The Army's Discourse Problem
How French Meetings Foster Richer Decisions
**Help us figure out how to promote Line of Departure by submitting your idea.**
Our friends over at MWI posted a great article on professional discourse—or lack thereof—in the Army's conference rooms. But the author, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Montague, has seen a different way while working with the French Army.
Here’s the intro to the piece, which probably resonates with most of us:
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Picture it—the commander and staff are assembled in the conference room. At some point during the meeting, the commander expresses an idea to the group of twenty-odd staff and noncommissioned officers. It’s not a particularly good idea, but it isn’t exactly terrible either. Think of all the times you’ve been in this exact situation. What happens next? In my experience two things normally happen. First, there is an awkwardly long silence before anyone says anything. Then, when someone finally speaks up, the comments often begin with something to the effect of “Sir, you’re exactly right” or “Ma’am, that’s a great idea,” which is then followed by further glowingly supportive remarks. Be honest: How often have you seen this before?
Read the rest over at MWI.
I appreciate this article. Once you spend quality time with another army, you come to realize how deferential to authority the US Army is. We tell ourselves a lot of stories about mission command and initiative, but in practice we are so hierarchical that we minimize discourse, dissent, and independent action (I wrote about our issues with adopting mission command here (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2022/Rose/). When you integrate with many other armies and not just observe high-level meetings or overly rehearsed, multinational exercises, you will see an openness to debate that we do not have. In multiple Bulgarian battalions, I saw subordinate officers and NCOs opening disagree with their battalion commanders and debating them. In Ukrainian battalions, rank did not matter, although the battalion commanders got a lot of respect for being proven combat leaders. Ironically, in teaching them MDMP, their commanders jokingly appreciated how they could just sit back and imperiously receive briefs from their staffs. They were used to being much more integrated with their staffs during planning and creating a much more cooperative atmosphere than in our planning processes, in which commanders expect well-rehearsed, theatrical briefs.
Unfortunately, individual leaders will not change our system. Our deference to authority comes from our rigid personnel system, which makes subordinates too risk adverse to debate their commanders. They are too nervous about earning that MQ. Our personnel system has created a culture of obsession about what “the boss” thinks and how to adapt everything to how “the boss” receives information. That culture will not change without a change to the incentive structure imbedded in our personnel system (for how to fix our personnel system read https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ending-the-churn-to-solve-the-recruiting-crisis-the-army-should-be-asking-very-different-questions/).
It also does not help that we have imbued command with a religious sanctity and the CSL has become a sacrosanct tome released by the college of cardinals.
Thanks for sharing this. Two phrases stick out to me.
"Silence builds tension" and who wants to be the first one to talk? When the question "What do you all want to talk about?" is posed, usually the awkward silence lasts for a while until the XO, S3, or other senior member of the unit speaks up. Anyone 'younger' in the meeting will rarely speak up and that leads me to the next phrase.
"Commanders must set a tone that encourages discourse" In my aforementioned example, sometimes the best ideas are dragged out of the newest members of an organization. Leaders must forcefully encourage discourse and remove any barriers that prevent it. QR Code surveys, unannounced battlefield circulation, trooping the line, whatever name you want. In the meeting setting (depending on the size), instead of asking for general alibis, asking from person to person individually gives that second of a platform needed for them to speak. Sometimes the tiniest amount of encouragement is all that is needed.