Conclusions: Adaptive Leadership and Power for Secure Cyberspace Operations

by Carl W. Hunt, Walter E. Natemeyer and Chuck E. Hunt

Throughout this series on Adaptive Leadership and Power for Secure Cyberspace Operations (ALP-SCO), we’ve stressed how hard leadership is. It’s time for us to admit that operating in cyberspace does nothing to make the fundamentals of leadership and management easier. In fact, successfully operating in cyberspace is one of the greatest challenges leaders (and followers) have ever faced in the history of organizations.

Leaders make the difference in any operating environment, however, and they will in cyberspace also. This concluding post on ALP-SCO both wraps up the series and offers some views on how leaders in all sectors might enhance their thinking about SCO. [1]

Last time, we began to contrast leadership in the “old days” of the information technology world with the need to accommodate system-wide complexity in approaches to leadership for today’s universe of cyberspace operations. Since we’ve emphasized the role of leadership in SCO throughout, it’s worth noting the prominence that cybersecurity author Marc Goodman places on the systemic nature of cyberspace:

In a world in which all of our critical systems and infrastructures are run by computers, it would be easy to dismiss our profound technological insecurity as just a computing problem. But we don’t just have an IT problem. Because technology is woven through the entire fabric of our modern lives, we also have a social problem, a personal problem, a financial problem, a health-care problem, a manufacturing problem, a public safety problem, a government problem, a governance problem, a transportation problem, an energy problem, a privacy problem, and a human rights problem…[2]

Technology and leadership, even though they may at times seem unrelated, must blend effectively in cyberspace to put our nation at the forefront of a future built on the dynamisms of what Kevin Kelly calls the currents and flows of innovation. [3] Here, we don’t mean technology leadership…we mean leadership in a highly technological environment that is increasingly difficult to visualize. Every item in Goodman’s list above has a common basic requirement to succeed and bring about some level of organizational visibility and transparency, however: adaptive leadership.

Getting back to Narrative 2 from last time, “SCO in Complex and Chaotic Environments,” let’s refocus on the elements of good leadership in the age of a complex environment like cyberspace. The two critical components we narrowed in on to succeed as adaptive leaders today are the ability to orient to the realities of the environment and match leadership and power styles to both the environment and to the readiness of the followers. It is the mismatch of leadership and power to the readiness levels of followers and to the environment that leaders must seek to avoid.

Since we’ve talked extensively about OODA and orientation to the operating domains and environment of cyberspace, we refer you to the detailed discussions (here and here). Also, the last post discussed the process of orienting to complex and chaotic environments, so we won’t repeat that in this post, either.

Instead, we’ll reemphasize the application of OODA and Orientation in order to avoid mismatch and operate more securely in cyberspace. And, since ALP can help even in the increasingly rare non-cyberspace environment, it’s like getting a twofer: adaptive leadership and power works in any management setting.

A significant element of adaptive leadership is anticipation of the future requirements and risks. We could easily argue that OODA was in fact designed to make anticipation in complex environments possible. [4] OODA, particularly Orientation, is indeed at the heart of ALP-SCO. Anticipation is equally at the heart of adaptive leadership, as described next.

Coauthor Carl Hunt offers an example of the effective operational level use of OODA and adaptation he experienced as a newly minted Information Technology officer in the Army during Desert Shield-Desert Storm in 1991. Many have likened the leadership challenges we face in conducting secure cyberspace operations to be like war, and we agree. From Carl:

“I had just been assigned to the US Army Intelligence Threat Analysis Center (ITAC) at the Washington Navy Yard, in DC as large numbers of US forces were being deployed to the Persian Gulf in early 1991. When I arrived, I found ITAC and our national intelligence agency partners at the forefront of applying early cyberspace technologies to warfighting challenges in an effort to make national-level intelligence products available to our forces deployed there, in what we hoped would eventually be real-time intelligence support.

“War has always presented a complex operating environment, and until this point, the delivery of these kinds of intelligence products were subject to the vagaries and untimely flows of war…intelligence support didn’t always arrive in a timely manner, or didn’t fulfill the field commander’s needs.

“The intelligence products provided from the national level normally had to be either delivered by courier or produced in-theater, typically using less than the state-of-the-art capabilities than existed in facilities in the United States or permanent regional centers. Such localized intelligence products reflected only small parts of the overall context or were of inferior resolution so that they were often ineffective at telling the story the warfighter needed in remote areas. Sometimes the products simply didn’t help commanders in a rapidly changing battlefield environment.

“National intelligence organizations of the early 90s were very keen on sharing relevant information with the warfighter in as timely a manner as possible. This was also the timeframe when we all realized the critical nature of collaboration and sharing information; we actually had the beginnings of an IT infrastructure that could make this sharing a reality, but we had to orient to the new environment; interestingly, there was a lot of talk about John Boyd and his OODA Loop in those days! Fortunately, we also had the roots of what I would call an adaptive and anticipatory leadership approach to serve remotely stationed US forces.

“Unfortunately, on the other hand, it was only the beginnings of the needed IT infrastructure, and it was hard to find “experts” who were familiar enough with the new world of “cyberspace” to adapt old processes and policies (or create new ones) in ways that would accommodate the demands for secure delivery of “real-time” intelligence. However, this was the American military, an organization that appreciated why and how to change to the demands of war, and we relatively quickly coevolved processes and technologies to adjust to these new demands. We helped warfighters win in the Gulf, with what became direct support from DC.

“Adaptive leadership demands that we find innovative ways to coevolve processes such as leadership styles, with technology in order to stay inside an adversary’s own OODA Loop. We began to provide intelligence products in real-time or even anticipated the needs of combat commanders and staged them so they could pull them as needed. In other words, anticipatory/adaptive leadership allowed the US to stay well within the adversary’s OODA Loop and decide and act during this first Gulf War far more quickly than they could before. This contributed significantly to a quick and decisive combat outcome, as well as a low-casualty conflict.”[5]

Such adaptive/anticipatory leadership approaches are precisely what we need to cope with the demands of the complex nature of operating securely in cyberspace today.

