How to Become an Effective CEO: Chief Emotions Officer

Chip Conley, founder of Joie de Vivre Hotels

Chip Conley is the founder of Joie de Vivre Hospitality, which he began at age 26 and built to more than 30 properties in California alone. In 2010, Joie de Vivre was awarded the #1 customer service award in the U.S. by Market Metrix (Upper Upscale hotel category).

Conley has also been named the “Most Innovative CEO” in the Bay Area by the San Francisco Business Times, and I’m proud to call him a friend.

We’ve shared many glasses of wine together. He doesn’t know what I’m about to tell you, but it’s true (Hi, Chip!). When we first met, and after reading his first book on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I wondered “Is this Chip dude for real? Implementing self-actualization in a company?!?” My curiosity drove me to visit a few of his hotels, including Hotel Vitale, where I eventually concluded: these are the happiest employees I’ve ever met.

He has figured out what makes people tick.

The following post is a guest post by Chip and based on his new book, Emotional Equations. Be sure to read to the end, as there is a chance to win an expense-paid trip to SF to spend an entire day training with him.

Deal-making? Empire building? Self-fulfillment? He’s your guy.

Enjoy…

I graduated from Stanford Business School at age 23 with Seth Godin.

I remember talking with him and others about my aspirations as an entrepreneur and my desire to become a CEO some day. Back then, I thought in order to become a successful CEO, I would need to become superhuman, leaping tall buildings in a single bound. But, after 24 years of being a CEO (I founded Joie de Vivre Hospitality, what’s become the 2nd largest boutique hotelier in the world, and sold a majority interest to a billionaire in 2010), I’ve come to realize that the best business leaders aren’t superhuman, they’re simply super humans as they’ve learned how to become Chief Emotions Officers.

Leaders are the “emotional thermostats” of the groups they lead. If you want to dig into the support for this, read this compelling piece by Daniel Goleman, the man who popularized the idea of “emotional intelligence” in the 90s and proved that 2/3 of the effectiveness of business leaders comes from their EQ rather than their IQ or level of work experience.

There are multiple metaphors I use to describe how emotions work in our lives. One that feels very familiar to me is baggage. Our luggage in life is an apt metaphor for me – a guy who’s been a hotelier for a quarter century. Countless times I’ve seen people show up at our hotel front desks with all kinds of baggage, and only some of it the physical kind. Most of us have emotional baggage that may seem invisible to the untrained eye or invisible to the person carrying the baggage. But the results of lugging that baggage around for years is noticeable in how that person shows up at the metaphorical front desk of life. If you are a Chief Emotions Officer, you are more aware of all the bags you’re carrying and how to open your luggage up and make sense of what’s inside.

Opening up a bag, you may find a truly messy interior with things in complete disarray. But, these emotional equations create a certain logic to how you pack and unpack your bags and, in fact, being a little more conscious of what’s in your bag may allow you to discard a few heavy items that have been weighing you down. Creating your own internal logic regarding your emotional baggage will allow you to carry a lighter bag…one that’s eminently easier to unpack.

We’re going to focus on four emotions that you can start unpacking (i.e. mastering).

Think of emotions as existing on a color wheel. Isaac Newton created the color wheel long ago and helped us understand that red plus blue equals purple, for instance. I learned in my research for Emotional Equations – which allowed me to spend a couple of years with some of the world’s psychology luminaries – that there’s an emotional wheel with primary and secondary emotions: the Plutchik wheel. In my book, I evolve this wheel further so you can imagine that Disappointment + a Sense of Responsibility = Regret. And, once you understand the emotional building blocks of Regret, you can turn it from a downer into a lesson. Regret teaches. Fear protects. Sadness releases. Joy uplifts. Empathy unites. Think of your emotions as messages that give you the freedom, rather than the obligation, to respond. One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Viktor Frankl, author of Man’s Search for Meaning:

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

Now, let’s unpack and master the emotions of Despair, Happiness, Anxiety, and Curiosity.

I am very proud of this equation.

It’s the one that started my exploration of emotions through the lens of equations. I took Viktor Frankl’s book and distilled it down to this useful mantra at a time in my life in 2008, when I had a series of friends commit suicide, had a flatline experience myself while giving a speech in St. Louis (literally: my heart stopped, and I dropped), and the rest of my life felt in disarray. If you consider the words “despair” and “meaning” to be abstract or off-putting, consider “sadness” as a tamer version of despair or “learning” as a more concrete version of meaning.

