An open mind is crucial for thinking

The British poet John Keats was the first to use the term negative capability. In a letter to his brother in 1817 we wrote:

”I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason ”

For Keats the open mind was crucial for being able to create his art.

Positive and negative capability

In 2002 the British professor Robert French defined the concepts of positive and negative capability. His main arguments are that the environment and the foundation the leader must base his decisions on are often insecure. He still has to make decisions with potentially large consequences and he has to know when not making a decision is right.

In French’s terms accepting not knowing is just as important as knowing and deciding. Negative capability is as important as the positive.

Positive capability

• What do we know?
• How much can we accomplish?
• How fast can we reach a decision?

Negative capability

• What do we not know?
• Problem solving starts with all options open
• Accepts a state of not knowing and not deciding

Decision making is knowing if to decide, then when and what to decide.
American Field Manual (FM 101-5)

Train your leaders to thrive in uncertainty

A combat leader will not have overview of the enemy’s actions. Pinned down and under fire he might not even be able to grasp all aspects of his own unit’s actions. However, he still has to act.

Develop your own and your sub unit leaders’ negative capability

Prior to my deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan I encouraged my section commanders to act and make decisions amidst uncertainty. Instead of giving them answers and orders when they felt insecure I tried to ask questions in return, encouraging them to make a decision of their own. Initially I was satisfied when they made decisions within their own unit. Later I began to demand suggestions for my own and the entire platoon’s actions as well.

It trained my section commanders’ negative capability; and delegating authority sure trained my own as well.

A leader’s negative capability creates creative solutions

Creativeness spreads in organizations whose leaders display negative capability. Workers in such organizations will feel safe making suggestions that are outside the normal box. How else can a rifleman in Afghanistan come up with the idea of building a raft in the middle of a desert?

Say goodbye to the no faults mindset

To be able to think innovatively you have to say goodbye to the no faults mindset. Failures are opportunities to learn! If you on the other hand practise a culture where you use every chance to find and point out shortfalls, you will end up with a sick deviation of negative capability; a culture where your leaders do not make decisions or take on responsibility for fear of punishment. To decide not to act and to embrace uncertainty characterises negative capability but  not deciding, denying there is a problem, underestimating it or defending oneself against uncertainty is not negative capability: that is poor leadership.

Negative space creates harmony

Vase or faces?

In art there is concept called negative space. In a picture it is the empty space between the object and the frame. Negative space is what makes a picture, a room or a garden look in harmony and balance. The lawn around the rose bed is what makes the rose bed stand out. Neither the lawn nor the rose bed is a garden in itself. It is only a garden in context.

The use of negative space is probably best known from the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin’s vase. Depending on what you label as the negative space you will either see a vase or two heads.

Negative capability cannot stand alone

As the presence of negative space creates harmony in art the presence of negative capability creates harmony in leadership. However, negative capability is not enough: the combat leader must be able to make decisions, tough decisions with the risk of death for the leader himself and his unit.

The art in leadership is thus balancing negative and positive capability.

Train your own negative capability

Are you already training your own negative ability? One question has helped me to think more outside the box and thereby develop my own negative capability. Simply ask:

What is the worst possible outcome?

Often, my own imagined fears of the consequences have gone far beyond the real consequences. I have found the question particularly helpful in training. The worst possible outcome is often that I will know that a particular method did not work as intended or that it needs adjustment.

To innovate we have to try new approaches to both known and new problems. We have to make decisions but we also have to acknowledge when postponing or not deciding is a better option.

I have no idea on how to balance your leadership. Every day I struggle to balance my own.

Article picture: expertinfantry on Flickr

The post Have you got the courage not to make decisions? How coping with uncertainty makes you a better combat leader. appeared first on Soren Sjogren.

But why does leading from the front work so well?

A group of soldiers move across open ground. The second soldier is their leader, one of my sub-commanders.

Picture: A snapshot from one of my soldier’s helmet camera during operation Panther’s Claws, Helmand province, Afghanistan, 2009

Who would you follow?

Think about it. Who would you rather follow:

• The leader who stays in the rear and issues orders via the radio.
• The leader who is in the line of fire alongside his troops issuing orders verbally.

