This article comes from Army Captain Travis Shaw, a Field Artillery officer who has served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Fort Drum (NY), and Joint Base Lewis McChord (WA). After commanding two companies he transitioned over to the Functional Area 46, Public Affairs. In this piece he gives us all a great reminder about humility, compromise, and loyalty to the chain of command. Lessons like these always come to us in hindsight, however, with what he has penned here he is trying to ensure YOU do not make the same mistakes he made.
Self-defense is one of the most primitive means of basic survival and extends to our professional lives. It is in our greatest interest in the military to safeguard our professional reputation. Simply put, in many instances, we have to protect our reputation. Your reputation will make or break your career. When soliciting advice prior to my assumption of command, many provided the advice, or more of a warning, that “command is a fish bowl.” You are constantly watched by subordinates and superiors and every move can be scrutinized. Defending your decisions, especially the most difficult decisions, is a constant requirement while leading. For me, the pressures of command create an atmosphere that led to seemingly constant self-defense in meetings and during training. I’d mistake constructive criticism for attacks on my person, which led to unnecessary rebuttals. I took every opportunity presented to defend my efforts in proving my rater incorrect, and this earned me a reputation among my peers for standing up to the boss. Revered by them, I found myself winning many public battles with the battalion commander, but in fact, I was losing privately and I realized it nearly too late. Enduring such scenarios led me to one important question: What is the cost of being right?
During my time as a cadet in Columbia, South Carolina’s Eau Claire High School Naval JROTC Program I realized I have always wanted to serve and contribute to a team. It was then I began to develop my leadership style and cemented the desire to continue serving as a career. As a leader, I came to find that I was a very direct communicator, which fit a “get it done” attitude and sometimes led to confrontations, as I’d not yet understood the meaning of interpersonal tact. In May 2010 after earning a Master’s of Business Administration I commissioned into the United States Army through North Greenville University’s ROTC Program. Eight years later I assumed my first command of a Field Artillery M777A2 Howitzer Battery, within a Light Artillery Battalion in the 10th Mountain Division.
During my initial counseling with my rater, he discussed the quantifiable metrics he believed were the measurements of success. He highlighted what attributes he expected from his subordinate leaders that included candor, aggressiveness, and decisiveness. Under his command, those three qualities separated good leaders from great leaders. Fortunately, I assumed command of an established, experienced Battery with a capable First Sergeant, Platoon Sergeants and Officers. At the Battery level (O-3), my formation quickly achieved top marks in each of the battalion commander’s metrics for success. Medical, maintenance, and personnel readiness were my aligned priorities nested within my rater’s instructions. It was not until three quarters into my time in command with multiple training qualifications under my belt that I began to notice something happening…
For some, the dreaded Command and Staff Meeting proved a bane of the many responsibilities required of a commander. In my rater’s anger, he frequently posed seemingly rhetorical questions and no one would reply. I began to speak up and answer those questions. My answering became routine and my peers began immediately looking to me to speak up each time he challenged us. Initially, I practiced as much interpersonal tact as possible, but as time passed, the perception was that I challenged his authority. The first rule in Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power is to, “Never outshine the master;” and I failed to realize that each time I spoke up, I potentially made the boss look less in charge. With poor discernment, I continued to usurp the commander with every public victory as we sometimes went back and forth on issues.
In my fourth quarterly counseling with my rater, reality hit me hard. My enumeration surprised me, considering I’d led my peers statistically in the commander’s priorities, yet he stated I lacked interpersonal tact. Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 defines Interpersonal Tact as:
Effectively interacting with others is a skill that requires self-awareness. Interpersonal tact is a component of professional behavior. Interpersonal tact relies on understanding the character, reactions, and motives of oneself and others. It can be distilled down to the idea of honestly stating one’s views about an idea or another person as diplomatically as possible to ensure it is understood without causing unnecessary offense. Tact should be balanced by professional candor, in terms of saying what needs to be said or done for the good of the mission or the unit. Leaders, who understand how subordinates, peers, and superiors view them, and clearly understand others, have a better idea how to communicate with tact. Candor and tact are important aspects of personal composure and an element for effectively leading diverse organizations.
Immediately, I became defensive, reminding him of the attributes he outlined in our initial counseling as important in a great leader. Regarding candor, I assumed he appreciated my ability to speak up address the issue at hand. My immediate and argumentative defensiveness is what he perceived as lack of interpersonal tact. While I viewed my speaking up in meetings and constantly taking charge among my peers as innocuous, the commander viewed me as difficult, confrontational, and hard to coach.
In an effort to improve my numerical standing among my peers, I asked what, if anything, I could do to increase my ranking at this point. The battalion commander asked me, “what is the cost of always being right?” Receiving this information required thorough reflection of myself, my peers, and the situations that led to my given state at the time. Often I was right in public disputes with the commander but ultimately, and privately, I was losing. My peers allowed me to become a pariah and fight the good fight, possibly understanding that while I appeared confrontational, they could escape the negativity. The commander’s question did its intended job and I quickly understood that all battles weren’t mine to fight. He respected candor but not when it appeared as insubordination. I had to apply a certain level of tact in my communication and leadership style to seem less insubordinate.
In conclusion, in the words of C. Joy Bell C., “Choose your battles wisely. After all, life isn’t measured by how many times you stood up to fight. It’s not winning battles that makes you happy, but it’s how many times you turned away and chose to look into a better direction. Life is too short to spend it on warring. Fight only the most, most, most important ones, let the rest go.” The cost of being right, even in defense of self, isn’t worth jeopardizing your professional reputation and career. I learned a valuable lesson: choosing one’s battles is key to survival and longevity. I earned a second command and if I had not understood the benefits of interpersonal tact, it just might have proven more difficult than the first.