First off, in order for the math to work, “suffering” has to be a constant. This is the first Noble Truth of Buddhism, but it’s also true, and not just in a recession. You can always find the suffering if you want to look for it. I had no idea when I started writing this book that this decade would come to resemble the 1930s in that our near Depression-like economic conditions would persist as long as they have. But while the Depression was a very difficult time for so many people, interview-based research studies show that it indirectly prepared young women for losing their husbands later in life. These women learned self-reliance, independence, and courage early in life, which served them (and perhaps saved their families) when their husbands passed.

So, consider “meaning” in the following way: many of us go to the gym to exercise our physical muscles to ensure that our physical body doesn’t bloat or atrophy. If you’re going through a difficult time right now, maybe – unwittingly – you’ve signed up for emotional boot camp and you’re being asked to exercise emotional muscles that haven’t had this kind of workout for years. But, this isn’t meant to be just agony. It’s meant to prepare you for later in life. The emotions you may be mastering today – humility, resilience, persistence, a sense of humor – will serve you well at some later point in your life, maybe in the not too distant future.

For me, having my long-term relationship end in the midst of my train wreck of a life in 2009 was the last thing I was looking for. Suffering felt ever-present, like the fog during a San Francisco summer. The foghorn that cut through this opaque time was the question I asked myself on my most sad, self-pitying days, “How is this experience going to serve me in my next relationship? How is this going to make me a better partner when I find my true soul mate?”

These weren’t easy questions to ask when I felt radioactive and couldn’t imagine anyone loving me again. But I kept the exercise metaphor in mind. The fact that I could joke with friends about my emotional boot camp helped me realize that great rewards – or meaning – could arise as a result of this painful experience. So, just know that there are fruits to gather in the valley of Despair.

People often have a love-hate relationship with this equation. The proper definitions of the numerator and denominator are what create the magic. “Wanting what you have” can be translated into “practicing gratitude,” having a reverence for what is working in your life. The more tricky definition is in the bottom of this equation. To “have what you want” is an act of “pursuing gratification.” I want something and it’s my job to go out and pursue it or “have” it in order to satisfy that want.

Don’t get me wrong. The act of pursuing something can bring us a sense of accomplishment and take us into that focused “flow” state. But, the risk is that “chasing something with hostility” (some dictionaries’ definition of “pursuit”) or even with just focused attention can completely distract you from what’s in the numerator, what you already have. Socrates said it best, “He who is not contented with what he has would not be contented with what he would like to have.”

As a type-A guy who’s spent more than my share of time on the hedonic treadmill, I can tell you that it’s very difficult to simultaneously practice gratitude while also pursuing gratification. Some mystics are able to take the bottom of this equation down to zero, which may give them infinite happiness. But, for the rest of us mere mortals, the risk is not in lack of pursuit, as this is part of what modern society demands of us. The risk is that we completely diminish the power of gratitude.

So, the true power of this equation is in keeping your attention on the numerator.

Someone once said to me that feeling gratitude without sharing it with someone is like wrapping a present without giving it to the intended recipient. So, what are the ways you can show your gratitude in such a fashion that it becomes a habit or practice for you that’s ingrained in your everyday life? For me, I needed to start by having it on my conscious “to-do” list each day. I had a rule that I had to give two face-to-face expressions of gratitude each day at work, preferably to someone who found the thank you unexpected. In fact, I wrote about this in the Huffington Post after one of my recent trips to Bali. What if you thought of your expressions of gratitude like a devotional daily offering?

Let me give you a suggestion about a Gratitude Journal as well. They’re not for everyone, just like personal journals resonate with some while repelling others. The purpose of a Gratitude Journal is to help you be conscious about “wanting what you have.” An alternative means of accomplishing this purpose is to have a Gratitude Buddy. Make it a point to meet with your Buddy once a month (or more frequently if you wish) in a location where there are no distractions and ask each other, “What gifts do you have in your life that are easy to take for granted?” and “What was a recent gift that may have been wrapped up as a pain or punishment?”

For those of you who’d like to explore this equation a little further, I have two suggestions.

1. Check out a research article by Jeff T. Larsen and Amie R. McKibban where they literally put this equation to the test (with inconclusive results, but really interesting findings).

2. Watch my 2010 TED talk, in which I share my key learning from my trip to Bhutan to study their Gross National Happiness Index.