We would all follow the leader who chooses to fight alongside us, who is a part of the team. By doing so the leader shows the importance of the task at hand. He also shows that his soldiers’ lives are not of less importance than his own. With the leader participating, the unit fights as a team.

The leader as a part of the team

Leaders are not above their teams. They are a part of it. Leaders depend on their soldiers to provide their part. Leaders provide leadership. The machine gunner provides fire power. Neither is more important than the other: both are needed to get the job done. Participating as a part of the team gives you soldiers who are willing to go an extra mile for you, because they know that you are willing to do the same for them.

Gain a better understanding of the situation

The leader who is out on the ground personally will better understand the situation. Layers are removed and the leader will receive information unfiltered, reducing the risk of misunderstandings and of the right orders issued on the wrong basis.

Reduce combat stress

In combat fear is a basic condition. A well performing team is better able to cope with stress than a group of individuals. A team without their leader in the line of fire will be more likely to fall apart than a team with a leader who is out on the ground and able to remain “cool under fire”. Personally, I have found that the best combat leaders under my command were the ones able to remain cool under fire. By doing so they were able to project their coolness to their soldiers. By leading from the front they offered the soldiers a model to mirror in combat.

This reduces fear and increases the ability to make sound decisions in combat.

Is it dangerous to lead from the front?

During the Yom Kippur war in 1973 the heaviest Israeli casualties were among tank commanders. They were leaders who had to expose themselves to get an overview of the situation in order to make decisions. Combat leaders today also bear a higher risk than the individual soldier.

However, what is the alternative? A unit with lack of leadership, lack of trust and lack team spirit. A unit who might not be capable of reaching its objectives. The leader’s job is to take the responsibility. In spite of danger. The soldiers expect it from you.

By leading from the front you might create a more effective combat unit thus reducing the risk for all the soldiers in the unit including yourself.

Can you lead too much?

Although you choose to lead from the front you should still give subordinates room to carry out their tasks. A leader who personally mans the machine gun because he wants to show the way has failed. Remember, the leader’s responsibility is to create the best possible conditions for others to do their jobs. In combat it is easy to get carried away. Take three deep breaths and focus on why you are there. Lead your troops.

Leaders are defined by actions not words.

Leading from the front is not only a combat trait. It is a classic leadership trait. In your everyday life as a leader you will always be defined by your actions not by your words. Writing long theses on how to be a great leader is a lot easier than doing it.

However, leadership is about taking action. Not talking.

Start taking action. Lead from the front every day.

The post Lead from the front: the single leadership trait that characterizes a great combat leader appeared first on Soren Sjogren.

The officer was stationed in Afghanistan’s Helmand province as a company commander in 2011. On October 23 he authorized an attack on four Afghans who were presumed to be placing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) near a Danish base. This decision is now being questioned, and the officer is accused of “gross dereliction of duties during armed conflict” violating Danish military penal code.

This trial raises several questions: will a Danish district court in peaceful Copenhagen be able to grasp the war-like environment in which the Danish soldiers in Afghanistan operate? And is it even right to question our soldiers’ actions in war?

Positive identification

Danish soldiers in Afghanistan operate under a NATO mandate and a set of “Rules of Engagements” defining when use of deadly force can lawfully be applied. Generally, units are allowed to defend themselves and their coalition partners with all their available weapons. However, the rules for attacking enemies who do not pose an imminent threat are more rigid. A central concept for doing so is positive identification: the soldier has to be sure that he is actually firing at the enemy and not civilians.

However, neither Danish soldiers nor our allies are murderers. They are soldiers carrying out their mission with the means available. They all have families of their own and no one wishes to open fire on innocent civilians. Personally, I think the term positive identification does not matter. As a Danish officer I would never give the order to fire upon people I was not sure were enemy.

Understanding the dynamics of war in peaceful Copenhagen

Copenhagen’s district court is now to determine whether or not the Danish captain’s actions on October 23 were in alignment with the rules of engagement. To understand the decisions made by the company commander, the court needs to understand not only the specific rules of engagement but also the dynamics of war in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

Data and gut feeling

From my personal experience I can certainly tell that what seems a rational decision in Afghanistan would probably be judged otherwise in Denmark.

