First, it has been shown that businesses and industry spend the vast majority of their time in business execution, whereas very little time is spent directing cognitive development. In fact, it seems that the majority of training consists of the command - control stereotype that surrounds business and industry, instead of focusing on how to improve both the individual and the organization. Conversely, the military devotes equal amounts of time to executing and developing competence through actual experiences. Many ambiguous events are created to force trainees into critical thinking and realization that there are many solutions to the problem. Furthermore, immersing members of the military into actual experiences (developed by the leader) not only provides them with practical experience, but it also facilitates creative thinking and creativity as they learn. This experiential training in the military is an excellent way of teaching "how to think," as opposed to business's training of "what to think."
Next, it is important to discuss a limitation of actual, experiential training the military imposes. To begin, the physical nature of military is literally impossible for business and industry to imitate. Situations such as those require muscle memory and an innate sense of how to make the most out of the environment. Although businesses cannot recreate combat training in a corporate environment, it is possible for them to focus on the theme of military training: improving human capital. As stated by the article, training and missions are only considered a success if there are both proper execution and improving competence.
Finally, the military focuses on providing an immense amount of feedback after all training exercises. Trainees sit down with the leaders and discuss the timeline of the actions, from planning to result, with their leader and the leader subsequently discusses strategy and beneficial changes to their behavior through feedback. In essence, leaders must become very good at coaching, supporting, directing, and delegating in order to be effective in fostering development amongst trainees.
So, what do you think? Given the synopsis of this article, is this an effective approach for developing employees in business? Instead of focusing on the physicality of military training, pay attention to the theme of creating situations for trainees to develop creative and critical thinking. Does removing constraint while allowing for risky decision making work in business training? If not, what is another effective way of encouraging employees "how to think," instead of "what to think?"
Matthew Fowles
I think the success of this model in a business environment would depend on the situation. Obviously, critical thinking and encouraged creativity are positive offerings for a company; however, the company must also pledge to actually take action on the employees' suggestions. Risky decision making with the allowance of failure results in better innovation, hands down. If people feel comfortable trying and missing the mark, they will keep trying until they come up with that one or two brilliant ideas. But at the same time, it cannot be a false sense of security with being allowed to fail; employees must truly feel as though this is encouraged. (Much like Toyota and BP have the button for employees to push to bring up a problem - because this is not consistently used correctly, it does not have much impact for employees.)
ReplyDeleteI also wonder with the military which leadership style is encouraged. I would think it is similar to Gene in Apollo 13; he is high on task performance in Fiedler's Contingency Model. The situation is similar in NASA to it is in the high-performing environment of the military. The power of leaders is also very high in the military and NASA situations, so they are probably faced with unfavorable and favorable situations - not medium ones. Businesses, on the average, probably deal with medium favorability rather than the extremes of the military and NASA environments. Therefore, I wonder about the applicability of this model to an average company.
Traci Finch