What I hope the junior officers get out of the internship week is: a better understanding of the high level issues affecting the organization that junior officers rarely experience first hand (they typically just feel the after-effects), personal observation of the forums and interactions I use to help "steer" the organization, exposure to leadership styles and issues different from their own, and mentoring from a senior Navy officer. What I usually get out of the week is: exposure to a different point of view, some insight into what junior officers are thinking, and 360-degree feedback on my leadership style and effectiveness.
The person
assigned to be my shadow gets lots of reading material during the week.
If I have time, I will provide the materials the week before, if they ask for
it. Their experience will be better if they read what I give them during the
week right away (or at night at home) so they can discuss it with me during the
week. I ask the "shadows" to watch carefully how I use my time--who I
speak to about what, how I organize my time and day, how much (or little) I use
e-mail, and how I communicate vision and expectations.
The basic
ground rules are for the person to make an appointment to see me the Friday
before their week of internship to get a copy of the schedule for the week, the
reading notebook (they can get this earlier if they desire), and some
discussion with me about the important events of the week. I tell them to
ask lots of questions and that no subject is off limits as long as it's framed
appropriately. The topics could range from specific things observed
during meetings to personal/family/professional balance issues. I
strongly suggest they take notes during meetings about things that puzzle them
to form the basis for questions later.
At the end
of the week, I ask them to provide a one- to two-page summary of what they
thought was valuable about the internship, if they learned anything important,
and how I could change the experience to make it better. I give them
examples of feedback from others so they will feel more comfortable criticizing
me. I also warn them that they will be attending meetings where
potentially sensitive information is freely discussed. They must not
relate the content of the conversations that take place without my express
permission.
I have
been doing this shadow program since 2002 and have been getting mostly
favorable reviews. The most common complaints that I get are that I talk
too fast (known weakness, especially when I get excited/passionate about
something, which seems to happen frequently), I give them too much to read, and
why others do not have a "shadow" program.
A side
benefit of the week is that it "demystifies" me for the junior officers and
makes it clearer to them just how approachable I am. Normally, due to
many factors, I do not get to spend much time around junior officers, and they
have been socialized not to expect much direct interaction with me.
Neither of these is good because it can keep me insulated from the problems
they are having or things they might notice about potential problems before
the issues make it to my level. After spending a week with me, I find that
junior officers are less intimidated by my rank and position in the
organization and might be more willing to let me know about problems they are
having or things in the organization that are going wrong.
I would be interested to hear what kind of things others are trying out there to connect to the next generation of workers. What you think of these ideas, or does anything else come to mind?
Capt.
Ralph Soule is a career Naval officer who has been on
active duty for 26 years.
Since November 2007, he has
been commanding officer and supervisor of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair
in
You
can access Capt. Soule's Amazon.com profile at: www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A24A8X61KCQ92K%20.
You
can access Capt. Soule's KM Edge featured
contributor profile here.
This article covers many topics beyond the "mentorship program" mentioned in the title. I will first comment on the primary purpose of this article and then spend a little time on some of the secondary topics mentioned within.
As a mentorship program, this process seems to be a very effective one. The things it does well are:
1) Outwardly expresses to the junior professional that the senior and the system are both interested in the junior's long term growth ans development. It is not an easy thing to give up a week of productivity simply to allow the junior to gain perspective and get mentoring.
That being said it would also be better if this mentoring was not a one shot deal.
This is fine except that this new found comfort will do little good unless the junior personnel are actually presented an opportunity to provide that feedback in the future. It was previously admitted that:Consequently, since there is little direct interaction, unless another process is put in place and encouraged to solicit feedback the actual open communication that will take place will be limited.
2) Provides a high level perspective that junior personnel can take with them and forever evaluate the decisions that are typically just passed down. This should be a very effective way to get the junior personnel to continually have the big picture in the back of their mind.
3) It seems that the mentorship process described would provide an excellent opportunity for the junior individual to receive guidance from "someone who has been there". Of course this assumes that the junior personnel looks beyond the immediate issues that are being addressed on a daily basis and also asks the "most important" questions that have much longer term consequences like future job selection, additional training requirements, etc.
Other observations
Now, let's address some of the secondary topics. The two most prominent ones from my perspective are: 360 degree feedback and how to connect with the next generation of workers.
With respect to 360 degree feedback, the mentorship program should not be thought os as an effective means to solicit this kind of information. First, 360 feedback is meant to be part of an individual's job performance evaluation. That is mainly why it is effective. Through it senior personnel can be held accountable for their actions and policies. Without the performance evaluation piece soliciting this feedback is little more than a nice thing that the boss does and it is scarcely worth my time to provide such feedback. It is highly unlikely that anything will come out of it or that the suggestions I am making are actually good things to do on the road to advancement. Obviously, the boss doesn't do them and he got to be the boss so I may be the only one that deems these things important.
Second, at best the process described here is providing "180 degree feedback". That is, the primary feedback that is being received is from those directly behind you in the hierarchy. No feedback is coming from the support staff, the customer, peers, civilian leadership, etc.