Many of my own tactical decisions in Afghanistan were based on a mixture of analysis of data and impressions mixed with my own gut feeling. In the summer of 2009 my platoon was operating from a small base at the edge of the irrigated area called Green Zone near the Helmand River. Units delivering supplies to the base had to pass a funnel in the desert. We were not able to monitor the funnel from the base and Taliban continuously placed IEDs at the funnel. We therefore placed the funnel under continuous surveillance.
We were then able to identify different patterns that led up to an IED being placed in the funnel.

The first to arrive were always the scouts. They parked their small 125 cc motorcycles at the edge of the desert, walked the same route at the edge of the funnel and met at some ruins where they could keep an eye on us at the base without being seen.

Next to arrive was the man digging the hole and one hour later one or two men would arrive with the actual device and place it in the hole to harm either us or passing civilians.

At first, we did not know that this was the pattern for laying IED. But after seeing this pattern a couple of times prior to actually finding an IED where the digger had been observed, made us certain that we were now able to take the offensive against the IED layers.

We were relieved before we got a chance to intercept the IED layers. Our sniper team, however, stayed with the platoon that took over from us. A week later they killed an IED team.

To be given the authority ultimately to kill other humans requires many considerations. Using this authority requires even more.

Will the district court then be able to understand how these seemingly uncorrelated data can provide evidence and justification for pulling the trigger?

I think they will. At least, it is the job of the accused officer ‘s barrister to make the court understand.

Challenging decisions

Challenging decisions made on the ground in Afghanistan is fair. The soldiers represent a democracy and operate within a mandate. Any suspicion of violation of the mandate must be thoroughly investigated. And if there is evidence suggesting that rules might have been violated, the case must be brought before a judge in a court. In a civilized society governed by the rule of law this is how we solve disputes. And that is what we are trying to promote in Afghanistan.

The problem here in Denmark is that this case is the first of its kind. It creates a lot of uncertainty within the officers’ corps. Are we now being charged for every action taken in combat? I think there has been until now a belief that tactical decisions in combat should never be questioned afterwards, that the leader on the ground always makes the best possible decisions. He still does. The difference is actually nothing: combat leaders must always be able to explain their actions.

After all people’s lives are at stake.

Decision-making in peacetime can be difficult. Making sound decisions in combat is even more difficult. I am sure that the court will take that into consideration as well.

The post Is a Danish court able to grasp actions taken on the front? appeared first on Soren Sjogren.

Karina, a Danish female soldier in the Green Zone in Afghanistan's Helmand province in 2009

Cultural bias

In many countries there is an ongoing debate on whether women should be allowed to serve in combat units. Denmark is an exception to the norm: in the Danish army women have been allowed to serve in the infantry since 1988. In several other counties they are not. The arguments defending exclusion ranges from women not being capable of handling the physical and emotional pressure of combat to arguments that the mere presence of women in combat units would reduce their combat effectiveness.
I think that the idea that women cannot participate in wars is a cultural bias. Some women would not be capable of handling the stresses of war, but on the other hand. some men could not either.

Women on the patrols are an advantage

In both Afghanistan and Iraq having women in my platoon enabled us to communicate with the local women. A Western male soldier searching a female Iraqi or Afghan would probably have caused quite a stir. The local women often asked questions on how and why my female soldiers could handle men’s jobs and they seemed very interested in them.
The Danish women also drew attention from the local Arab or Afghan males. On a few occasions, especially in Iraq, I have experienced younger local males having difficulties accepting orders from a woman. We all knew beforehand that the women could face such cultural challenges because of their sex but we had also agreed that we would not give in to discrimination. An order given at a checkpoint by one of my female soldiers is just as valid as that of one of my males.

Skills are important – not gender

We are not created equal. We do not have equal skills. Not men or women, nor you or I. When selecting soldiers for combat units only skills count. If you are able to meet the physical requirements for the infantry and you are willing to be a part of a combat unit, you are very welcome.

Jonna cracking on with the ECM in Helmand Province summer 2009

Gender quotas would reduce combat effectiveness

In an attempt to get more women into combat units it is sometimes proposed to impose gender quotas. But the mere number of women in a combat unit must never be an objective. The only objectives of a combat unit are to be able to solve the tasks at hand. Stuffing units with soldiers not able to meet the requirements does not only hurt the individual soldier, it also reduces the overall combat effectiveness of the unit; thus putting lives at risk.

