I have spent too much time thinking about one assignment for ILE: write a blog. I understand that ILE is supposed to push me and expand my horizons in areas that are not within my comfort zone. However, I am extremely uncomfortable putting my opinions on the web for an indefinite period of time. A simple Google search of my name returns my name as associated with blogs at the British Journal of Sports Medicine (2005), Jews in Green (for Jewish service members) (2005), Grace Centered Christianity (an article I wrote was included and I was quoted - then taken out of context by someone. My statements were used by several people to argue for and against the same topic, then based on my Jews in Green post that I was not a suitable character reference for a Christian argument) (unknown date), Travelpod (a friend mentions me - in vain - in reference to a group I belonged to in Dushanbe, Tajikistan) (2008). I also found my old credit card number with Card Code Verification and billing address…swell.
I simply don’t want to blog. I think it’s stupid. I don’t want any more references to me on the net unless I want to put them there. Now for at least several years, my ILE assignment comments will endure.
This leads me to ask: what is the intent of this assignment? The concept leads students to take encouragement in learning how to use modern media formats and in engaging the public as an Army Officer. I would argue that whether I engage America at large as an Officer is my prerogative. I do not believe that it is within the realm of Army leadership (I won’t say my commander, since I’m TDY and it isn’t my commander who has ordered me to do this nonsense) to order me to write a blog. I compare this to forcing me to sign up for a self-help site, ordering me to sell things on eBay, or forcing me to join eHarmony - if I were single). If I choose to use a computer outside of class and work, that is my option. I have given the Army enough of my time, and I have already sacrificed more than I wanted to. Are my senior leaders in the Army War College being taught to direct their subordinates to blog about their job and life experience outside of work? I have lived this long without creating my own blog or commenting on others’ blogs except once, when I felt it was necessary. I wrote on one blog and only one time. That is sufficient for me.
If the Army’s senior leadership is moving toward more engagement with modern technology and communications format, then good on them. I am moving away from them. I question the intent of an organization that is controlling the access of their employees…especially one that is not limiting it but forcing their employees to use it.
I host my own website to update my family and friends on my travels and experiences. Does this meet the requirement of engaging the public? What really does this do for me, for my job, or for my experience? Comments are appreciated, complaints not necessary.
Thanks,
MAJ Joel Kleehammer
Student, ILE
Fort Belvoir, VA
Small Group 29B
"The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Dept of the Army, Dept of Defense or the US Government.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Army Leadership for Combat Arms vs. Army Organizational Management for Combat Service Support (CSS)
All of the mandatory Army leadership training I have attended throughout my career is generally focused on combat arms in combat situations. Although every soldier is supposed to be an infantry man first, I highly doubt that I would ever be selected to lead a charge to “take the hill”. I entered the service as an enlisted soldier and went on to become an officer. My branch is Signal. All of my assignments have been at Brigade HQs level or above in a sustaining base environment. I am currently working on attaining a new functional area in Acquisition Management. Unless one can lead troops through combat with a Program Objective Memorandum (POM) or an obligation plan shown on a power point presentation, we need to start thinking about tailoring leadership training to a soldier’s actual career path. I can almost see myself yelling “charge” with spreadsheet and projector in hand as I lead troops up that hill.
I think it is time the Army considers training CSS leaders to be senior level managers of organizations. Organization management is seemingly an on the job training event for mid-level managers in the Army, otherwise known as Majors. In this context I define “organization” as a Battalion sized unit or larger with a sustaining base mission. An example of the type of training focus I am talking about is a graduate level education in Organization Management as it is offered in civilian universities. A sample curriculum follows:
Foundation Courses
ORSC 209 Management SystemsECON 219 Managerial EconomicsPSYC 245 Seminar: Organizational BehaviorSTAT 104 Statistics in Management, Administration, and Policy Studies
Required Courses
ORSC 216 Theories and Management of Planned Change ORSC 241 Strategic Management and Policy Formation ORSC 242 Organizational Communication and Conflict Management ORSC 243 Seminar: Leadership in Complex OrganizationsPSYC 259 Psychology of Individual and Group Decision Making
Electives (select 3)
ORSC 201 Principles of Management Information SystemsORSC 212 Current Principles in Personnel Testing and SelectionORSC 214 Personnel Training and Performance Appraisal SystemsORSC 217 Productivity and Human PerformanceORSC 220 Organizational Decision MakingORSC 222 Theory and Practice of Compensation ManagementORSC 223 Collective BargainingORSC 246 Comparative ManagementORSC 248 Strategic Human Resources PlanningORSC 249 Human Resources Information SystemsORSC 250 Leadership Coaching: Principles and PracticesORSC 251 Team Coaching and FacilitationORSC 252 Practicum in Leadership CoachingORSC 295 Directed ResearchORSC 297 Special TopicsORSC 298 Directed Reading
The operation of a military hospital, information technology (IT) organization, school house or logistics support organization to name a few, can be approached from a civilian corporate perspective. Although the mission and culture to a degree are different in the military, the principles taught in the civilian world can apply to any organization.
