Sua Sponte

I know it's not exactly along the same lines as adult development and movement from the socialized mindset to a self-authored one, but when reading about the Interpersonal Dimension and Research on Self Authoring in our reading this week one of the notes I made was about a motto that my unit in the military followed. Sua Sponte. 

Sua Sponte is Latin. Loosely translated to "of their own accord." 

The reading states: "Based on the first two years of data from this project, many college students rely on external authorities for meaning-making, but there is a gradual decrease in authority dependence during this time" (Hoare, 2011, p. 119). It was in this area that I wrote: "just like Sua Sponte in the Army." 

Sua Sponte was used in our unit to help our soldiers think on their own and react without waiting for orders. The idea behind Sua Sponte was that we should do what is the right thing to do without waiting for orders to do it. We didn't want soldiers to be shot at and wonder, "should I shoot back?" Instead, the standing order behind Sua Sponte was "if it's right to shoot back, do it, don't wait for the orders."

The reading also states "research on self-evolution suggests that although there is a movement toward internal definition and increases in developing internal authority during college, many students have not achieved self-authorship by graduation" (Hoare, 2011, p. 119). The majority of the soldiers in our unit were college-aged. Sua Sponte, I have come to realize this was our unit's way of forcing them to move through the development toward self-authorship. As stated in the text "self-authored individuals have the interpersonal capacities to be genuinely interdependent; this requires the ability to understand and show respect for others' perspectives (and where they come from). To be interdependent requires one to acknowledge differences without being threatened by them, to be willing to try and negotiate differences in the service of mutuality or of a greater good, and to resist pressures to serve either oneself or others rather than both" (Hoare, 2011, p. 118). What more could our unit have wanted from our leaders and aspiring leaders than to have the ability to think through problems in a more self-authored way, see multiple perspectives and understand why they are there. Sua Sponte served more than just as a battlefield standing order to think for oneself, it was a way of setting the stage for further leadership development for the entire unit. 

I use Sua Sponte now with my own managers to help them make their own decisions independent of my thoughts, the thoughts of others, or because they're doing what is expected. In some cases that might be the best scale by which to judge decisions, but in many others, their own thoughts, ideas, and perspectives are needed and I let Sua Sponte know that that's what I expect of them. Sua Sponte may not encompass everything that might help someone move from a socialized perspective to a self-authored one, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. 

Reference:

Hoare, C. (2011). The oxford handbook of reciprocal adult development and learning (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Different Styles

A few weeks back I wrote about how frustrating it is to work with some folks. I have these types at work, and we just do NOT see eye to eye and it gets VERY frustrating. I think I wrote how I’ll sure that these people get frustrated trying to work with me too. I move too fast. I’m a “pace setting” type of leader and very independent and practical. I come up with an idea and just do. It’s Sua Sponte Leadership (see more HERE). 

But today, as a part of my self-authorship journal, I wrote a long post about this frustration. Just the other day, I had an idea to do a quick study of how our learners change their mindset (or not) about some of our training. Two of my employees have proposed this and it’s a great idea. I’m already thinking about how to go about capturing and analyzing the data. 

Being a good sport, I decided to bring this up to other leaders at the organization. What started as a one to one quick discussion became a larger and longer conversation than I wanted. And when I mentioned my intent about the study, the response was “Sure, let’s get everyone together for a meeting to discuss.”

So, first, I have no intention of “getting everyone together” for a meeting. I don’t have time for that, and truthfully, I don’t really care about their input. If they want to perform a study, they can feel free. But this study is going forward without the input of a much larger group. There isn’t a big enough risk to need more input from a larger group. 

Secondly, it irritates me some times that I’m here making a decision, sua sponte, right? And this other leader needs to build consensus even for something as small as this. 

What’s this have to do with self-authorship? Well, I realized that this isn’t done on purpose. It’s natural for me to move forward out front and set the pace and go. If it fails, it’s not that big a risk. If it yields valuable information and data, then good job team! No need for more than a quick strike group and an idea. We have both. What’s the hold up. 

Regardless, that’s natural to me, but consensus building is natural for this other leader. I shouldn’t expect them to not build consensus. That’s what they do. They see the world through consensus in the same way I see the world through sua sponte. 

What’s the end result? Well, I’m moving forward. If they want a consensus and a meeting, well they better hurry, the pace is being set. But, in terms of self authorship it was nice to realize it’s not being done to be a jerk, nor to get in the way, nor even as spite or a power play. It’s just what this person does. It’s how they see the world. What did I expect? I knew this about them. Adapt, adjust, overcome and go set the pace. 

Failure is an Option

My classmate Nicole works at a college that supports and trains musicians and she brought up a difficulty they have in recruiting folks.

