Page 11 - Jackson Journal
P. 11

                 1. Abusive behaviors
2. Self-Serving behaviors
3. Erratic behaviors
4. Leadership incompetence
5. Corrupt behaviors
Although self-awareness should be my
next component of the big 3 to address, I’ll actually factor it more into the “how” portion of assessments in the next section.
HOW
So finally, the how of assessments. Concerning BCAP, CCAP, and SMAP, the how is pretty straightforward. “Candidates” are already selected or “screened in” for the level upon which they will command by way of a selection board. However, the assessment process and a panel determine who is “screened out” of the running for command, and in the case for CSMs, senior enlisted advisor positions.
Through a battery of physical, cognitive, peer
/ subordinate reviews, and a panel interview,
the candidate is deemed “ready” or “not ready”
for command. The overall process is way more in-depth and deliberate than I make it sound,
but you get the gist of the process or the how. Regardless, the fundamental element that serves as the overriding and overarching factor to screen a candidate “out” is the candidate themselves, not the panel.
The basis of how aware or un-aware a leader
is about themselves is not totally apparent simply through a battery of tests. However, it is most evident in what the leader says about themselves and how they communicate about themselves. Those who are aware of their strengths and weaknesses and can see themselves clearly tend to communicate about themselves clearly, honestly, and reflect the reality revealed about them through peer / subordinate reviews and the other assessment tools. In other words, when the “audio matches the video,” it is generally a good indicator of many the most crucial things about the leader being ready
to hold critical levels of responsibility and lead our
formations. When the audio doesn’t match the video –warning bells will be ringing.
In reality and for day-to-day operations,
more senior leaders will not have such an
elaborate approach to assessing emerging leaders.
Nonetheless, we have multiple tools at our disposal
that are just as effective that we don’t really use as
much as we should, in my humble opinion. Instead,
we rely on a series of conversations (mostly one-
way) that do not enable a subordinate to see or
work on areas in which they are being assessed. Our
counseling tools, proven assessment tools (whether
developed or provided), and well-orchestrated
feedback conversations are simpler mechanisms
that we have at our disposal to get after many of the
same things that a CCAP, BCAP, or SMAP would
employ.
Through our personal observations as leaders, receptivity to feedback from others on those whom we evaluate, and a well thought out approach
to individual development (for self or others) is extremely valuable. I once heard someone say
that “feedback is a gift,” yet I totally and utterly disagree with this statement without additional consideration. Although feedback IS a gift, like
any gift, the recipient can elect to keep it or toss it. Similarly, if the gift’s giver is not skilled in providing thoughtful feedback or is simply not good at providing feedback, what good was the “gift”? “Feedback is the breakfast of champions!” for those who can embrace, desire, and act/reflect on the feedback provided to them, displaying a tendency to improve exponentially over those who do not, will not, or cannot integrate feedback to critically adjust behaviors.
Using Assessments
 Jackson Journal 11




























































   9   10   11   12   13