If the military is paying for the graduate level training [i.e. ILE and War College etc.] of combat arms leaders in their field of expertise, then would it not be fair to do the same for CSS leaders? It seems like a win-win situation to me to provide CSS leaders with the tools they need to successfully run our military hospitals, school houses, IT organizations etc. If there is anything going on in the Army like this today, I am unaware of its existence. The senior level managers in the CSS field I have encountered have largely educated themselves at their own expense. I write this as I intend to pursue a Masters Degree in Organizational Management in the very near future. It would have been nice to have it funded completely by the Army…
MAJ Marla Seeman
Student, CGSC
Ft Belvior, VA
"The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Dept of the Army, Dept of Defense or the US Government.
I think it is time the Army considers training CSS leaders to be senior level managers of organizations. Organization management is seemingly an on the job training event for mid-level managers in the Army, otherwise known as Majors. In this context I define “organization” as a Battalion sized unit or larger with a sustaining base mission. An example of the type of training focus I am talking about is a graduate level education in Organization Management as it is offered in civilian universities. A sample curriculum follows:
Foundation Courses
ORSC 209 Management SystemsECON 219 Managerial EconomicsPSYC 245 Seminar: Organizational BehaviorSTAT 104 Statistics in Management, Administration, and Policy Studies
Required Courses
ORSC 216 Theories and Management of Planned Change ORSC 241 Strategic Management and Policy Formation ORSC 242 Organizational Communication and Conflict Management ORSC 243 Seminar: Leadership in Complex OrganizationsPSYC 259 Psychology of Individual and Group Decision Making
Electives (select 3)
ORSC 201 Principles of Management Information SystemsORSC 212 Current Principles in Personnel Testing and SelectionORSC 214 Personnel Training and Performance Appraisal SystemsORSC 217 Productivity and Human PerformanceORSC 220 Organizational Decision MakingORSC 222 Theory and Practice of Compensation ManagementORSC 223 Collective BargainingORSC 246 Comparative ManagementORSC 248 Strategic Human Resources PlanningORSC 249 Human Resources Information SystemsORSC 250 Leadership Coaching: Principles and PracticesORSC 251 Team Coaching and FacilitationORSC 252 Practicum in Leadership CoachingORSC 295 Directed ResearchORSC 297 Special TopicsORSC 298 Directed Reading
The operation of a military hospital, information technology (IT) organization, school house or logistics support organization to name a few, can be approached from a civilian corporate perspective. Although the mission and culture to a degree are different in the military, the principles taught in the civilian world can apply to any organization.
If the military is paying for the graduate level training [i.e. ILE and War College etc.] of combat arms leaders in their field of expertise, then would it not be fair to do the same for CSS leaders? It seems like a win-win situation to me to provide CSS leaders with the tools they need to successfully run our military hospitals, school houses, IT organizations etc. If there is anything going on in the Army like this today, I am unaware of its existence. The senior level managers in the CSS field I have encountered have largely educated themselves at their own expense. I write this as I intend to pursue a Masters Degree in Organizational Management in the very near future. It would have been nice to have it funded completely by the Army…
MAJ Marla Seeman
Student, CGSC
Ft Belvior, VA
"The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Dept of the Army, Dept of Defense or the US Government.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Mentorship
Mentorship is a concept that I believe may be falling by the wayside in the Army; at least that is my experience and many of my peers who share the same view. I do realize that this may not be the case for everyone.