If there are any historical lessons that leaders can immediately follow to start implementing ALP-SCO today, they will likely be found in the successful prosecution of modern conflicts like Desert Storm and the follow-on military operations in the Gulf. The essential principles of ALP-SCO worked in the context of war because leaders understood the gravity of the situation and environment and realized the old ways of “attrition warfare” would result in many more casualties.

What Can You Do, Leader in Cyberspace?

Today, we are fighting the battle for cyberspace like attrition warfare, except our friendly forces of businesses, governments and academic institutions are the only ones really suffering attrition. Individual organizations cannot fight this battle alone, and we will all need to collaborate with each other and leverage the forces that governments at every level must refine and deploy in law enforcement and other forms of interagency and cross-organizational operations.

Leaders at all levels can transform the ways in which we interact with adversaries. Leaders can change the nature of the conflict through just a few basic principles derived from the topics we’ve presented in this series. It may not be all that easy to change, but nobody said leadership was easy!

For reference, here is an updated version of the initial model we showed in the first post in this series depicting the major working parts of ALP-SCO:

Here’s what we can all start doing now as leaders in the pursuit of secure cyberspace operations, using ALP-SCO as a model:

1. Understand and orient to the environment of cyberspace. OODA is all about orientation in the support of decision and action.
2. Apply the orientation and understanding of the environment through adaptive employment of leadership styles…avoid mismatching the leadership style to what followers’ readiness and the environment demand.
3. Back up the use of the right match of leadership style with the right power base that complements the follower’s needs and situation. Match style and power base to the environment.
4. Anticipate the adversary and align prepared responses based on good cyber intelligence. Collaborate and cooperate both within and across partner organizations. [6]
5. After a leader has succeeded in the first four principles, then look to technology as an augmentation and set of tools for enhancing secure operations. Leadership trumps technology, but in this day and age benefits greatly from effective implementations of technology.
6. Care about what you do as a leader, take care of your followers and organization, and help make cyberspace secure for all of us.

Yes, leadership is hard, particularly in cyberspace. But, this is the United States of America. We can “fight and win” as the military mantra goes. We can be good leaders and ultimately secure cyberspace for all operations, including commercial, academic and government. ALP-SCO can make that difference.

Be an adaptive leader, especially in cyberspace.

Originally posted on 9/26/2016.

[1] Readers may note that we have chosen not to label SCO as cybersecurity throughout this series. Cybersecurity has been associated with the IT gurus for too long and removed from the visibility of the CEO, COO and CFO and rest of the C-Suite team. The identification of cybersecurity as one function of SCO is more accurate and better weights the responsibilities that every leader in the organization has for protecting critical assets.

[2] Goodman, M., Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable and What We Can Do About It, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2015. Kindle Edition, (Kindle Locations 8468-8473).

[3] Kelly, K. The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future (Kindle Edition). Penguin Publishing Group, 2016.

[4] This makes adaptation and anticipation key features of another property of effective leadership we’ve talked about throughout the series: risk management.

[5] While there are no details here about what we did specifically or how we accomplished it during this conflict, the experimental processes and leadership approaches we implemented paid off very well, and set the stage for how networked collaborative intelligence is done today. Much can be said about the remarkable contributions of those at the strategic, operational and tactical levels of intelligence and what they accomplished in the early 90s and since.

[6] See: How To Stay One Step Ahead Of Cybersecurity Threats, Sep 22, 2016, for a 7-point list of things to do to practice Anticipatory and Adaptive Leadership. The list is composed of items that are leader responsibilities such as follower and peer training, senior-level engagement, collaboration with other organizations and investments into AI and future holistic technologies that go beyond Defense alone.

The Power Factor in Adaptive Leadership and Power

By Walter E. Natemeyer and Carl W. Hunt

This series on Adaptive Leadership and Power for Secure Cyberspace Operations began with a look at the requirement to adapt sound leadership principles for operations in cyberspace today. We proposed that we could integrate several traditional and non-traditional techniques that lend themselves well to leadership in the connected age.

We pointed to Dwight Eisenhower’s tried and true leadership perspectives, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model and a novel take on leadership that Nick Obolensky calls Complex Adaptive Leadership. We also demonstrated the power that John Boyd’s OODA Loop model offers to help leaders orient to the emergent environmental conditions that cyberspace and its massive connectivity poses to leaders in the connected age.

All of these approaches and models had one thing in common, whether addressing the environments of cyberspace or not: Leadership is the process of influencing others in efforts toward goal accomplishment. The fact is that leaders cannot automatically influence other people. Leaders have to have some sort of power to enable them to gain compliance or commitment from others.

We define Power as the potential for influence. Leaders who understand how to use power are clearly more effective than those who do not. This was true before the advent of cyberspace but in the face of a relentless, adaptive threat to our organizational networks today, the effective use of power to coordinate and influence our people in the exercise of secure cyberspace operations is more critical than ever.

Let’s look at some ways power has been classified in management literature. Amitai Etzioni broke power into two major categories. [1] One is called position power, and those are the powers that are bestowed upon a leader as a result of title, role or position within the organization. The other is called personal power. It is the power that leaders earn interacting with others based on their respect for knowledge, judgment, experience and the way that they treat other people. It is important for leaders to develop and utilize both their position power and their personal power.

Position Power and Personal Power consist of seven power bases. [2] There is an additional, perhaps transcendent, power base, truly prevalent in the age of cyberspace, which we loosely call “Network Power;” We will discuss this at the end of our description of the initial seven power bases. Figure 1 depicts all of these power bases in relation to each other and to the readiness level of the follower.

Expert Power is based on the perception that the leader has relevant education, experience and expertise to influence the follower’s behavior. It is based on respect for the expertise of the leader.

The second power base is called Information Power. It is based on the perception that this leader has access to, or perhaps control over, information that is useful to followers. People who excel at accessing and providing information are in a better position to influence followers than people who are not.

The third power base is called Referent Power. Referent Power is based on the degree to which the followers like, respect and admire their leader.

The fourth power base is Legitimate Power. This is based on the perception that this individual, because of his or her position, has the right to tell a follower what to do, and the follower has a responsibility to comply.