After reading more than a dozen books and 50 research studies on anxiety, I was struck by the fact that 95% of the causes of anxiety seemed to be distilled down to what we don’t know and what we can’t control. You may have heard of the study that demonstrated most people would prefer receiving an electric shock now that’s twice as painful as receiving some random shock in the next 24 hours. This is why, as leaders, we need to recognize that hiding the truth, especially when it’s going to come out at some point in the near future, is a futile mistake that can often just increase the amount of anxiety your employees are feeling.

If we know that the combustible product of uncertainty and powerlessness creates anxiety, we can create what I call an Anxiety Balance Sheet to turn this around. Take out a piece of paper and create four columns. Then, think of something that is currently making you anxious. Regarding that subject, the first column is “What Do I Know” about this issue. The second column is “What Don’t I Know.” The third column is “What Can I Influence.” The fourth column is “What Can’t I Influence.” Spend enough time doing this so that you have at least one item per column but you may find that you have a half-dozen items in some columns.

After you feel complete, what do you notice with respect to the four columns? About 80% of the people I’ve worked this through with are surprised that they have more items listed in columns one and three (the “good” columns) than they do in columns two and four. The reality is that when something is making us anxious, we tend to fixate on those elements of the problem that feel mysterious (what we don’t know) or uncontrollable (what we can’t influence). So, there’s some liberation in just outlining what’s making you crazy and realizing that there may be many balancing positives to those issues that are vexing you.

Now, spend some time reviewing the items in column two (what you don’t know). Is there someone you can ask – your boss, your boyfriend, your doctor – who can help you with some needed information that will move this item from column two to column one? Maybe it’s just doing a Google search? I know it’s scary to ask your boss whether your job is in jeopardy, but remember the electric shock example I mentioned earlier. Anxiety can be more painful and debilitating than bad news. Now look at column four and truly ask yourself, “Are you completely powerless about the items on this list?” I’ve found that having a smart friend sit with me can sometimes help me uncover ways to move items from column four to column three.

In sum, just the act of unpacking your anxiety bag and knowing what’s inside can have a profound effect on reducing your fear of the future.

We’ve had a subtraction, a division, and a multiplication equation so far. Now, we’ll finish with an addition equation around the experience of curiosity. Recent studies have shown that curiosity is one of the most valuable emotional qualities people can leverage during periods of crisis. Fear and most negative emotions train us to narrow our scope. “Fight or flight” reactions are evolution’s means of helping us avert danger. But, oftentimes, we need to move from narrowing our attention to the “broaden and build” way of thinking that Barbara Fredrickson talks about in her book on Positivity. Getting through your own emotional recession may require bigger thinking rather than narrow execution.

When you’re living in a place of fear, it is hard to be curious. But, I’ve found that so much of it comes back to defusing my natural tendency toward reactivity. In other words, it’s learning to pause. Curiosity is not a reactive emotion. It’s one that takes a certain amount of reflection and a willingness to admit what you don’t know. So, ask yourself, “What habitats allow me to be more curious?” I first had to make a list of which habitats made be less curious: the office, any conference room, investor meetings, and spending time with people who I wanted to impress.

So, I knew that these were not places that were going to help me stoke up bigger thinking. Ironically, when I made my list of curious habitats, I found my list to be longer than I expected: anywhere in nature but especially near a beach with crashing surf; hanging out with kids; museums or other experimental spaces with art; zoos; places with a big night sky and lots of stars; my backyard cottage; and any place where I felt comfortable laughing from my gut (it’s hard to be full of humor and full of fear at the same time).

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found that seeking the sacred in life opens up my sense of awe and my ability to connect with curiosity.

I’ve recently made a decision to seek out a sacred festival somewhere in the world each quarter as a means of committing to finding habitats for curiosity. As Tim F. knows (he was a fellow citizen of my camp Maslowtopia), I’ve been an aficionado of Burning Man for many years and some of my best business ideas have come out of my time in the desert marveling at transcendent art and having non-linear conversations.

So, if you’re feeling “on empty” creatively, know that curiosity is the fuel you need to seek. In author Liz Gilbert’s 2009 TED talk (TED is another habitat for curiosity), she shares the fact that the genesis of the word “genius” comes from “genie” and that the most creative people in the world are able to become vessels for the genie to inhabit them. My experience is that these genies prefer inhabiting curious places in the world and that’s where they’re most likely to tap you on your shoulder and give you the gift of inspiration that may change your life.

