What follows is a zero-edit ‘thinking out loud’ piece of writing to consolidate my thoughts in one place. It isn’t polished nor all-encompassing, and I’ll gladly read your thoughts/comments (if you have any) if you reply in the Twitter thread.
“What's the most important professional relationship
able to undo a terrible culture at unit level?”
This is a poll question I asked on Twitter because a conversation came up about the relationship between Platoon Commanders and their Platoon Sergeants in a group chat. The poll options I offered are as shown:
CO and Coy 2ICs*
Pl Comds and Pl Sgts
CSMs and Pl Sgts
Sect Comds and Sections
*this was a genuine typo, I meant to offer CO and Coy Comds here – but let’s call it a wildcard option.
As ever with Twitter, getting the nuance right is always a challenge. Almost every time I post something challenging or contentious (I’m not stating the above is) the first thing that often happens is people interpret it in a way I didn’t expect. And that’s great since it does two things: keeps me on my toes, and develops my thinking/articulation/perspective.
I think, however, there is no absolute answer to the above question. But we can certainly steer our thinking to who exactly can positively impact, or stabilise, terrible unit cultures (more on this below).
I do like @B_Yes_Dev’s reply ‘All the relationships in regards to culture are equally important.’, because this is logically undeniable. But I wanted to drill down and encourage critical thinking around the subject. I wanted to get to why things can be massively impacted by distinct and/or subconscious factors.
For what it’s worth, looking at the replies, interpreting this question as a Change dilemma is arguably totally acceptable. However, in my head (and I’ll raise the white flag here at posing the question sub-optimally), I wanted to encourage discourse around truth and action.
Why?
A duality lense can offer a helpful way to look at this. Thinking of the question in direct contrast brings about a 50/50 dualism: quality unit cultures can be totally destroyed by any of the poll options offered (including my unintentionally omitted COs and Coy Comds option). The options are each double-edged swords. Also, it isn’t exclusive or restricted to a top-down influence (for example, an awful CO where everybody else is enacting quality leadership and followership).
So it goes, then, there is something else at play here beyond linear/binary or exclusive thinking.
Each poll option could be argued for and against until the sun goes down (and then some), with each having their own merits and reasoned logic, so there is something else at play here. And there really is no 100% right answer to it.
…What professional relationships can undo a terrible culture?
Not all professional relationships are equally important, especially in units with unhappy and unhealthy personnel (poor culture). The beauty of it is, paradoxically, about problem people and others’ response to their actions and behaviours. This is why no one relationship type can holistically tend to unit culture exclusively.
Yes, top down pressure (policies, structure, role modelling) can be applied. Yes, transactional leadership approaches (establish expectations, carrot and stick, discipline and reward) can be applied. But these are top down Change focused. They don’t necessarily breed commitment, nor do they wave a magic wand and nurture discretionary effort from everybody.
The voice of the soldier.
The only way to tackle a terrible unit culture is to seek out the whole truth, commit to taking meaningful action, amplifying the voice of the soldier, hold people and policies to account regardless of rank or status, and feed back the successes and difficulties faced along the way.
It isn’t about Change. It’s about meaningful action. To do this, leaders need to go where the soldiers are. They need to lift rocks and ask difficult, uncomfortable questions. They need to understand where the problems are. Only then is it possible to select an appropriate professional relationship(s) to tackle the issue(s).
‘The voice of the soldier’ sounds like a cop-out, right? Well, I’d agree. And yet, we have systems in place to tackle poor unit cultures, to stop them in their tracks, to eradicate the issues across the whole organisation… but they lack the above on the most part and they lack credibility.
Tangent. Arguably, cultural problems and their solutions will be most felt and highlighted at ground level. It’s of particular interest that the Sect Comds and Sections option has the least amount of votes (at the time of writing, only 15% of 125 votes). Yet, this is where mass connection-power resides, where people have the greatest impact and most tangible viability for real change to facilitate happy and healthy personnel everywhere in a unit. If we have positively engaging, stimulated, relationship-forming, committed Section Commanders who create meaning and strive to accomplish in the face of tough unit cultures; we have leaders leading well. But they cannot be expected to continue to pick up the pieces ad infinitum, and the voice of the soldier should be the facilitating force around their efforts.
That said, and in summary, to tackle problems we need to find and go where the problems are foremost. But we must seek the whole truth, be smart and open about how it is responded to, and be bold and fierce about what we do. Only then can cultural problems be sustainably and meaningfully tackled head on.
Comments