For the majority of my military career, I have stumbled my way through life as a Soldier without really having a true mentor. For my 6 1/2 years as an enlisted Soldier, I had what I thought to be mentors who did provide me some advice here and there. Most times, it was helpful information that I used where it applied at the time. To a degree, that advice helped me to become what I considered to be successful.
After becoming a commissioned officer, I never found or had a true mentor. I originally branched as an AG officer. I worked with great officers in each of my units who did give me some guidance and helpful hints/tips along the way. But I never had that unbiased person outside my organization to provide me with the suggested fundamental guide path to become a successful AG officer in the Army.
Now that I have changed my branch and have become a Psychological Operations Officer (37A). I have found a great mentor. My mentor is my former battalion commander. He has helped me to realize what is takes to be successful as a PSYOP officer. He knows what it takes and he shares the recipe with me. I am now gaining a clear focus and understanding of what I need to do in my career. But it took an 18 year in the Army to find a good mentor.
Now that I have reached the level of a field grade officer, I understand the true value of mentor ship. Any opportunity that presents itself to me, I will be sure to provide that mentorship to any junior officer seeking the same guidance that I sought as a junior officer.
Major Larry Wayne Smalls
Student,
CGSC, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
For the majority of my military career, I have stumbled my way through life as a Soldier without really having a true mentor. For my 6 1/2 years as an enlisted Soldier, I had what I thought to be mentors who did provide me some advice here and there. Most times, it was helpful information that I used where it applied at the time. To a degree, that advice helped me to become what I considered to be successful.
After becoming a commissioned officer, I never found or had a true mentor. I originally branched as an AG officer. I worked with great officers in each of my units who did give me some guidance and helpful hints/tips along the way. But I never had that unbiased person outside my organization to provide me with the suggested fundamental guide path to become a successful AG officer in the Army.
Now that I have changed my branch and have become a Psychological Operations Officer (37A). I have found a great mentor. My mentor is my former battalion commander. He has helped me to realize what is takes to be successful as a PSYOP officer. He knows what it takes and he shares the recipe with me. I am now gaining a clear focus and understanding of what I need to do in my career. But it took an 18 year in the Army to find a good mentor.
Now that I have reached the level of a field grade officer, I understand the true value of mentor ship. Any opportunity that presents itself to me, I will be sure to provide that mentorship to any junior officer seeking the same guidance that I sought as a junior officer.
Major Larry Wayne Smalls
Student,
CGSC, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Army Song Alive and Well at Walter Reed
Ray,
I read your post with interest, since I have been the Master of Ceremonies at a an average of four ceremonies each quarter at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for the last 22 months and attended an average of four more each quarter. Each of these ceremonies ended with a very enthusiastic singing of The Army Song by all (or almost all) in attendance. As the MC, it was been very heartening to see the degree of participation, and a relief at the end of the ceremony to expand the pent-up energy by singing myself. I was really quite pleased to see this tradition when I first arrived. I had first experienced the mass singing of The Army Song while stationed at Fort Drum, NY, from 2003 to 2005. All ceremonies conducted by the 10th Mountain Division (LI) ended with the singing of the Division Song and The Army Song. I did not know the Division Song (I was assigned to the Medical Department Activity) very well and so could not sing it very well. I did notice that the volume did pick up when the ceremony moved to The Army Song, since most people in attendance knew it.
At Walter Reed, we included the lyrics in the program for each ceremony that had a program (most did), so more people could participate by reading along.
I agree with your contention that all Soldiers and Army civil servants should learn The Army Song and participate in its public singing whenever possible. I would not want the Army to change to another Song, since we would simply be returning to a condition in which few people would know the Song and therefore could not sing along. Isn't The Army Song itself less than 20 years old? I don't remember being exposed to it at all when I was enlisted during the 1980s and early 90s. If we are still in the first generation of its existence, perhaps we just need more time to pass.
Again, thanks for starting this discussion.