The fifth power base is called Reward Power. Reward Power is based on the perception that if the follower does what this leader wants, he/she is going to get some positive rewards for that compliance.

Sixth is Connection Power. Connection Power is based on the perception that this individual is connected to important or influential people within or even outside this organization. If the follower does what the leader wants because he/she hopes that it will gain the favor or perhaps avoid the disfavor of those “connections,” they are being influenced by the leader’s Connection Power. [3]

The seventh power base is Coercive Power. Coercive Power is built upon fear. It is based on the perception that if the follower doesn’t do what the leader wants, there will be negative consequences.

Finally, there is also what we are labeling Network Power that has become more noticeable since the advent of cyberspace and the massive connectivity that emerges from this relatively new environment. Over the last few years, several prominent thinkers have written about the general nature of Network Power from a variety of standpoints, including social networks, economies and governance. [4] We speak specifically of the influence of networks on leadership and management in this blog post series, however.

Joshua Cooper Ramo notes that the “future will almost certainly bring a study of the influence of network power upon history” and we take from his thoughts that leaders must also recognize the influence of network power in leadership. ^[5] “In connected systems, power is defined by both profound concentration and by massive distribution,” Ramo writes. “It can’t be understood in simple either-or terms. Power and influence will, in the near future, become even more centralized than in feudal times and more distributed than it was in the most vibrant democracies.” ^[6]

In the context of the Adaptive Leadership and Power for Secure Cyberspace Operations model, this means that Network Power propagates across cyberspace such that all the power bases might have some level of influence in any situation (e.g., not “either-or” as Ramo notes). “What is true for the machines all around us now is true for us too: We are what we are connected to.” [7] Network Power can and likely will enhance or dampen the “traditional” seven forms of power we described above, sometimes in alternating fashion.

“Network power, we might say, exists as a skin of billions of tied-together points linked to vital, centralized cores…Networks create concentration and distribution. As a result, they rip apart many existing structures.” [8] Thus, according to Ramo, Network Power as we describe it for ALP-SCO, is both an ingredient of the former power bases, and a “connector” for adaptive leadership functions. This is distinct from the Connection Power base previously mentioned, but a more general use of the term.

Ramo’s definitions of Network Power also means that all of the power bases that are infused through our take on Network Power change the character of the relationships between leaders, followers, and the organization, however subtly.

The impact of the four environments of cyberspace also come into play. “If connection changes the nature of an object, it also elevates those who control that connection to a level of rare power and influence.” [9] In ALP-SCO, leaders must bear this in mind. While there is much to learn about Network Power, this is an area worth hypothesizing about and studying. ^[10]

Figure 1 is an initial effort to integrate Walt Natemeyer’s previous work adapting power bases to follower readiness (and, by extension, leadership styles) to the realities that Network Power expresses in the connected age. Network Power must be recognized, facilitated and accommodated.

 

Figure 1: Leadership Power Bases

 

In the absence of further study of Network Power in relationship to ALP-SCO, we note that when attempting to gain compliance from people with below average readiness (R1/R2), leaders should ideally possess and use their position powers, while tapping the networks they’ve built to focus these position powers. The leader’s ability to provide positive or negative consequences directly (reward and coercive power) or indirectly (connection power) can be instrumental in getting followers at R1 and R2 to accomplish organizational objectives they otherwise would not do.

With people of average readiness (R2/R3), a combination of both position and personal powers tends to be effective at influencing them. Providing positive consequences (reward power), asserting authority (legitimate power) and leveraging positive relationships with people (referent power) tends to work well at gaining their compliance.

And with people of above average readiness (R3/R4), utilizing personal powers (referent, information and expert power), particularly enhanced through social networks, is potentially most effective.

Network Power serves to enhance and/or dampen these powers just as networks do in all other fields (economics, governance, etc.). The leader that learns and exploits Network Power can excel at exercising the other seven powers.

Just as researchers found that there is no one best leadership style, they likewise concluded that there is no one best power base for a leader to use. This is particularly true in the connected age where not only the follower’s readiness is an important measure but so is the impact of the environmental conditions cyberspace imposes. There is no one best leadership technique and there is no one best power base to call upon to influence followers…cyberspace and the networks that emerge makes this certain.

The key to success in exercising power for secure cyberspace operations is to build all the power bases and use them according to the follower’s readiness level and the environmental factors that cyberspace presents. Understanding and leveraging Network Power is critical to that success.

Next time, we’ll provide a few vignettes that illustrate the convergence of follower readiness, cyberspace environmental conditions, leadership styles and how Network Power affects us all.

Originally posted 8/29/2016.

[1] Etzioni, A., A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, The Free Press, NY, 1975, p. 159.

[2] For a detailed review of the Seven Power Bases in organizational behavior, see Natemeyer, W., and Hersey, P., “Situational Leadership and Power,” Classics of Organizational Behavior, Waveland Press, IL, 2011, p. 440.

[3] This “Connection” power base was identified long before the advent of cyberspace and network connectivity. In spite of the apparent overlap of meaning, we will continue to use the original definition of this term as it relates to the power base theory. We’ll try to be clear where confusion may arise.

[4] Important texts in this area of study include the following: Watts, D., Six Degrees: the Science of a Connected Age, Norton, 2003; Grewal, D. S., Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization, Yale University Press, 2008; The books of Alvin and Heide Toffler (e.g., Future Shock, The Third Wave, etc.); and a very recent work, Ramo, J, The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks, Little, Brown and Company, NY, 2016.

[5] Ramo, op. cit., p. 85.

[6] Ibid., p. 116.

[7] Ibid., p. 35

[8] Ibid., pp, 116-118.

[9] Ibid., p. 177. Throughout the remainder of his book, Ramo describes what he calls “gateways” and “gatekeepers” as being the ultimate holders of power and influence in the connected age.

[10] In fact, one of the expected outcomes of this blog post series is the working proposal to study the role of leadership power in cyberspace and networks. One of the things we propose to look at in this research is the emergence and role of gatekeepers and gateways that exist in cyberspace, as noted by Ramo.