In sum, the more the external world becomes chaotic, the more we rely upon internal logic. This was true in the 1930s when Nazism and political and religious fundamentalism rose. But, that decade also sprouted new thinking from people like Norman Vincent Peale, Dale Carnegie, Napoleon Hill, Viktor Frankl, and Reinhold Niebuhr (who created the Serenity Prayer).

I hope that you find these emotional equations help you to think differently, live better, and truly become the Chief Emotions Officer of your own life. It’s worth the introspection.

—

TIM:

Chip is offering an exclusive to readers of this blog: the chance to spend a full day with him in San Francisco.

He’ll cover economy airfare from anywhere in the US (if you’re international, you’ll need to get yourself to the US), and he’ll also cover two nights at Hotel Vitale on the water, or the best alternative if they’re sold out. The usual legal stuff applies: must be older than 18, void where prohibited, no purchase required to enter, etc.

No later than this Friday (1/20/12) at 5pm PST, leave a comment below and answer the following, in order, and in no more than 300 words:
1. What is your favorite inspirational or philosophical quote?
2. How could you apply one of the equations in this post to your life for maximum benefit?
3. What would you like to change or build after a day with Chip in SF?

Only the first 100 entrants are eligible, so the earlier the better!

###

Odds and Ends: The Crunchies, Winners, and More

The Crunchies, something like the tech Oscars, are currently in the finals, and quite a few of my start-ups have made the cut (I’m honored to be involved with all of them). If you like these products or people, please click through to give them a vote! All of the candidates, many of them friends, are outstanding.

CEO of the Year – Phil Libin (Evernote) and Dick Costolo (Twitter)
Angel of the Year – these folks are all incredible, but I have to vote for my man, Kevin Rose.
Founder of the Year – Leah Busque (TaskRabbit) For the story of how Leah and I met, as well as how she got me to be an advisor, see this article: “How to Turn $750 into $1,000,000?

Best Tablet App – StumbleUpon
Best Mobile App – Evernote and Taskrabbit
Best Location App – Uber (check out the San Francisco grid)

For all of the categories and finalists, go here.

Posted on January 19th, 2012

View the original article here

Military Intelligence Officer Interview

Here’s an interview I recently did with a British military intelligence officer. We met last July in Las Vegas and talked for a few hours about military strategy, Iraq, Afghanistan, blogging, and many other topics. I thought that some of what we discussed would make an interesting blog post, so I suggested that we do an interview for my website, and he agreed.

At the time, I posted a forum thread to solicit suggestions for questions, which helped us piece together the structure of this interview.

It took quite a while to get the necessary approval to post this, which was granted on the condition that we don’t share his name. His rank is that of Major.

Opening comments

Let me start by saying that I’ve followed the thread with interest and enjoyed the debate and questions. My answers will be 100% honest, but circumspect, as you would expect.

You will all understand that the political neutrality of the military is essential in a democracy, and so it is not my place to contribute a political opinion. For those of you interested in a military perspective on some of the issues raised with regards to our future in Afghanistan etc. I would recommend the Small Wars Journal.

What is a typical day in the life of a military intelligence officer?

The short answer to this question is that there isn’t a typical day. In my career I have served in both my core role, analyzing the ways in which an adversary, or potential adversary might try and shoot down British or allied aircraft only three times, twice for short periods of a few months and once for two years. The first and longest period saw me serve as part of a large team undertaking this role in the UK. The second and third occasions were for 6 months and very similar to each other, albeit one was in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. I was one of just two people supporting an operational detachment of aircraft with warnings about who might want to shoot them down, how, and where. I have also served at Nellis Air Force Base (the reason I was in Las Vegas, to answer another question from the forum) with the 64th Aggressor Squadron. You can learn more about them here.

I’ve also served in two staff officer positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing senior officers with information on the situation in their area of responsibility.

Outside of my core role I deployed as a United Nations military observer with UNOMIG in Georgia. My ‘typical day’ here varied enormously. One day I might be patrolling towns and villages to discover locals’ concerns and ensure the ceasefire agreement (now irrelevant following the 2008 Russo-Georgia conflict) was being implemented correctly, on another, briefing a room of officers from all over the world on the situation across the area we patrolled.

How have your experiences in the military changed you as a person?