Major Michael D. Dake
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
I read your post with interest, since I have been the Master of Ceremonies at a an average of four ceremonies each quarter at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for the last 22 months and attended an average of four more each quarter. Each of these ceremonies ended with a very enthusiastic singing of The Army Song by all (or almost all) in attendance. As the MC, it was been very heartening to see the degree of participation, and a relief at the end of the ceremony to expand the pent-up energy by singing myself. I was really quite pleased to see this tradition when I first arrived. I had first experienced the mass singing of The Army Song while stationed at Fort Drum, NY, from 2003 to 2005. All ceremonies conducted by the 10th Mountain Division (LI) ended with the singing of the Division Song and The Army Song. I did not know the Division Song (I was assigned to the Medical Department Activity) very well and so could not sing it very well. I did notice that the volume did pick up when the ceremony moved to The Army Song, since most people in attendance knew it.
At Walter Reed, we included the lyrics in the program for each ceremony that had a program (most did), so more people could participate by reading along.
I agree with your contention that all Soldiers and Army civil servants should learn The Army Song and participate in its public singing whenever possible. I would not want the Army to change to another Song, since we would simply be returning to a condition in which few people would know the Song and therefore could not sing along. Isn't The Army Song itself less than 20 years old? I don't remember being exposed to it at all when I was enlisted during the 1980s and early 90s. If we are still in the first generation of its existence, perhaps we just need more time to pass.
Again, thanks for starting this discussion.
Major Michael D. Dake
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The Army Song
A few days ago, I attended a mass retirement ceremony at Fort Myer, Virginia. It was held outdoors with The Old Guard marching on the parade field. The Old Guard was impressive and the attendees seemed to enjoy the ceremony.
At the end of the ceremony, the band played the Army Song: "The Army Goes Rolling Along." The Army Song is normally played at the conclusion of U.S. Army ceremonies. It is an Army custom that Soldiers stand at attention and sing the lyrics of the Army Song.
I started singing the Army Song, but my wife noticed that I was the only person who was singing in our vicinity. I was surprised that no one else, especially other Soldiers, were singing along.
I have also noticed at most other Army ceremonies that I have attended, there hasn't been great enthusiasm in singing the Army Song. Either people don't know the words to the song and just stand at attention or they sing along but not loudly enough to show some spirit. I'm not sure if it's like this throughout the Army, but I've served in tactical units and up to the Army Staff, and most of the time, I've haven't seen or heard enthusiasm in singing the Army Song.
Singing one's Service song is a way to express pride in one's Service. The Marines sing their Service song, the Marine Hymn, with great pride and exhilaration and they know the lyrics by heart.
I realize that this is a relatively insignificant issue to raise, especially when the Army is concerned about much greater issues. However, when the Army Song is played before national leaders and foreign dignitaries, not to mention along with other Service songs, the accompanying singing should reflect the pride of the Army.
Soldiers and Army Civilians should learn the Army Song (at least the first verse and the refrain) and sing it with pride and spirit when it's played. Or, the Army should replace it with another song that Soldiers and Army Civilians can truly sing with pride and spirit.
Major Ray Ceralde
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
At the end of the ceremony, the band played the Army Song: "The Army Goes Rolling Along." The Army Song is normally played at the conclusion of U.S. Army ceremonies. It is an Army custom that Soldiers stand at attention and sing the lyrics of the Army Song.
I started singing the Army Song, but my wife noticed that I was the only person who was singing in our vicinity. I was surprised that no one else, especially other Soldiers, were singing along.
I have also noticed at most other Army ceremonies that I have attended, there hasn't been great enthusiasm in singing the Army Song. Either people don't know the words to the song and just stand at attention or they sing along but not loudly enough to show some spirit. I'm not sure if it's like this throughout the Army, but I've served in tactical units and up to the Army Staff, and most of the time, I've haven't seen or heard enthusiasm in singing the Army Song.
Singing one's Service song is a way to express pride in one's Service. The Marines sing their Service song, the Marine Hymn, with great pride and exhilaration and they know the lyrics by heart.
I realize that this is a relatively insignificant issue to raise, especially when the Army is concerned about much greater issues. However, when the Army Song is played before national leaders and foreign dignitaries, not to mention along with other Service songs, the accompanying singing should reflect the pride of the Army.