With respect to connecting with the next generation, the processes discussed here are definitely a step in the right direction but they are only one step in that direction. Simply providing the opportunity "to shadow" will never constitute "connecting". In all actuality it will most likely just highlight the generational differences in how each of you do business and could ultimately serve to drive you further apart.
The author of the original article obviously recognizes the power of the blog by his participation in this one. If he truly wants to connect with the next generation and more importantly the one after that than I suggest that a blog be instituted within his organization to promote the free flow of information. There is a precedent for this in other military commands and examples can be provided if desired. It has been my experience that this may not necessarily help with the 25-35 year olds but it will definitely help to connect with the 18-24s. This generation thoroughly understands the ideas of free flowing information and global connectivity and as a result they have no patience for allowing "the process to work" or giving time for things to "get through the approval chain". That is the old way of doing business, it is a serial process. The new way and their way is a parallel process.
Good feedback, Will. Thanks for providing it.
I think he is quite right that a chance to shadow a senior leader for a week would provide limited benefit if that is the only way I tried to connect with junior personnel. Unfortunately, I did not note in my original post that the shadow program is not a "one shot" deal. I provide other opportunities for personnel to give me feedback and their opinions, but the shadowing/mentorship opportunity seems to be a very effective ice breaker to demonstrate that I am sincerely interested in that those opinions.
It is exceedingly difficult to change the interaction dynamic that a senior leader ends up spending most of his time with his direct reports and not more junior personnel. I believe that dynamic is built into the hierarchical nature of many large organizations. I try to work on this by doing as much Management By Walking Around (MBWA) as I can, but the press of standard meeting, calls from senior officers, ship tours, and following up on the day to day business of the organization limit me to less than hour of MBWA every other day or so (it is probably lower than this in reality).
I readily concede Will's observation that "unless another process is put in place and encouraged to solicit feedback the actual open communication that will take place will be limited." The other processes I have are:
- MBWA (noted above), where I specifically seek people out to find out what they are working on and, if I can squeeze it into the conversation without going to deeply into "advocacy mode," I let them know what I am working on.
- I sometimes ask junior personnel, who are often reluctant to speak up in meetings, to stay after the meeting and give me their opinions without so many people around.
- I meet periodically with personnel working on specific qualifications to see how they are doing and get feedback from them.
- If I am really organized and thinking ahead (does not occur as often as I would like), I try to engage junior personnel in some of the speaking and teaching opportunities that I have by asking them for their ideas of things I could present and even asking them to accompany me to the event.
Will is right again that the shadow program is not really a substitute for 360 feedback for the reasons he states. I got a little carried away when making one of my points. I should have just stated that the shadow program provides valuable feedback that I *do* use to change some of my behaviors (or keep working on some of my weaknesses that are regularly pointed out). The last two times I got coaching feedback from the California Psychological Inventory 260 (May 07 and Feb 08), the debriefer/coach in each case pointed out there was a strong match between my assessment of my weaknesses and those pointed out by people who have worked for (or been mentored by) me. Both coaches told me they were surprised by how away I am of the views of my subordinates.
I have some issues with the statement that "without the performance evaluation piece, soliciting this feedback is little more than a nice thing that the boss does and it is scarcely worth my time to provide such feedback. It is highly unlikely that anything will come out of it or that the suggestions I am making are actually good things to do on the road to advancement. Obviously, the boss doesn't do them and he got to be the boss so I may be the only one that deems these things important."
While I admit that making 360 feedback part of an individual's performance evaluation adds "teeth" to the feedback, my organization (the US Navy) does not do this and it may not do so for some time. So I think the true test of the value of the interaction and feedback still comes down to what the individual receiving it does with it. I still have to face and interact with the junior personnel who have provided me this feedback so I do take the feedback seriously because I believe it is an important test of the sincerity of my desire to improve as a leader and be responsive to members of the organization. During the week they are with me, junior personnel get to ask all the questions they want, they get to read emails I send to senior officers (my peers and superiors, if I think there is a good teaching point in these communications), they watch me and listen to me prepare for meetings, they get to ask questions after the meetings about why I did what I did, and they get to challenge me or offer alternate approaches. I think the dialogue we have gives them an opportunity to judge how serious I am about acting on the feedback they give me during the week and at any other time they want to provide it.
During the week, I occasionally get feedback about doing things differently at the command or in a junior person's job area and I encourage them to implement their ideas or help me implement it (if the recommendation is for me), if necessary. I do not get as much of these kinds of recommendations during the shadow week as I would like since the junior person's brain often fills up with the pace of meetings, the preparation for the next event, the phone calls and emails, and the reading material that I give them. Some of the best suggestions come later when they have more time to think about them and realize, based on our week together, that I am approachable and open to new ideas.
Finally, I hope my post did make it appear as if I thought that "providing the opportunity "to shadow" was equivalent to "connecting." I think of it as a conduit to connecting since it helps to lay the ground work by demonstrating my sincerity about openness to new ideas and new ways of thinking, among other things.
Will is right that there is a risk that the week the junior person spends with me could "highlight the generational differences in how each of you do business" and it *may* "ultimately serve to drive [us] further apart." That is a risk I am willing to take.