OODA and Leadership in Cyberspace

by Carl W. Hunt, Walter E. Natemeyer and Chuck E. Hunt

Part III of The Future of Leadership in Cyberspace Series[1]

In 1976, USAF Colonel John Boyd published a paper entitled “Destruction and Creation” in which he described the general nature of decision-making in and out of a jet cockpit.[2] He proposed a novel approach to success in complex information-intensive environments such as aerial combat in an early attempt to find ways to deal with the growing complexity of combat-sensor information and increasingly short decision cycles. His thinking in that paper led to the development of Boyd’s now famous OODA Loop model, shown in Figure 1.[3]

Figure 1, John Boyd’s OODA Loop

 

Boyd demonstrated the value of routinely practicing four core processes: observing the environment, orienting to it, deciding on a course of action, and then executing that action. At the top level, it’s a simple graphic, but when combined with the feedback loops and interactions of experiences and observations Boyd demonstrated in his model, the results are highly dynamic and provide rich insights into constantly changing situations, a characteristic of operations in cyberspace today.

In this sense, OODA is ideal for helping to orient to which of the Leadership Orientation Domains (LOD) a leader encounters. When integrated with adaptive leadership models, OODA is a critical linkage to success in secure cyberspace operations.[4] It’s useful to think about these four processes as an interacting leadership support system rather than four discrete elements that leaders apply in cyberspace or aerial combat operations. While we emphasize Orientation as the key driver for LODs, all four of Boyd’s OODA Loop components inform leadership for secure cyberspace operations.

Observation, based on objective insights gleaned from the environment, feeds the rest of the process and forms a collection area for feedback, as shown in Boyd’s loop. This feedback ensures that observation and the subsequent processes coevolve with the reality of what’s happening. Military and intelligence operators call this ground truth.

Next in Boyd’s model is Orientation, the primary subject of this post. In the graphic, notice the sub-components Boyd identifies which affect how we as leaders orient to the environment and situation (see also the expansion of this topic in the accompanying blog post). The orientation portion of the OODA model involves self-understanding of the observer/decision-makers’ heritage, culture, analysis and synthesis abilities, previous experiences and new information inputs (looking clockwise around the star of Boyd’s model).

These subcomponents make up the frame of reference for leadership functions. If we combine OODA with an appreciation of the LOD (simple, complicated, complex, chaotic), we can see a much richer potential for success in challenging operating environments such as cyberspace. Orientation is also the collection point for the feed-forward data loop from the Observation component.

The leader’s self-understanding is absolutely fundamental to orienting to both the LOD and the situational factors that are present. It demands true objectivity. It also provides the baseline for decision-making and informs the tactical implementation, or action, of decision-making. This self-understanding and orientation to the environment energizes successful and secure operations within networked environments. Orientation is thus key to the function of adaptive leadership and power for secure cyberspace operations.

Joshua Cooper Ramo also comments on orientation in relation to what he calls Network Power: “No matter what, our global networks are going to be used in pursuit of power. So we had better consider how to become fluent with their real nature, how turn them to our advantage, and, ideally, how to rewrite the rules of conflict so our enemies will only be able to react.”[5] A “rewrite” of the rules is exactly what Boyd had in mind when it comes to using the OODA Loop to overcome adversary advantages.

Continuing with Boyd’s model, the act of Decision is much more than a simple either/or process. Decisions are based on making and testing relevant and appropriate leadership hypotheses about what has been observed, the orientation achieved by the decision-maker, and an estimate of the effects leadership decisions will have on the actions taken.

The component of Acting within the OODA Loop reflects all the interactions up to this point and is where leadership behavior is manifested to the organization. Acting is a coevolutionary process that takes place in the context of the environment. The consequent results of actions are measured through the feedback loops Boyd stipulates in his model.

Based on the previous discussions about LODs, the Orientation process of OODA is key; it sets up the environment for decision-making and action. As depicted in his model, Boyd spent a great deal of effort explaining orientation within OODA. It’s quite likely that Boyd would expand even further on the critical role of orientation for leadership in cyberspace had that environment been prominent in his time. There are recognizable parallels and even convergences for operations in the cockpit and secure cyberspace operations; leaders must come to grips with this “ground truth.”

Secure Cyberspace Operations demands proper orientation and a framework for the eventual action emerging from decisions. Just as successful aerial combat operations requires leadership, collaboration and teamwork to succeed, so does secure cyberspace operations. Ramo emphasizes this in his recent treatise on Network Power. With OODA, Boyd had much to teach us on both fronts.

In summary, OODA is a framework to position leaders and their perspectives to which of the four LODs we confront and eventually must act upon: OODA orients us. The integration of OODA and LODs within an adaptive leadership framework gives leaders a greatly enhanced potential to decide and act within cyberspace. Equally important, this integration will help us avoid mismatches of approaches to problem states such as simple solutions for complex problems. We will continue to stress the value of avoiding these mismatches throughout this series.

The next post will begin to address how we adapt as leaders and followers within the LODs.

Originally posted on 8/15/2016.

[1] This series is part of an ongoing effort to better understand the challenges of providing Adaptive Leadership for Secure Cyberspace Operations for the United States and our international partners.

[2] Boyd, J, (September 3, 1976), Destruction and Creation, US Army Command and General Staff College. Boyd wrote that the goal of destruction and creation is to “to improve our capacity for independent action,” another environmental factor we can influence as leaders.

[3] This graphic is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, “OODA loop” accessed 8-9-2016.

[4] We’ll begin to describe these models of adaptive leadership in Part IV of the series.

[5] Ramo, J, The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks Little, Brown and Company, NY, Kindle Edition, 2016, (p. 90). How we “consider how to become fluent with their real nature” is the essence of Orientation.

Some Peace and Quiet, Please

How about some peace and quiet in this summer of 2015?  After all, does everything in America today have to be driven by a totally distracting and all-too-early political season?  Doesn’t America deserve a little peace and quiet?

This seems like reasonable line of inquiry.  It’s summer time and we’re supposed to enjoy a little vacation, right?  Why on earth would all those politicians involve themselves in the summer debate fray when they could be lying on the beach, hiking mountain trails or just spending time with their families?

