In terms of the R2 iceberg analogy. In my experience, it is rare to come across individuals whos natural instinct is to be open minded and who are able to shift their perspective to see the world through another's eyes. I would argue that the nature of the organization itself retards the emotional and intellectual development of the prerequisite skills needed to effectively manage strong emotions over complicated issues. For example, the highly structured, procedure driven monotony of Army life does not leave much open for interpretation and discourse. Obviously, we are gaining efficiency (in theory) by trading in the ability to innovate and improve quickly. In the name of efficiency, we may treat soldiers as cogs in a machine in order to get the task completed which leaves little time to develop interpersonal skills and the maturity needed to overcome difficult emotional and intellectual issues when it comes time to treat the cog like a human being. In terms of rank structure, those with higher rank make decisions for the group and individuals. In this case, a leader rarely needs to justify their reasoning and their decisions are obeyed without question (although possibly with some mutterings). If the majority of time spent is demanding and then receiving (pretty much without question), how in the world is it possible to develop the skills needed to sit down and listen to someone's feeling and rationale and not simply demand that the individual change how they feel or think?
These are excellent points, I will attempt to address them individually.
1. You can expect the capacity to exercise and improve MRT competencies to follow a normal distribution. This is addressed in MRT. It is not a panacea by itself. I see it as a way to allow highly intelligent, self-aware senior leaders to make the hard decision to accept the political risk associated with allowing the propagation of unpopular truths so that these issues have any hope of being addressed.
2. I think your characterization of rank structure omits an important factor. There is a legal and philosophical distinction between the oaths of office that officers and enlisted take. I believe that distinction is there secondary to recognition that, in general, enlisted Soldiers are not capable of the same degree of ratiocination as officers. As I understand this distinction is a facsimile of the spontaneous ordering of society whereby some assume the positions of leaders, and others followers. This can be fluid and vary by context of course but I digress, this spontaneous order evolves because some people are better and thinking than others. It is to the mutual benefit of both the leader and follower in such a naturally evolving relationship because both parties profit from this arrangement. If we are to attempt to mimic this complex process within the Army, it will require officers to incorporate these skills to a greater extent than enlisted Soldiers. In ideal circumstances an enlisted Soldier doesn't follow orders because an officer explains them, he/she follows said orders because that Soldier TRUSTS the officer. You see what I'm getting at?
In terms of the R2 iceberg analogy. In my experience, it is rare to come across individuals whos natural instinct is to be open minded and who are able to shift their perspective to see the world through another's eyes. I would argue that the nature of the organization itself retards the emotional and intellectual development of the prerequisite skills needed to effectively manage strong emotions over complicated issues. For example, the highly structured, procedure driven monotony of Army life does not leave much open for interpretation and discourse. Obviously, we are gaining efficiency (in theory) by trading in the ability to innovate and improve quickly. In the name of efficiency, we may treat soldiers as cogs in a machine in order to get the task completed which leaves little time to develop interpersonal skills and the maturity needed to overcome difficult emotional and intellectual issues when it comes time to treat the cog like a human being. In terms of rank structure, those with higher rank make decisions for the group and individuals. In this case, a leader rarely needs to justify their reasoning and their decisions are obeyed without question (although possibly with some mutterings). If the majority of time spent is demanding and then receiving (pretty much without question), how in the world is it possible to develop the skills needed to sit down and listen to someone's feeling and rationale and not simply demand that the individual change how they feel or think?
These are excellent points, I will attempt to address them individually.
1. You can expect the capacity to exercise and improve MRT competencies to follow a normal distribution. This is addressed in MRT. It is not a panacea by itself. I see it as a way to allow highly intelligent, self-aware senior leaders to make the hard decision to accept the political risk associated with allowing the propagation of unpopular truths so that these issues have any hope of being addressed.
2. I think your characterization of rank structure omits an important factor. There is a legal and philosophical distinction between the oaths of office that officers and enlisted take. I believe that distinction is there secondary to recognition that, in general, enlisted Soldiers are not capable of the same degree of ratiocination as officers. As I understand this distinction is a facsimile of the spontaneous ordering of society whereby some assume the positions of leaders, and others followers. This can be fluid and vary by context of course but I digress, this spontaneous order evolves because some people are better and thinking than others. It is to the mutual benefit of both the leader and follower in such a naturally evolving relationship because both parties profit from this arrangement. If we are to attempt to mimic this complex process within the Army, it will require officers to incorporate these skills to a greater extent than enlisted Soldiers. In ideal circumstances an enlisted Soldier doesn't follow orders because an officer explains them, he/she follows said orders because that Soldier TRUSTS the officer. You see what I'm getting at?