A632.7.4.RB_FogartyShawn

            I was faced with the issue of accountability of sensitive items such as weapons, night vision goggles, secure communications equipment, and other items while performing combat missions. The issue we had was within our five subordinate units each unit accounted for this equipment differently, but no single unit was achieving the standards of accountability per the unit’s standard operating procedures. I was faced with not one but now five separate elements that required a system change. If you think dealing with conflict one on one is hard, try combating five that do not want to play ball at all. I didn’t dive in head first I thought logically about the problem and possible solutions. Investigated each unit to discover what they were doing, what was right and what needed to be fixed or adjusted.

            The stake holders in this case were the property accountability officers, the unit commanders, the personnel conducting the missions. There were multiple individuals that could land on the blame line, and thus these stakeholders could also potentially help fix the system that they are a part of. The first is the unit commander, his guidance is what started this game, he is involved in every aspect of what we do. His guidance sets the foundation to the changes needed within the system.  Property accountability officers would aid in identifying the minimum requirements for storage and transfers regarding paperwork and storage requirements. The personnel involved conducting missions had various levels of views. These ranged from operator or custodian to accountability officer. As the tactical operations officer and personnel recovery officer I was concerned with capabilities of equipment on the battle field. Lastly, the unit security officer was concerned with the physical security of each item.

            When the conflict arose, units felt we were micromanaging them and dictating too much over their freedom of maneuver. However, we had to educate them on the various stakeholders involved and moreover their requirements per the regulations. This evolved over time and ultimately through resolution and collaboration we achieved a new system that met all the requirements and built in efficiencies for the units to reduce any duplication of effort at their level.

            The process was rather robust, I made a solid attempt to have max participation which meant that I could incorporate and listen to all the ideas before attempting to redefine the system. This worked out well in that everyone who participated felt their voice was heard. I could not accommodate everyone to their liking but made several compromises. The only other elements that would have made it better would have been if every unit was able to participate.

            One outcome this experience taught me is no matter how hard you try you cannot please everyone. The second learning point is that two heads are better than one, three is better than two and so on. The goal is more collaboration produces a better result. Lastly, I learned that you have to be patient. You cannot always solve the issue overnight. Take time to research and discover the whole process before you engage in fixing something.

A632.6.3.RB_FogartyShawn

             In context with this week’s discussion question my counterpart at our higher headquarters is characteristic of a coconut. He is comprised of a solid exterior and until you’re able to crack him you’re not able to wreak the rewards of its contents or arrive to any sort of resolutions. We’ve taken several issues to the mat and after wrestling, realizing we’re not being productive I’ve withdrawn my attention and refocused. It wasn’t until I developed a way to crack his shell that any resolutions were made. This practice, his tough exterior was a product of his self-esteem and confidence. I initially mischaracterized him as being difficult, withholding as a righteous bravado or lacking logic while creating conflict. Once I realized he was establishing this as a defensive posture, I was able to insulate rather than oppose and take every issue to the mat. I found out by actively listening and dissecting the issues that he was acting from an uncomfortable position. If I invest additional time in educating and insulating he was more willing to let down his guard.                
            I was able to think creatively, isolating the root problem. This relieved the tension as I allowed him, by actively listening, to express his thoughts and concerns (information and feelings. Additionally, step was a product of being open and communicating. Ultimately, it wasn’t until I became completely fed up that I took the new approach which was consistent with becoming “ReasonAble.”
            The fact we spent a majority of time in pre-conflict resolution had large and significant costs associated for both of us individually and the organizations we represented. We were preoccupied emotionally in the situation which resulted in direct, opportunity, and continuity costs. Had we both taken different approaches from the beginning the costs would have been significantly reduced.  I learned that the more walls you build between you and the other person only make communication more difficult and adds additional obstacles to overcome before a resolution can be obtained. Communication is key.