We thought we might ask the leaders of our two major political parties a few questions about that.

Are the two parties missing a key narrative in the 2016 race for the Whitehouse (aside from not being able to read the calendar)?  Is it possible that the majority of the American people just want a little break and enjoy the summer?  Maybe there really isn’t a huge desire for change in America outside of a few key issues.  That’s our gut feeling anyway.

Here’s why…

It strikes us that since the 1960s and 70s, our two political parties have somehow managed to make happen most of the big changes that Americans wanted.  It’s starting to look like now the parties are creating a quest for continued change only for the sake of change and may be getting a little too creative.  It’s quite possible their quest for change is causing anxiety across the electorate.

It’s our sense that most Americans just want us all to take a breather and let things settle down for a while.  We know the scientific, technological and social fabrics of America (and indeed the world) are changing but is it really necessary to add political chaos to those changes?  We can adapt to those changes with just a little collective social objectivity, but politics don’t need to get in the way of that!

We believe a smarter approach would be for the parties to test a strategy to slow down and reduce the dramatic changes to our policies and enjoy what we have now, for just a bit at least: give some things a chance to work out.  Relook the National Strategic Narrative paper we pointed to in the earlier days of the blog.

There are a few areas we could still work on but we don’t have to pursue the increasingly lengthy frenetic political campaigns, just some good governance.

We believe a smart approach to better governance would be to tell American politicians that we, the American people, have had enough progress on right and left wing goals.  We now need to roll up our sleeves and just tackle a few changes where there is largely consensus.

Our recommended platform would be no new regulations and programs or laws for the next four years with the exception of:

• Address income inequality. We’re not perfectly sure what this looks like, but the top CEO and officers of companies do not need to make (or are worth) 300 times more than the average employees.  Please Red: get serious about this one and pay attention to mainstream America for a change.  This could be provided for by enhanced visibility of salary rates for the public and shareholders for senior officers in organizations: things will tend to work out from there.  We’re not real sure what else to propose, but we believe the public would support something to start the trend towards more transparency and equality of opportunity for all to succeed.
• Contain the cost of college tuition and medical care. Cost increases in both these sectors are far above average inflation and are hollowing out the middle class.  No one is bothering to explain to the rest of us why this is taking place.  Both Red and the Blue should think hard about this and act together on behalf of America!
• Give the middle class a tax break by lowering the payroll tax to 5% and remove the cap on wages subject to the tax. This would provide an immediate boost to our economy and help stabilize the social security fund.  Again, this should appeal to both parties.
• Remove incentives to offshore business operations, headquarters and profits. This would bring jobs and investment home.  Red, we need some help on this one.
• Control our borders and provide for orderly and at least for a while, less immigration. Increase the penalties further for hiring illegal immigrants and enforce existing laws.  This could possibly apply a little upward pressure on wages and help address income inequality.  We’ve read that in some parts of the country summer jobs are almost a thing of the past for native born Americans because so many jobs are now taken by immigrants.  We want to offer economic opportunity for everyone but America must be stable in its own right before we can offer stability to the rest of the world.  Blue, you can particularly help here.
• Improve our infrastructure. Pass a long-term infrastructure bill funded by a five cent increase on gas taxes.  This will make jobs and help provide long-term economic security for the country.
• Lift the ban on oil exports but place a reasonable tax on oil exports that is strictly earmarked to develop alternative energy.  Make alternative energy our “space program” of the 2020s.  It is the right thing to do for our economy, our future (e.g., our kids’) energy security and the environment long term.  Come one, Red and Blue…get on this!
• Develop a bipartisan carbon tax law to address climate change challenges and consider a tax on importation of goods from countries that are not complying with greenhouse reductions agreements.  Blue and Red: show more interest in the science here, now…please!

9)      Implement a freeze on all entitlements except for Social Security.  This will get people to the table to improve service delivery and change eligibility requirements.  On Social Security, gradually increase eligibility ages (again) and implement a comprehensive disability re-evaluation program to reduce the number of fraudulent recipients.  Both Red and Blue have an important role to play here.

Successful outcomes in tackling these nine areas would not solve all our problems, but we believe each would be valuable steps in the right direction.  They would give the public a breather on at least some fronts where a delay won’t be lethal.  We are confident many Americans would support most of these proposals.  And it’s something we could do together regardless of political affiliation.

We realize there are a lot of issues we don’t address here, including one of the most important: fair and equal treatment for all, considering gender and race in particular.  We offer no excuses for this, and will simply defer to the Principles of RAP.

What do you say…should we start enjoying the seasons now, the coming holidays included, instead of running for offices not even up for election for another year?  Do this for America, you two!

Posted by Chuck Hunt and Carl Hunt, 8/13/2015

Feeling Like an American

by Carl W. Hunt

The January-February, 2015 issue of the Atlantic Magazine recently published a cover piece titled “The Tragedy of the American Military” by James Fallows. I’ve known Jim since 2007 and consider him a friend. His article this month shows Jim to be a friend to America as well, as did the writings of the accompanying pieces “Gun Trouble” by Major General Robert H. Scales (US Army, ret.) and “How I learned to Love the Draft” by Joseph Epstein. All three were published in the magazine as a “block” of related stories.

These three articles stirred me to write a bit about my own experiences with our nation’s military, particularly my service, the United States Army, and how it is related to Reconnecting to the American Promise. [1]

In this post, I’ll talk about the military draft, its effects on my life, and introduce a couple of thoughts from Jim’s very fine piece on the state of the United States military and what he describes as the “Chickenhawk” nation that “supports” our military. Since mine are mostly personal experiences, they don’t always agree with the articles, but all three of these pieces are very important reading for the entire nation.

Yes, I was drafted. My start-and-stop (and start-and-stop, and start-and-stop) military career began September 18^th, 1972, a day I still “celebrate” every year…I celebrate it as a milestone date that set the course of my life. [2]

I reported to the draft station early that September morning in downtown Houston, was sworn in and on the bus to Fort Polk, Louisiana by mid-afternoon. On the bus with me were some 40 or so other young men, some of whom would become my new “Army buddies.”

