Perhaps — but what principle is not covered? What area or behavior should be added? At Academy Leadership we promote frequent quiet time for reflection and journaling. No matter where you are on your personal leadership journey these timeless principles can provide you a useful tool for that periodic review.
Needless to say, I enjoy going back to these principles frequently when I reflect upon my own performance and look for areas of improvement. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Dontavian Harrison.
Army photo by 1st Lt. Alex Werden. Army photo. National Archives. The agency has handled cases relating to injuries, death, sexual-harassment complaints, and any other form of misconduct. Complaints can be filed by soldiers, their family members, retirees, former soldiers or civilians working for the Department of the Army. The general rule is that soldiers and Army civilian employees should report any instances of waste, fraud or abuse with their supervisor or commanding officer in the immediate chain of command.
Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the Federal Government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting excellence. Please select one of the options below. You may get faster response by using resources below, however you have the option to file a online complaint by reviewing IG Appropriate page. Department of the Army IG. If you feel the Agency or Organization we have directed you to fails to appropriately address your issue, please contact us directly at , during normal duty hours of EST M-F or submit online complaint form.
RSS Podcasts. The training also emphasized the tendency among leaders to exhibit blind-spot bias : recognizing that others may be biased but falsely believing that you are not.
Each morning the panelists received a brief antibias refresher before beginning their work. At the outset, panelists were given the names of the candidates and asked if they had any knowledge of them. This allowed organizers to create panels whose members had no preconceived notions about the people they were evaluating. Panelists were told to recuse themselves if they realized during an interview that they knew the candidate, which happened five times.
Interviews can unfairly advantage candidates who have extensive interview experience. During the BCAP prototypes, the task force noted that whereas some lieutenant colonels were excellent interviewees, most were not. So candidates were instructed in the STAR method, which teaches people to answer questions by describing the situation, the task, the action taken, and the result. Although they were not required to use it, a majority did. To ensure a single grading standard, panel members were given a rubric for each quality to be assessed that described what was needed to attain each score.
Before the panels began their assessments, they met together in practice sessions. First, each panelist independently assessed three mock candidates, and the entire group discussed the results. Members then regrouped in their panels to assess three new mock candidates and go over those results.
Each group of mock candidates included one who was strong in the KSB-Ps, one who was moderately strong, and one who was weak. Borrowing a best practice devised by the Boston Symphony Orchestra in , BCAP conducted double-blind interviews, with a black curtain separating the candidates from the panel at all times. This allowed panelists to focus on the content of answers and the KSB-Ps they were assessing rather than form judgments on the basis of ethnicity, attractiveness, or physical symbols such as wings on their uniforms.
And it meant that deep issues could be discussed without fear of repercussions should candidates and panel members work together in the future. The task force also directed candidates not to disclose, and panel members not to ask about, specific jobs they had held or locations where they had worked.
Klawe Rzeczy. Candidates who learned English as a second language or hailed from the deep South, for example, might have readily discernible accents. So the bias-prevention work stressed the need not to penalize or reward speaking styles or accents. Applying a best practice long used by special operations units, BCAP brought operational psychologists into the process. Each of six senior psychologists supervised several junior colleagues conducting one-on-one interviews with candidates before their day-four interviews with panels.
The senior psychologists collected summaries from the junior ones on the candidates seen that day and presented the results to the relevant panels in a standardized format. Because they did not interact with candidates themselves, they could be much more objective in conveying information about them. The task force developed a bank of behavior-based questions for each KSB-P being assessed, rotating them in and out to reduce the chances of their being leaked.
In the first segment of each interview, the moderator asked questions from the bank in a set order, thus ensuring that all candidates had the same core experience. Panelists could themselves follow up with questions intended to further illuminate strengths or risks. Candidates were required to wait 30 seconds before answering each question—an instruction driven by what psychologists know about certain personality traits.
Because extroverts are typically comfortable thinking out loud, whereas introverts tend to process information silently, the waiting period was meant to ensure that the former did not have an unfair advantage. Those asked to participate had served as advisers to battalion- and brigade-level commanders and general officers and had keen insights about what the job of battalion commander requires.
To minimize recency bias, they were directed not to indicate their overall assessment of the candidate. If two panelists differed significantly on an assessment, the moderator asked them to give the reasons for their rating without sharing the actual scores.
To avoid having the senior officer in the pair exert undue influence, the junior officer went first. Next, panels held their official vote. The moderator reminded members to base their ratings on the rubrics and not to identify their votes or discuss the candidates. To ensure consistency and fairness across panels, the general directing the BCAP initiative held daily meetings with the moderators, giving guidance and asking for input on issues, voting trends, and needs.
Each day he observed at least one interview per panel via a live closed-circuit camera system. He would occasionally drop into panel rooms where members were wrestling with procedural issues and offer advice.
The six moderators, the director, and a panel coordinator communicated regularly on a closed channel, sharing issues, concerns, and best practices in real time. Panelists could ask that the director observe their panel or visit it before or after an interview to clarify procedural concerns; such requests were accommodated rapidly, often within seconds. The organizational change expert John Kotter holds that a crucial step in leading change is building a guiding coalition.
BCAP asked for input or participation from several key stakeholder groups: peers and subordinates of the candidates, including the sergeants major, and general officers.
0コメント