My son is currently in the orchestra at his school and it is my first experience in any way with orchestra and bands in general. You have described quite precisely what I see when I go to their concerts, and what he tells me. 

In the Army we had a "fall out two" drill where in the middle of an exercise the two leaders in an team were eliminated and the next team member would have to immediately step up and lead the team through the drill or exercise. It was a great opportunity to test up and coming leaders, keep them sharp and attuned, and keep everyone beneath that leader ready to take charge in case they were needed. It certainly proves that with good processes and procedures, teams can overcome whatever leadership challenge (good leader vs bad leader) they may encounter. 

Regarding Nicole, again I'll refer to my military background. Our regimental motto was "Sua Sponte" meaning "of their own accord." To our unit this meant that there was no need to wait for orders, but we should do what we thought was right in the absence of orders. We many times took this beyond that to "do what we think is right and explain it later." Any time we went off script and were challenged about it later, whether we were successful or even when we failed, the standard response to a question like "Why the heck did you do that?" was "Sua Sponte Sir." It acted as a get-out-of-jail-free card. 

It makes me think of a program I read about years ago (I wish I could find it) that discussed the promotion of project failure in silicon valley teams. Executives at software firms were concerned that their teams weren't thinking outside the box enough. They were insulating themselves from any failure to the point where they were afraid to try new things. These leaders instituted a program where teams had to have a certain number of failed projects a quarter in order to receive their full bonuses. 

Back to your challenge . . . I think we need more Sua Sponte attitude in our society. I know I've been reprimanded for going off script in my organization, but then I've also been lauded at different times. Being a great leader takes failure and learning from failure. 

One of the best features (I find) of those military exercises were always the AAR or after action review. Every exercise, good or bad, had an AAR where the focus was on what happened, what went right and what went wrong, and what could be done better next time. Looking at the oil refining industry I see something similar with our loss investigations, but I don't see it with enough projects to really allow and help change occur. I just completed a very large project and suggested that we do an AAR to discuss what could be done better next time and was told we needed to move forward on the next project. I think too often we don't do these AAR steps and it comes back to bite us in the future. 

I found this article (here (Links to an external site.)) which isn't the one I was remembering, but is close.

On Killing

After my post on Sua Sponte the other day, a classmate recommended that I look into On Killing by Col Dave Grossman.

She wrote about how this book took a look at Korean War era soldiers and their having to get themselves into the psychological state necessary to fight a war. It would be an interesting subject. 

I'll definitely have to go look into On Killing some time. It sounds intriguing. The Korean War is one of the areas I focus on when I read for fun. The last one I read was by Hamptom Sides' On Desperate Ground (see HERE) which I couldn't put down. 

Regarding her discussion about silhouettes for target practice, I remember the first time I was confronted with a silhouette of a human target. For years I hunted with my grandfather in south texas and the only targets we ever used were paper bullseyes with black round circles, and concentric circles expanding out. Very sterile but utilitarian. 

In the Army, there were human silhouettes and that was a shocker for me. It brought the reality of the job into focus quickly, and over time it became a natural part of our work. It will be interesting to check out On Killing for that reason alone, to compare it to my own life experiences. 

Another Chance to Self-Author

 I hit a moment the other day . . . a true test of my self-authorship journey. Remember, self-authorship is defined by among other things an ability to see others' perspectives, to be able to understand. Well, the other day, I was not "understanding" in any way . . . I was livid!

Why?

Managing the Loss

Lots of folks use me as their sounding board for military questions. Why? Well, I served in the military. I wasn't an officer, I was a just a door-kicking, bullet-stopper, Airborne Ranger Team Leader. But somehow the very fact that I was in, and the fact I was in Spec Ops seems to lead so much credence to me that people feel free to ask, "What should the US do about Ukraine?

To be honest? Not once in the military did we discuss the geopolitical implications of different decisions. All we did was a workout, train hard, shoot often, jump out of airplanes and helicopters and blow stuff up. Still, I do have some thoughts, but I hardly think they're any better than my neighbors. 

I read with some interest some of the initial reports about the VDV being chewed up and whole planeloads going down. Were these reports true? Who knows? There is a lot of propaganda, but the number of KIA soldiers and the jacked-up strategy seems to suggest that it might be. I can feel for these guys. There was nothing worse than being crammed into a plane waiting to jump or worse landing on a hostile runway. Air-Lando Commando we called it. Everyone wanted out of that plane as quick as possible. 

Regarding the wider conflict, however, I heard a term the other day and it stuck with me. Someone on the radio mentioned they felt President Biden was "Managing the Loss." This rang true. Most of what this administration has done has been toward Ukraine has already lost the war. This was anathema to everyone in our unit. 