Soldiers and Army Civilians should learn the Army Song (at least the first verse and the refrain) and sing it with pride and spirit when it's played. Or, the Army should replace it with another song that Soldiers and Army Civilians can truly sing with pride and spirit.
Major Ray Ceralde
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Measuring Productivity and Efficiency
All,
I am curious to what extent the rest of the Army is linking efficiency and productivity measures to unit funding.
About three years ago (around 2005/2006), the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) introduced PBAM (Productivity Based Adjustment Model) in an effort to link resources to outcomes. PBAM is actually a very complex, multi-component model, but in the interest of brevity and simplicity, this blog entry will only address the productivity and efficiency components. These components:
1) compare productivity against previous reporting periods,
2) compare efficiency against industry or command accepted and published standards,
3) financially reward or penalize health care facilities for their status compared to a base period.
Recurring reports are based on a rolling 12-month period, published monthly and compare the most current 12-month period against a 12-month base period. The defined base period is refreshed every fiscal year. Financial adjustments are cumulated and made three to four times a year.
For the pure productivity component of the model, each patient encounter is converted to an industry-accepted measure of work that is weighted to account for different levels of resource requirements. In an inpatient setting, these measures of work are referred to as RWPs or Relative Weighted Products, and in the outpatient setting, they are referred to as RVUs or Relative Value Units. If a facility’s aggregate productivity falls below the baseline, a negative adjustment is imposed. If productivity is above the baseline, the facility receives a positive adjustment.
The efficiency component compares a business unit’s productivity per provider per day against industry accepted and published standards. If the business unit’s efficiency falls below the benchmark, a penalty is imposed. When efficiency is above the benchmark, the facility receives a positive financial adjustment.
This is a very summary explanation of PBAM as a catalyst for further discussion. If so inclined, I am interested in reading how other Army departments are linking business unit productivity to resources in an effort to be better stewards of the tax dollar.
Thanks!
Burke
Major Burke Bristow
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
I am curious to what extent the rest of the Army is linking efficiency and productivity measures to unit funding.
About three years ago (around 2005/2006), the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) introduced PBAM (Productivity Based Adjustment Model) in an effort to link resources to outcomes. PBAM is actually a very complex, multi-component model, but in the interest of brevity and simplicity, this blog entry will only address the productivity and efficiency components. These components:
1) compare productivity against previous reporting periods,
2) compare efficiency against industry or command accepted and published standards,
3) financially reward or penalize health care facilities for their status compared to a base period.
Recurring reports are based on a rolling 12-month period, published monthly and compare the most current 12-month period against a 12-month base period. The defined base period is refreshed every fiscal year. Financial adjustments are cumulated and made three to four times a year.
For the pure productivity component of the model, each patient encounter is converted to an industry-accepted measure of work that is weighted to account for different levels of resource requirements. In an inpatient setting, these measures of work are referred to as RWPs or Relative Weighted Products, and in the outpatient setting, they are referred to as RVUs or Relative Value Units. If a facility’s aggregate productivity falls below the baseline, a negative adjustment is imposed. If productivity is above the baseline, the facility receives a positive adjustment.
The efficiency component compares a business unit’s productivity per provider per day against industry accepted and published standards. If the business unit’s efficiency falls below the benchmark, a penalty is imposed. When efficiency is above the benchmark, the facility receives a positive financial adjustment.
This is a very summary explanation of PBAM as a catalyst for further discussion. If so inclined, I am interested in reading how other Army departments are linking business unit productivity to resources in an effort to be better stewards of the tax dollar.
Thanks!
Burke
Major Burke Bristow
Student, Command and General Staff College, ILE
Ft. Belvoir, VA
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
ILE Class 09-002 BLOG
Hello fellow SG 29B Bloggers,
This is our class Blog site where those of you who have not found a blog site to suit you may contribute your thoughts and ideas. Please be mindful of the CGSC rules on blogging when submitting your post. If you have questions concerning this assignment, please feel free to ask me.
MAJ Marla Seeman
This is our class Blog site where those of you who have not found a blog site to suit you may contribute your thoughts and ideas. Please be mindful of the CGSC rules on blogging when submitting your post. If you have questions concerning this assignment, please feel free to ask me.
MAJ Marla Seeman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