To this cohort at the reception station at Fort Polk were added other young men from Dallas, New Orleans and many other towns in between. They represented a variety of vocations including carpenters, plumbers, an accountant and even a laid-off school teacher. All of the races in America were represented, although most in my basic combat training unit were white. I was drafted off of the Houston Police Department having received a deferment to complete my probationary period to become a fully qualified radio patrolman, so even though I was only 19, I may have had a slight advantage on the organizational side.

The variety of young men with whom I “matriculated” through basic training at Fort Polk far exceeded the diversity of any group I’d met in Houston…it was a true American “melting pot.” My new buddies “came from all social and economic classes” as Joseph Epstein noted in his Atlantic article. Even though I was familiar with self-discipline and unit cohesion from my training with the Houston Police Academy (at which probably half were Vietnam War vets), many of my fellow new soldiers were learning about it for the first time.

Those early Army experiences made almost all of us teammates and taught us about collaboration and cooperation. For those that did not learn those lessons well enough, the Army had ways to deal with them…it involved washing a lot dishes, scrubbing a lot of garbage cans and a whole lot of pushups. By the end of Basic and Advanced Individual Training, we all learned about service above self and understood more about what it meant to be an American. As Joseph Epstein wrote in his “Draft” article, “I have never felt more American than when I was in the Army.” Since the Vietnam War Armistice was signed during this time, I and many of my fellow draftees went to South Korea and learned to appreciate being an American even more.

My brother Chuck and I have written about service to our nation in other posts and there are surely many ways to serve America, including outside the military and law enforcement and a host of first responder organizations. What the draft did for me, and many others, however, was to focus our appreciation for being part of something bigger than ourselves even to the point of representing our great nation overseas. I appreciated Joseph Epstein’s perspectives and his story brought back some great memories. [3] (I’ve long since put most of the “bad” memories out of mind.)

I also truly appreciate those who choose to teach our nation’s children and adults who go on past high school: theirs is indeed a great service. I also respect those who chose not to serve through government as many of these Americans strengthen our economy and our culture and perhaps most importantly, can serve by strengthening the debate about how we use our military. That’s where Jim’s fine article comes in.

What Jim’s (and Joseph Epstein’s) article did for me was to remind me how distanced too many Americans have gotten from the principles of service for something bigger than themselves. I’ll close with a couple of important thoughts from the “Tragedy of the American Military” article and ask you to assess for yourself if these observations affect how Americans have been disconnected from our destiny as a great nation.

Jim claims our nation has become a “Chickenhawk Nation” for “the derisive term for those eager to go to war, as long as someone else is going.” If this is correct, and Jim presents strong evidence to make his case, it’s no wonder the disconnect from the American Promise has grown in the last decade or so of “The Long War.” Both our military and our population at large must have at some point questioned how our political leadership makes decisions about the use of the military and what outcomes it seeks. But these questions have still not really been addressed adequately, and it has greatly cost our nation in lives and treasure. I believe the disconnect surfaces because we don’t persistently and sufficiently challenge our leadership with those important questions, and our electoral process isn’t sufficiently challenging anymore either. Correcting these shortcomings is how all of us can better serve America.

The other significant point I’ll make in this post is related: Jim calls it the “Chickenhawk Economy.” He notes how the economic environment of America since the beginning of the “Long War” has increasingly been dominated by congressional budgeting decisions on modernizing weapons platforms based on job creation in their districts or political power aggregation rather than the true needs of the military. General Scales’ article supports this narrative, as well. This also speaks to the role that Congress and the Administration have had in further disconnecting Americans from their nation and what our Founders intended, the real theme behind this entire blog. [4]

If more of us want to experience “Feeling Like an American” it’s way past time to step up and serve our nation, both in and out of uniform, by challenging the Chickenhawk spiral we’re experiencing as this new year kicks off. It’s time for all of us to feel like an American and Reconnect to the American Promise.

Originally posted on 1/12/2015.

Notes

[1] The main article by Jim and the “Draft” article by Joseph Epstein spoke most intimately to me. General Scales’ piece was mostly about the troubles the military has had finding a reliable rifle for combat and how frequently the M-16 malfunctioned. It’s easily possible to generalize that narrative to the increasingly complex weapons systems we as a nation buy, as Jim Fallows does with his recounting of the F35 story in the article, but that’s beyond this current blog post.

[2] I left active duty after 3 ½ years, used the GI Bill to get an education, went back in on a direct commission, got out again (remaining in in the Reserves), and finally “permanently” went back on active duty to complete a total of 30 years of active and reserve service. I finally retired from the Army in 2006. It’s still tough deciding what it is I want to do when I grow up!

[3] My greatest memories were in meeting my wife and having our son grow up as the child of a member of the military. The role and support of family in the military is the absolute core strength of our nation.

[4] I strongly encourage our readers to review Jim’s article and make the comparisons for themselves.

Platform Part V: Education, Science and Culture (Section B)

subtitle: Enough with the Boring Blog Post Titles, Eh?

Larry Kuznar’s post about the failings of higher education last week deserved a better title than we gave it. It was a brave and outstanding piece written by someone who knows how higher education works in the nation today. Larry’s post also opened the door to express more of our own perspectives.

Larry’s post was part of the series on a Platform for FAPITCA we “cleverly” called Building a Platform, Part I, in which we introduced an outline for five “Planks” that a more center-focused “political party” could use to inform how our nation moves away from fringe- and edge-driven politics. [1] Recent posts, while titled with boring but semi-descriptive phrases, are all part of this Platform; after today’s post, we’ll have only one plank left. [2]

Most importantly, we’re indebted to Larry for challenging us with his example to open up more and try to express our feelings about America with less equivocation. This means no longer blaming both sides of the political spectrum equally with softly uttered descriptions, although we will endeavor to maintain balance and represent the Center as an attractor to the disillusioned in the Edges. [3] America needs these people at the Edges to come back towards the Center, post-haste…please! [4]

First, here are a couple of thoughts about how Larry’s post fits into the Science, Culture and Education plank of the FAPITCA: America is greatest when we support the sciences (and the arts, hence culture). Education for our upcoming generations is the singular best way to build and strengthen our contributions to both our nation’s and the world’s science and arts. [5]

Each of the planks of the FAPITCA Platform is proposed as part of a whole. This whole benefits from linkages between the planks through rich interacting network connections that leverage the Connected Age in which we live. The planks can even compensate for each other when one is working less well than we might hope. [6]

As Larry noted, education and the resultant growth of science and culture (and arts) that ensues from education are deeply interacting pieces of the plank that deserve constant attention and investment to sustain our future as a nation. Education must evoke critical thinking and problem solving capabilities in order to grow America. They combine and even coevolve to provide the basis for our “national seed corn.”