The enemy does not discriminate: he will try killing you regardless of your gender.

Treat people differently

In my platoon I tried to look upon my soldiers as soldiers. They were neither men nor women; they were individuals all with specific needs and wants who therefore all needed special attention.
Writing this makes it sound easy. However, I was constantly reminded that I had women in my platoon. Not by the women themselves; they never complained and they solved their tasks just as well as my male soldiers and on equal terms. But people around me were constantly pointing them out, probably in good faith
In camps or in the forward operation bases the commander would often approach me and apologise for not having arranged special accommodation for my two women. I think that this was an act of political correctness. I always explained that they did not need it.

I do not think that gender grants you specific rights. If one of my soldiers needs special attention, I will make sure he or she gets it.

Is there a problem with women in combat units?

There are just as many challenges leading women in combat as leading males. By having women in the unit you have to fight prejudices as well. These prejudices are found among your own troops eagerly trying to be politically correct, among allied troops who have not themselves got women in combat units and among the local population.

A final piece of advise

Should you find yourself in command of a combat unit with woman in it my advice would be:

Relax – don’t look upon your soldiers as men and women. Look upon them as soldiers. Treat them all differently but make sure you measure them by the same standards. It is not OK to discriminate.

The post The problem with women in combat units appeared first on Soren Sjogren.

Crack-crack-crack

The air is filled with dust and sharp cracks from bullets passing by mere inches away.

I dive for cover and begin returning fire. After 10 rounds I look around. My sections are in position. Without stopping to think I make a dash across an open field to get to the front section for a better overview.

I find the section commander in a ditch returning fire. He immediately starts to brief me on the situation. The words make no sense to me. I take two deep breaths to calm myself down. Suddenly I am able to grasp what he is saying:

“Four enemy fighters are in position in the hedgerow in front of us. If you can get 1 and 2 section to provide suppressing fire we can close in on them head on.”

Conditions on the battlefield

Modern day soldiers have to endure the same hardships as their forefathers fighting with spears and shields; the soldier has to face his own fear of death, he risks seeing his brothers-in-arms being killed or wounded and he still has to react efficiently.
The military leader has the same challenges. Furthermore, he has to make rational decisions sometimes crucial for the difference between life and death.

Fear is a basic condition

“Afraid you will be”  – Master Yoda

There are two types of soldiers. The ones who admit they have felt fear and the ones who are lying. When the firefight starts the body releases large amounts of adrenalin. The chemical puts the body into a state of alert. The natural reaction to stress is healthy: blood flows into the major muscle groups in legs and upper torso; the pulse rises and prepares the body to perform its best physically.
This reaction, however, comes with a price: adrenalin and a high pulse rate hamper your ability to think. The higher the level of stress we experience, the worse we are at making rational decisions.

How our pulse affects our ability to think

In the book On Combat the American Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman describes how heart rate affects the body. He defines five conditions based on our heart rate: White, yellow, red, grey and black.

• When the pulse rises above 115 beats per minute (bpm) fine motor skills begin to deteriorate
• Above 145 bpm our gross motor skills begin to deteriorate
• Above 175 bpm is condition black. The soldier’s ability to think rationally is severely affected; tunnel vision, freezing, vomiting and loss of bladder control might occur.

Generally, the higher the heart rate, the more the body has to rely on instincts. And instincts are not always rational.
Grossman points to condition red as optimal for performance in battle. In condition grey, soldiers can perform standardized and previously rehearsed tasks; black is outright dangerous.

Breathe and regain control

The key to handling fear in combat is thus managing your heart rate. You must pay to attention to the body’s early signals in order to react before it is too late. In combat I have often experienced tunnel vision – and I knew that my ability to make rational decisions was severely affected when that happened. I took cover and took deep breaths: I inhaled through the nose and exhaled through the mouth before considering the next move.

In some situations there is no time for thinking. Being ambushed is such an example. A natural reaction could be to take cover or run. Through training we can replace such instincts with more effective ones: returning fire and manoeuvring.
Any action required by soldiers in combat has to rely on standards – drills in military terms. These drills have to be conducted time and again until they become internalised as instincts.