I served in the years between Mogadishu and the GWOT. There were a ton of advancements and changes in tactics in our unit throughout the years I served and even more after that. Adaptability was our hallmark. Adapt, adjust, overcome was our motto (that and Sua Sponte of course). But one thing we would never have done is "manage the loss." 

We were even lectured on this as a Battalion Commander. They gave us a class on what went wrong in Mogadishu and they mentioned that the Rangers should have left, regrouped, and rejoined the fight. Maybe it was the way the leadership said it, maybe it was the fact that the fifth stanza of our creed goes directly against this, or maybe it was just that we were a bunch of kids, but several walked out (to be forced to do hundreds of pushups as punishment for walking out) and afterward, the entire enlisted and NCO class (the bulk of the battalion) agreed en masse that what the Battalion Commander just told us would never have a chance of happening. 

I remember quite clearly the secret meetings, the pledges among the enlisted in the team, the pronouncements from the NCO Team Leaders and Squad Leaders that just like the fifth stanza of the Ranger Creed says, we would never be okay with "leaving a fallen comrade behind." 

So, the point? Regarding Ukraine?

Managing the loss is not something I'm comfortable with. What should be done? Well, more should have been done before. I think they've been managing the loss since last fall. They've been preparing for a loss rather than getting ready for defense. Now, whatever is done is much much harder. 

Waiting on Orders

 I'm reading a book about D-Day by Stephen Ambrose. I've read a lot of books by Ambrose over the years. I gave up on him due to the "plagiarism" scandal at the end of his life. I wasn't a fan of that. And I'm still not. BUT, I've been stunned (as my readers well know) by the magnitude of plagiarism taking hold in academic circles, see for instance Harvard's president, et al. I wonder if there is a study there somewhere. Regardless, Ambrose is a greater writer. More on that later. 

What I find interesting is his description of the landing at Omaha Beach. The first invasion he discusses is Utah, and for the most part that sounds rather staid. But boy, Omaha was a goat fuck. 

Give Me Some Orders

 I'm reading a book about D-Day by Stephen Ambrose. I've read a lot of books by Ambrose over the years. I gave up on him due to the "plagiarism" scandal at the end of his life. I wasn't a fan of that. And I'm still not. BUT, I've been stunned (as my readers well know) by the magnitude of plagiarism taking hold in academic circles, see for instance Harvard's president, et al. I wonder if there is a study there somewhere. Regardless, Ambrose is a greater writer. More on that later. 

What I find interesting is his description of the landing at Omaha Beach. The first invasion he discusses is Utah, and for the most part that sounds rather staid. But boy, Omaha was a goat fuck. 

DA vs Leg Work

I’m reading about a battle in Vietnam during the Vietnam war. It involved the 101st and I’d never heard of it till now.  I jump around quite a bit in my nonfiction reading. My favorite of course is anything about the Korean War. Vietnam isn’t bad. Pacific in WW2 is always fun to read about. For reasons I can’t explain I rarely read about the European theater of WW2 and I stay completely away from anything that occurred during my lifetime. Why? No idea.

Wait! I take it back. I don’t read about battles per se, in my lifetime, but I do read nonfiction military and history from that time. I just finished a great one (I’ll post about soon) about the formation of Delta Force and the fiasco of Operation Eagle Claw. Written by the man himself. I always read a great one of the Rangers and Ranger training focusing on the early 2000’s era, by Dick Couch. Sua Sponte.  I’ll post about that one soon too. 

I do wish I could better understand what it was like in some of these units that I read about. Ranger Battalion Rangers are Tier 2 Spec Ops and focus solely on Direct Action (DA) warfigting. Direct action (DA) is a term used in the context of military special operations for small-scale raids, ambushes, sabotage or similar actions. DOD defines direct action as short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. 

I’ve written before that the military has influenced my business career. In some ways it’s positive. I’m more able to adapt, adjust and overcome. I am a bit more bold than some of my colleagues. The challenges are that I don’t build sustainable or transferable projects. I can think of several projects that I focus on that if I wasn’t there, . . . They’d fail. I can’t transfer them to others, and I’ve yet to find a way to keep them up without my direct intervention. 

Reading about the 101st I’m even more stunned by the way that my military career has influenced me. They’re so much more to these missions than anything we had to deal with. Even on the airfield seizures we would do, where we had to work with the Air Force and other assets for support. This Ripcord book shows me that that is nothing compared to what some of these Leg or Air Mobile groups had to deal with. 

I always wondered if I should have stayed in a regular Army or non Ranger unit. The operations tempo in the Regiment was so extreme I think it scared me for my future. If I had it to do over . . . I would have become a paramedic and probably tried to transfer over to 5th ID. I think I would have liked that. 

Let me know if you’d be interested. Or, if you know of anyone who might be, please let me know.