It’s a mystery to us how our American system of education has not been more greatly valued and received more investment and encouragement. Instead, the various education factions line up against each other and rail about how the other side’s approach is so wrong. The various sides’ capacity, if it exists, to listen to each other and compromise with our nation’s interests in mind could surely produce a better working educational system if only they really wanted to and cared enough about America’s future.

It’s sad to note that too many in our political parties have forgotten whatever lessons they learned in school about compromise and collaboration. How much longer are the two parties and their supporting factions going to refuse to work together so we can stop eating our seed corn?

While both parties are at fault in the realm of agreement, the rise and influence of entities like the so-called “Tea Party” faction and its ilk have aggravated the failure of our national capacity to compromise and cooperate. These groups, even if well intended, must get down off their high-horses and start cooperating a bit more…with BOTH parties. They need to use the education they received in the American school system to help us move forward, not backwards! [7]

In the last few decades, America has been at the global forefront in scientific discovery and technological development (which leveraged those discoveries in science, by the way). We’ve also led in social and cultural activities that changed the world in many places and pushed forward the role of higher education across the nation and the world.

As Larry pointed out, education in America has experienced challenges to continuing that momentum of the past. We’ve lapsed in how many levels of education stack up with the rest of the world. But, this is America…we can fix that. If we don’t, science and culture will also lapse!

Our biggest challenge is that we have to collectively rediscover the will to succeed as a nation…we have to want to fix education. We have to embrace the need to invest in our ability to do good science. Americans must desire to collaborate and exploit our science into even better technologies, cleaner environment, enhanced infrastructures and other improvements in our way of life. Most importantly, we have to feel the love in doing all of this for our children and their children. We think Americans really do want to do these things…so let’s do it.

Now, if we can only find better titles for our blog posts! We want to and we will!

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 7/16/2014.

NOTES:

[1] While we have been disparaging in our blog posts of the “Edge” and “Fringe” (the edge of the edge, as we like to label them) segments of American political parties throughout our posts, we do appreciate the paradox that they also apparently represent a source of real “out of the box” thinking about politics in this nation. In that regard, the Edges and Fringes might have a leg up on imagining new ways to govern and the rejection of the traps of excessive government and financial policy into which we’ve fallen as a nation through traditional politics. We strongly recommend the edges and fringes read Joseph Stiglitz’s recent book The Price of Inequality (or at least the essay of the same name at AlterNet) to better understand the effective role of government (as the Founders intended), rather than reject government outright.

[2] After this post and the final Plank post, we’ll finally post that essay on Transforming Consumption in America that expands on the second plank, again “cleverly” titled “Transform Production and Consumption.”

[3] So, some admissions: We are both moderately progressive, reformed semi-conservative types…sorry we can’t make a meaningful acronym out of that; perhaps we were really “radical moderates” as Elliot Richardson coined it in a book of the same name). One friend called Carl “socially progressive and fiscally conservative”…maybe that also works! The bottom line is that we’re not particularly happy with where the Edges of the Republican Party have taken our nation in the last decade or two, making issues of inane subjects that really should not affect how our nation moves forward in Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age. This is not to say that the Democratic Party is above the fray in promoting irrelevancy as well, but the Republican Party has not done well by America, perhaps even for the last 20 years. If only we could say the Democratic Party had done all that much better! As Adelson, Buffet and Gates wrote recently in Break the Immigration Impasse, “Americans deserve better than this” and “It’s time for 535 of America’s citizens to remember what they owe to the 318 million who employ them.”

[4] The bottom line here is that the Edges and Fringes (and apparently even the larger parties with which they are associated) could likely never come together sufficiently to champion opportunity for all Americans. At the rate we seem to be going, they probably could never be large enough to be a source of real change that enables maximum equal access to opportunity for all. Only the Center can act with enough mass and momentum to bring about that kind of change. A balanced Center that understands the importance of equal access to opportunity, and enforces it with their vote, will make the kind of difference America so desperately needs now.

[5] To ensure we can sustain such growth, we also commented on the need for protecting our environment and infrastructure…that one plank is tied to the success of all of the rest.

[6] The interacting principles of FAPITCA can also be viewed as a complex system that creates maximum resiliency and opportunity if used to inspire new thinking about governance in America.

[7] See footnote 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Platform, Part V, Section A: How Higher Ed Fails the American Promise

Editor’s Note: This post is part of the FAPITCA Platform series entitled: Sustain and Advance American Culture, Science and Education. Dr. Kuznar provides us a distinctive perspective on education in America.

By Dr. Lawrence Kuznar, Ph.D., Indiana University – Purdue University, Fort Wayne [1]

Higher education is central for Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age. This essay is one insider’s perspective on how higher education fails to deliver that promise to our next generation, and what can be done to correct this failure. [2]

The core of the problem is that higher education has become a system for issuing credentials (degrees), and not one that transfers the skills our next generation requires to serve themselves and our society in a globalized, interconnected world.

Consider three dimensions of the problem:

• Our upcoming generation needs to acquire a set of useful thinking skills from universities
• Our universities claim to confer these skills
• Universities actually provide something else

The system fails due to specific actions by faculty, administrators and students, and therefore integrated changes in their actions can solve the problem.

Desired Thinking Skills

Here’s the bottom line objective: Today’s college graduates need to be employed to be productive, and the skills employers desire are consistent with academic ideals that are applicable to both the world of work and responsible citizenship. This involves knowing how to think and how to learn (and keep learning and thinking)!