It takes a long time to train instincts and it takes even longer to unlearn them again. That is why I still feel an urge to dive for cover when I hear something that sounds like gunfire even here on the streets in Denmark.

Preparing for combat

The best way to prepare for combat is by practising. During training and exercises the soldiers will test their own skills, thus building and gaining confidence in themselves, in each other and in you as their leader.

• Know yourself

  You can get an idea of how you will react to combat by challenging yourself. Break your comfort zones. I do it by climbing and diving: I feel insecure on heights and under water – the body reacts by moving into panic. The same feeling as in combat. Any technique that helps me to calm down while climbing can be effective in combat as well.

• Know your team

  Expose your team to hardships during training that are harder that you would expect in combat. It is far safer to fail on the training ground at home than to fail in combat.

• Remain in good physical shape

  Being in good physical shape improves your body’s ability to raise and lower the heart rate. A physical surplus is needed to make the right decisions in combat.

• Know your battle drills

  Any manoeuvre carried out in combat must simple and based on standards. Communication in combat must be simple and standardized. The only way is practice. Over and over again.

Breaking point

I have not yet personally experienced losing control in combat. But I have had one soldier who in despair threw his rifle on the ground after one of my riflemen was hit by enemy fire.
Fear is a contagious disease capable of destroying units in short time. It is crucial for combat effectiveness that fear is not allowed to spread. Either get the solder to participate in the fighting at once or remove him.

However, we all have a breaking point. A soldier who failed to live up to standards in combat is not necessarily a bad soldier. Breaking is just a sign that we are humans reacting normally to extreme conditions. We all react to combat. There is no shame in it.

The way ahead is to accept it, talk about it, evaluate it and move on. However, if a soldier continuously reacts negatively to combat stress, consider removing him from the front line. Letting him stay in the unit would affect combat effectiveness and it would probably affect the soldier long term as well.

Training is the key to effectively functioning in combat

I have had my share of sleepless nights before combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have felt my legs shake after clearing compounds with hand grenades – but during combat our combat drills worked. Long hours of repetitions paid off:
I have never hesitated during battle. Neither has my unit.

Facts on pulse:

• Maximum heart rate is determined by age and genetics. It is not possible to increase your maximum heart rate by training. You can calculate your theoretical max heart rate by deducting your age from 220.
• Resting heart rate is typically between 60 and 100 bpm. People in good shape can have a heart rate of down to 40 bpm.

The post Overcoming fear in combat: How your pulse affects your ability to think rationally and make sound decisions. appeared first on Soren Sjogren.

”Soren, how does the body react in combat?”

I am often asked this during the Q & A when I speak about Afghanistan.

Reactions in combat are the body’s reactions to stress. Talking about them is often taboo. I had no idea how comprehensive such reactions were before I started studying them prior to my first deployment to Iraq in 2007

In their extreme forms a psychologist would label it ”acute stress reactions”. Such experiences are not limited to soldiers only. Any humans that are exposed to extreme stressors or traumatic events can suffer from acute stress reaction.

We are not designed for modern warfare

The human organism is designed to mobilise force into a fight or flight mode when a threat occurs. Blood flows to the major muscle groups in the body, the heart rate rises and the body will probably eliminate any unnecessary weight.

That would  probably have been very useful, had the threat been a sabre tooth tiger jumping out of a bush on the African savannah 10.000 years ago. On the modern day battleground some of these reactions might even be dangerous.

What happens to the body?

• 88% auditory exclusion
• 17% intensified sounds
• 82% reported tunnel vision
• 78% reported they were on autopilot
• 63% slow motion time
• 11% paralysis

I have drawn data from the report ”Deadly Force Encounters” by Artwohl and Cristian quoted in On Combat. The report gathered data from law enforcement officers who had been in a firefight.

And I have read elsewhere that:

• 25% of WWII veterans experienced loss of bladder control

I get tunnel vision and my body runs on autopilot

I can recognise some of the reactions above from myself. I almost always experience tunnel vision. Whilst under fire I might as well use my binoculars to observe through; my broad vision has disappeared anyway. I have to turn my entire body and face people I have to talk to; otherwise I will not understand what they are saying. I will not notice the sound of my own rifle firing; I do no notice the crack of enemy bullets even though I might see ricochets beside me. The orders my section commanders give are clear, even though they might be hundreds of metres away; signals on my radio are also clear.

