Character & Competence
Have you ever served in a platoon or boat detachment and wondered how someone made it through training…
The Problem:
All selection and training programs try to avoid two fundamental mistakes: deselecting/dropping good candidates; and selecting/qualifying bad candidates. While it is nearly impossible to measure the missed “benefit” from those who attrite, we have seen first-hand the impact of selecting and qualifying the wrong guy – it can be catastrophic. This is especially true in an organization like NSW where the strength and success of the unit relies heavily on each individual’s contribution to the Team.
Selecting the right men to join the ranks of Navy Special Warfare cannot be based on physical performance alone – NSW requires additional tools to select, train and develop our future Teammates – Men of Character and Competence.
Accordingly, leaders at the Naval Special Warfare “Schoolhouse”, Basic Training Command, continuously seek ways to mitigate this risk – ultimately select and qualify only the best candidates.
Over the past 18 months, NAVY SEAL and SWCC Training cadre identified two opportunities to mitigate this risk. The first opportunity identified was the historic over-valuing of physical performance and undervaluing of the character attributes. Simply put, Selection Error – graduating fit athletes who were not good Teammates (Quad III).
Senior cadre members often felt that their hands were tied. They observed behaviors of trainees that were not consistent with the SEAL and SWCC Ethos. However, since the trainees were passing all their test gates, they were progressing. Or as the 1st Phase Master Chief once commented, “Hey sir, this guy may be passing our test-gates, but I would not want him on my team. I don’t trust him and he’s not a team player. I see it, my cadre sees it, and his classmates see it.”
The second opportunity identified was the schoolhouse’s inability to track each trainee’s character and performance throughout the respective pipelines. The only time the command flagged a trainee’s record was when he failed a test-gate (predominately physical). However, there was no method to track the “character attributes” that both fellow students and experienced cadre members observed. To the cadre, these were best explained as the “blind spots” of the pipeline.
The SEAL and SWCC Pipelines are 63 and 28 weeks respectively. Intuitively, this should be enough time to select and assess the trainees; however, the staff recognized that blind spots occurred at the transition of each phase of training with very little turnover between staffs. Of course the staff usually was aware of the most and least successful students – they always stood out. The problem was mapping the progress of the rest of the pack.
The Blind Spot became most evident, however, when a student failed a test-gate. At this time, the trainee would go to a student performance review board. In this board, the command’s most experienced cadre would assess that trainee’s performance to date and determine if this trainee should remain in the pipeline. Has he been a good teammate? Has he been trustworthy? Did he show up on time with the right gear? Did he prioritize the team over self? Would his classmates and instructors choose him for their team? These critical questions are at the root of selecting the right Teammate.
Unfortunately, the board found that cadre members were often ill prepared to answer those questions. Instead, the answer was usually, “…in assaults he is really struggling. Otherwise, I don’t know….we have only had him for 2 weeks.”
In this scenario, the trainee in his 2nd week of Assaults training has been in the SEAL Pipeline for 42 weeks – certainly a reasonable expectation to know a bit about each trainee’s character.
The solution:
The answer was clear – determine what matters most to being a SEAL and SWCC operator and measure it. Then, create a process that maps each trainee’s performance and progress.
What matters most in selecting Teammates?
The issue of Selection Error and Blind Spots sparked incredible dialogue among senior cadre members. Collectively the comments from the cadre were similar. One senior enlisted stated, “I don’t really care how fast a guy is on the four mile run, or two mile swim…as long as he is fast enough; I want to know if he is going to be a good Team-guy. Will he have my back? Can I trust him….that’s what we need to be testing.”
Reputation is the Currency of NSW: Most would agree that establishing a strong reputation as an operator and a teammate is crucial to eventually succeeding in the Teams. With this in mind, the cadre believe that providing on-going and constructive feedback to a trainee on his performance will not only help address the challenges of Selection Errors and Blind Spots, but will also help future trainees succeed – our ultimate goal. Too often struggling students are unaware of their substandard performance, or they have not been properly counseled on how to improve.
Step 1: Solicit feedback. BTC Staff formalized an anonymous peer evaluation system that had been utilized in a variety of ways for many years. In the new system, students would answer more questions about less people. Rather than trying to evaluate their entire class, each trainee would provide and receive feedback from trainees in his squad. In addition, each trainee would be asked a few additional questions:
Is anyone in the class performing so well, or so poorly, that he is worth mentioning?
Is anyone in the class at risk of embarrassing NSW or himself due to his conduct?
Are there any natural leaders in the class?
Step 2: Squad Mentors. BTC Cadre leveraged the strengths of this “Squad-Model” by assigning a single instructor to each squad – the idea being that rather than instructors looking at an entire class, one instructor can get to know a squad of trainees. By the end of a block of training, the instructor should know how everyone is performing. Finally, while the trainees are conducting peer evaluations, the mentor answers similar questions on every member of his squad.
Step 3: Provide feedback. At the end of each phase of training, the squad mentors and phase leadership provide feedback to each trainee. At this time, the trainee receives the anonymous feedback from his squad members, and direct feedback from his mentor. Each trainee should be well informed on his performance and any areas in which he needs to improve.
So What:
What’s the “so what”….remember the first question presented?
Have you ever served in a platoon or boat detachment and wondered how someone made it through training…
The “so what” is that cadre have measurable data with which to make decisions – decisions determined by trends, not sporadic occurrences. It is not uncommon to see peer evaluations that reflect a “stressed friendship”; or others that illustrate an immature perspective of someone in the class. The cadre are well armed to sift through the data and determine legitimate issues versus personality conflicts. In the end, the cadre is better armed to be intrusive with problems in the class. From potential alcohol issues, to trainees exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with NSW Ethos, the cadre is informed with quantitative and qualitative information to make decisions.
In the end, this methodology has removed students from the pipeline who have passed every single test gate; similarly, it has provided additional opportunities to trainees who have stood out as stellar Teammates.
End of the Gray-Man:
Finally, the methodology provided cadre with insight on the rest of the class – the guys typically referred to as gray-men. Assigned mentors were now able to have tighter relationship with a smaller number of trainees; and if the mentor missed noteworthy behavior, the peers picked it up. In the end, the methodology enables mentors to be more informed and better equipped to lead, coach and mentor all trainees to be successful Teammates.
Informed cadre – informed trainees:
In the end, this methodology is about helping trainees become better teammates by providing them honest and anonymous feedback. Some might argue that evaluations and fitness reports are designed for that purpose; however, in reality, those reports are really only utilized for promotion and are completely void of any constructive criticism.
Conversely, this methodology is not designed to influence promotion or advancement – it is designed to tell the individual operator how he is meeting the mark of a Teammate, and how he could do it better.
Potential Way Ahead:
As the Basic Training Command codifies this process at the schoolhouse, NSW is exploring how this may apply to the rest of NSW, by evolving “word of mouth” feedback, with a consistent process for the Teams.