight and win in today's operational environment through
the professional development of our people.
Posts