A632.5.5.RB_FogartyShawn

Protected Values

           
            My protected values are consistent with the top priorities in my life. They consist of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, Trust, and Family. The relationship between my protected values of: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and Family are by far the most extreme. I would support these values by making an ultimate sacrifice of my life for that of another. I place a lot of importance on these values. I stand ready, willing, and able to trade my well being in support of our Nations Freedom, Liberty. Encompassing the value of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be the Soldier’s Creed, US Army Values, Warrior Ethos, and lastly the Oath of Commissioned Officer.
            My second most protected value is trust. Trust is easily established whether it be family, friends, individuals, colleagues, or superiors. However, once broken trust is incredible difficult to repair. There really isn't a tradeoff for trust; it’s either present or not present. There is not much of an in between. Family is my third most protected value. I'll expend energy and resources as needed to support my family. I will never let them go without their basic needs. I'd be willing to trade my personal time to devote towards helping my family. The con is loss of individual personal time. I'll support my family and extended family financially if required.
            The level of protection associated with each of my major values identified is significantly high. I do not allow others to interfere or stand in my way when it either comes to mission accomplishment or the good fortune of my family. If someone wants to burn a bridge of trust, that is their prerogative. Overall, I place a lot of importance on these values.
            Lastly, my protected values do influence my decision-making. I would take additional risks personally in protecting my family or my Soldiers. I will place myself in harms was if it keeps them safer. I also think I am stricter and more critical when it comes to decisions within these protected values.

A632.4.5.RB_FogartyShawn

            Deceptions in negotiations are relatively common. I immediately think of the used car salesmen and the wretched reputation that is carried along with that profession. To this day I still do not trust a single one of them, for no apparent reason as I’ve had great experiences. I believe that negotiations are directly associated to reputations and to be successful at one you have to be successful at the other.

            The single most important element during a negotiation is to establish trust first and upfront. As soon as your credibility is in question every statement or fact you present is considered tainted.  I can recall during the buying of my first house, I backed away from the deal, at cost due to deceptions from the previous owner and his realtor. Regardless of any concessions they offered afterwards it wasn’t enough to sway my decision. The second element to focus on during negotiations is to ask direct questions. During my last annual proficiency and readiness test, which can in theory turn into a negotiation, my standardization pilots ask me, “Do know your engine torque limitations?” I answered “yes.” Nothing more was said until he smirked and asked a different question.

            Listening is critical skill, maybe not my best but during a negotiation you must listen carefully to both what is said, or not said. Deceptions can be comprised of straight lies, or in the form of omissions. Omissions can sometimes be considered a “white lie” but is equally dishonest. Lastly, I recommend that you always, always, always keep records and get things in writing. Even the most noble of business man can turn on you if the market swings. Don’t get caught with your pants down.  
            The latest negotiation in which I was misled came from a college. We were tasked to conduct a training class and we split up the duties. He would do the research and put the training material together. I would brief the products, or not since they didn’t exist. I believe I actually went too far on this negotiation to concede oversight of the project. A good learner point for me but the cost was more than I would have wagered otherwise. Generally I like to balance concessions to a win-win situation. There’s no need to be greedy. A happy transaction will hopefully lead to repeat business. Worst case, it will help establish your reputation.

A632.3.4.RB_FogartyShawn

             Framing sounded a bit peculiar at first as I think in terms of bubbles. The biggest issue I observe within my organization associates to “Frame Blindness.” It’s difficult to teach everyone that each part of the organization works like a gear and that all the gear connects to spin the dial toward success. We cannot have one section exceed expectations and receive awards while another section fails miserably. The myopic framing is the leading element to stand in the way of ultimate success. This can be overcome I think by establishing cross functional teams to audit particular systems. When you have a fresh set of eyes from a non-stakeholder view audit a system you uncover problems, which can be tweaked to keep the gears turning forward. Recently I was on a team to audit the accountability of equipment. Each unit was doing something separate, which worked at their level but did not support high level efforts. The cross functional team was able to take objective stances and report issues, concerns and most importantly – recommendations.

            The second “frame trap” I find myself in occasionally is to develop a system with my focus in mind. This leads to the systems that provide the information that I need, but may not be useful to others. The frame conflict that arises could be overcome if I were to involve others. This concept is similar to the myopic frame trap but the important aspect of this frame trap is that it conflicts with the progress of other frame or in my example people.
            The last frame trap to overcome would be that of overconfidence. I think back to when I would write a book report in high school. This occurred often at the last minute, pulling out all the stops to complete before catching a few hours of sleep. I thought that the first words to hit paper were magical and like Shakespeare just flowed from the tongue. After a fee not so good grades and a recommendation to read what is written before turning in an assignment I learned to overcome the overconfidence.  Everyone is guilty of this, overconfidence in the project, information, or workmanship is a leading cause to mission failure. Everyone thinks that what they produce is the, Best ever! However, without a checks and balance approach the organization is unable to self correct deficiencies before they evolve into major problems.
            Overall, I’ve learned from this exercise that two heads are better than one. Three heads is better than two. You shouldn’t work in a vacuum; this will have negative consequences on your performance and that of your organization.