I have often given orders and taken action without having to stop and think first. Leading troops in battle has become instinctive. The fruits of many hours of battle drills; the body runs on autopilot.

And I have always made sure of relieving myself before going out on patrol.

Managing fear

To counter stress reactions and regain my ability to think clearly I have taken cover and taken deep breaths; inhaling through the nose and exhaling through the mouth. Just two to three times is normally enough to lower my heart rate. Tunnel vision disappears and I am able to consider the next move.

Slow motion

I have a video of a firefight I usually show when I speak on war. In it one of my soldiers is wounded. I remember the episode clearly: I have my platoon in position in a cluster of compounds. The Taliban is attacking and the platoon returns fire. I remember hearing a sound that I am not familiar with. I turn left. A machine gunner falls backwards. It all seems to happen in slow motion. I remember it taking more than half a minute for the medics to get to him.

On the video I can see what actually happened. A rifleman next to him pulls him into cover as he is hit. Eight seconds later the first medic is on him.

Back in the groove

A few times I have seen some of my soldiers hesitate or even freeze. Every time a push has been enough to get them going. The push has been everything from giving the order to move again, to physically pushing him or just simply leading the way and doing what I want the soldier to be doing. Fire my rifle if I want him to fire his. Most often a rifleman nearby or his section commander has managed to get the soldier going again.

It is all about getting the soldier back into the rhythm of the battle drills.

Talk about combat stress

Humans will react to traumatic incidents on the field of battle. Talking about the possible reactions prior to being deployed will automatically remove some of the soldiers’ worries on how they will react in the face of danger.

We will then know and hopefully accept that our reactions are normal and that we are not alone with them. Awareness might also give us a possibility to identify patterns and take action to reduce the impact of stress before it is too late.

Prior to my deployment to Afghanistan I spent time teaching my soldiers about the possible reactions to combat stress. I also made it clear that I would expect everyone to do their utmost and give all while in combat. I explained that one is not a poor soldier because one experiences paralysis and is not be able to fight. An experienced soldier knows how to handle and counter combat stress.

However, we all have a breaking point.

So do I.

The post It feels as if everything is moving in slow motion while the body is running on autopilot: How soldiers react to combat appeared first on Soren Sjogren.

When you notice that the author of this book is Erwin Rommel,  you might think of the German desert fox who fought Montgomery and Patton in North Africa during World War II.

However, in World War I, the same Erwin Rommel was an infantry commander. “Infantry attacks” is his highly recommended analysis of his own combat experience.

Rommel begins and builds his book with a description of his unit’s actions and closes the chapters with relevant observations – what we, today, would refer to as lessons learned.

The most interesting chapter is his description of the Battle of Caporetto. Commanding a detachment no larger than a company, Erwin Rommel won the Pour Le Mérite (the Blue Max), Germany’s highest ranking medal, for leading the attack and taking 1,500 men and 43 officers prisoner.

Published in 1937, the book was thought of as a textbook on infantry tactics in the German army. Thankfully Rommel himself is not afraid to admit failure. He identifies the lessons to be learned, states it as an observation and moves on.

If you are thinking: – Well, infantry tactics learned in World War I do not apply to my situation – think again! The German eastern front never came to a complete standstill as the trench warfare in France did. The tactical situations Rommel describes are full of manoeuvres, assaults and counter attacks – much of what is being taught on the trainings fields today.
Principles described by Rommel have the same value today as when the book was published in 1937:

Observation: The night attack of the Rommel detachment on the Klautana failed because the combined fire of the machine-gun company and the advance of the assault companies were not synchronized.

It sounds like Rommel is preaching fire and movement, right?

If you are interested in Rommel’s earliest exploits, want to get a different view on the trench warfare of WWI or are just interested in infantry tactics – this book should be on your bookshelf.

After the war Rommel taught infantry tactics at the military academy in Dresden and rose to end as a Field Marshal in 1944.

The post A review of Erwin Rommels Infantry Attacks appeared first on Soren Sjogren.