A couple of recent surveys (National Association of Colleges and Employers, Chronicle of Higher Education) [3] provide results consistent with other research on the skills employers want and need, and what graduates often lack. Some of the most important skills employers note lacking in college grads, and that would be most valuable in the modern workplace, include: verbal and written expression, time management, problem solving and decision-making.

What Universities Claim to Produce

Academics consistently insist a baccalaureate degree signifies that a graduate has acquired the time-honored skills of expression, critical thinking and love of learning. This is true for an elite research institution such as Harvard [4], and for a State-sponsored institution such as Indiana University – Purdue University, Fort Wayne, which serves typical middle Americans. [5] Yet, employers of recent graduates claim that these skills are lacking across the board. Something is wrong.

What Universities Really Confer

If students are not acquiring the skills that academics claim they teach, then what do students get from their universities? The answer is simple: a credential, the baccalaureate degree.  Universities are more systems that confer symbols in the form of diplomas, and less like institutions that educate the next generation.

The Problem: Why Don’t Students Learn?

Universities fail to educate and prepare the next generation to lead our society because education has become a tertiary objective at best. Arum and Roska’s 2011 Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses is an honest and sound analysis of higher education’s failings. They administered a widely accepted test of expression and critical thinking to thousands of college students across the spectrum of higher education institutions. They found that students demonstrated only marginal gains in these skills since high school, and those gains were directly proportionate to the amount of time students spent reading and writing for their class requirements.

The problem is not that students are lazy. They spend a lot of time socializing, working and even serving their communities. What they do not do is spend much time studying because educators do not require much reading and much writing on behalf their students.

Arum and Roska keenly point out that over the past several decades, an agreement has tacitly emerged between faculty and students: “Don’t bother me and I won’t challenge you.” Students responded as consummately rational actors, allocating their time efficiently to gain their credential, the degree, with the least effort possible. We have incentivized students to earn credentials, and de-incentivized them to learn.

Why don’t my colleagues and I require students to read, process and think? It is because that would be valuable time taken away from our research, our ever-increasing administrative duties, and other academic activities. There is a triumvirate involved in this systemic failure. Administrators focus on creating new programs and increasing graduation rates, faculty concentrate on research accomplishment, and students efficiently gain the benefit we taught them to value, the degree.

In the end, everyone gets what they want (or think they “want”), but the students are robbed of a genuine education and our society is robbed of an upcoming generation prepared to meet the challenges of a new, interconnected and globalized world. We rob our future of the thinkers our nation so desperately needs!

The Solution

The solution is daunting, especially given how administrative, faculty and student goals interact to create an agenda that subverts the real educational mission…this substituted agenda has taken on a life of its own. [6]

Businesses in our modern economy demand smart, creative, communicative and sound-thinking employees and this should be used as incentive for positive change. To help things change, employers need to emphasize credentials less, and value evidence of thinking and the ability to express oneself effectively more in potential and desired employees. This could be fed back into the cycle through more active support of effective universities on the part of employers.

There is some progress. Some employers are starting to scrutinize the whole applicant and some universities are helping students develop portfolios as a means of demonstrating their skills. However, we need a tighter focus, and real education.

The successful Berlin model [7] that required educators to be current in their fields by engaging in active research has metastasized, practically turning many of our universities into for-profit research institutes. Teaching at these institutions is often denigrated, and graduate students are socialized to avoid and dislike the classroom.

In order to avoid this distraction and refocus the system on education:

• Faculty and administration must balance the emphasis between research, teaching and service in meaningful ways when evaluating faculty for tenure, promotion, and compensation.
• Time spent productively challenging and interacting with students should be rewarded and not punished. If so, I am pretty sure many of us would focus more time on challenging students and not merely mollifying them.
• Graduation rates should not dominate the metrics used to calculate state and federal support.
• Instead of using graduation rates, the teaching component in state and federal funding formulae needs to measure actual learning and intellectual development, not credentialing. An educated public can prevail upon legislators to change those formulae.

As for the students in this new focus on education, they just need to be themselves. Our next generations have always risen to a challenge, and they continue to do so today: that’s an American legacy that still works! Unfortunately, the older among us have forgotten that legacy and have stopped truly challenging our young learners in productive ways.

The problems with our higher education system genuinely threaten our ability to sustain the American Promise. If we fail to recalibrate our higher education system toward learning and away from symbolic credentialing, then we fail to provide our next generation with the tools they need in a modern, globally interconnected world…the Connected Age. Ironically, these are timeless tools the ancient Greek founders designed and intended for higher education to deliver 2500 years ago. It’s time to get back to applying their wisdom to the future of America!

Originally posted by Carl Hunt, on behalf of Dr. Lawrence Kuznar, on 7/9/2014.

NOTES:

[1] Mariah Yager kindly produced graphics for this essay.

[2] I am a career university professor. I attended a large state institution for my undergraduate degree where I witnessed the shift from learning to credentialing, and then attended an elite research institution for my graduate work where I was socialized to focus entirely on research and to denigrate teaching. I have spent the past 24 years as a professor at an institution that primarily serves working class, first generation college students. The views I express are mine alone and do not reflect any official position of my university.

[3] National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) 2014, Job Outlook Survey https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/skills-employers-value-in-new-hires.aspx?land-surv-lp-3-prsrel-07042014; The Role of Higher Education in Career Development: Employer Perceptions https://chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/Employers%20Survey.pdf.

[4] “To these ends, the College encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought” http://www.harvard.edu/faqs/mission-statement.

[5] “IPFW values… a strong general education program and baccalaureate framework that emphasize critical thinking, promote lifelong learning” http://www.ipfw.edu/about/strategic-plan/mission-values-vision.html.

[6] While I am focusing on education, it is important to note that universities also have equally important research and service missions that cannot be ignored in any solution. While none of these missions can be neglected, education has been de-emphasized and thus fallen behind.

[7] Anderson, Robert (March 2010). “The ‘Idea of a University’ today”. History & Policy. United Kingdom: History & Policy. Retrieved 20 June 2014.