After my Initial Officer Training at RAF Cranwell I would have said that it had already changed me quite profoundly. Since then, that which was learned has been internalized, but I think I have retained much of the person I was before. I think this would be a better question to ask a close friend of mine who has know me throughout, rather than me, as it is difficult to say. I still have a strong sense of justice, a desire to help other people, and to make a difference in the world. I am as ambitious as I have always been, and am proud of my willingness to take on new challenges, fascinated by people and history and politics and love travelling. I feel privileged to be part of an organization that allows me to explore my interests, to be amongst people who share my desire to make the world a better place, and with whom, collectively, I am able to test my abilities in pursuance of my ambition while helping to make more of a difference than I ever could alone. Many of the questions on the forum seemed to imply that there was a conflict between positive values and military service. I fundamentally disagree, and could not do my job if I did not think they were compatible. So this is what has not changed, but let us move on to some things which I think have.

Military training instilled in me a deeper confidence in my own abilities. It provided me with training in how to balance competing priorities and to deal with demanding situations calmly and rationally. It gave me a better understanding of my own strengths and weaknesses, and improved my ability to see the strengths and weaknesses in others around me. I benefited greatly from the leadership lessons, and am more confident in positions of responsibility than I would have been otherwise.

The reporting system in the British military is designed to identify your strengths and your weaknesses throughout your career. A good commanding officer provides you with advice on how to overcome your deficiencies and to further develop those areas in which you are showing ability. Institutionalised personal development perhaps? For example, early on in my career I had a tendency to be over-confident, and as a consequence over-bearing. I have worked hard to be more humble, and, though of course some might disagree, I think I am sufficiently aware of this tendency now to manage it better.

The British military is encouraged to study past wars to learn the lessons for future conflicts, and part of that learning experience is seeing the mistakes others have made, and to note their successes, in order to avoid the former and repeat the latter. This is much like ‘modelling’ as practiced in the self-improvement world, where one notes the qualities and actions one admires in another person, and seeks to emulate them. This is something I have undertaken professionally as well, noting the qualities I admire in the men and women who serve with me and seeking to match their example.

The military also attracts some remarkable people, and this can affect you in lots of ways. They tend to be physically fit, which means that you have plenty of people to train with, a certain social pressure (and professional requirement) to maintain your fitness and, if you are competitive, as most of us are, you will have to push yourself that much harder if you want to be one of the fittest amongst your peers.

We also have ‘Officer’s Development Days’. I have been taken to London on one such day, where we were required to visit various art galleries and ‘brief’, i.e. give a 10-20 minute talk, without notes on three paintings at each gallery, which we had researched beforehand. This not only improved my public speaking, but gave me an interest in, and understanding of, art. It would be fair to say that before this my interest in art was minimal, I had always preferred theatre, literature and poetry. I was so enthused by the experience of learning about this new subject that I took a civilian friend of mine, James, who now runs a personal development website, round the same galleries a few weeks later.

As you can see from the length of the answer, being a part of the military has helped to make me who I am. I suspect that the person asking the question wanted to know how serving overseas had affected me. The answer is much shorter. It has made me more broad minded, and only made me want to understand people, from all cultures, more completely.

Why did you decide to join the military? How did you become a military intelligence officer? Why do you work in this field?

I think I have already answered the first part of this. Joining was relatively straightforward, if demanding, I applied through an RAF careers office, passed through a selection weekend, initial officer training and my trade training and, well, here I am.

My job is an extension of my interest in people, politics and international relations. I am intensely curious about the world, and in my job I get to study it continuously, and travel around it often.

What role does the study of military history play in modern warfare? How relevant is the past in terms of present and future military strategy?

I could not do my job without an understanding of history. Winston Churchill said ‘the further back we can see, the further forward we can look’. Modern warfare strategists build on centuries of human thought on the subject. Military colleges in every NATO country, and I suspect everywhere, teach the ideas of Clauswitz, who wrote in the early 1800s, and Sun Tzu, who wrote his theories on war 400 years before the birth of Christ. As we in the RAF look to the future of air power in an age of budget cuts and a possible lack of appetite for large scale military operations after Afghanistan, we are studying British experiences across what was the British Empire between World War 1 and 2 and the post-World War 2 period. History is central to everything we do.

How does the media affect the practice of modern war, including mainstream media as well as irregular sources such as WikiLeaks? What consequences does this have for military strategists?

The advent of 24 hour global news is forcing the military to accelerate a process that was well underway anyway. We are learning, as Gen Petraeus wrote this week, that we have to get our story out first, that we have to tell the truth, to ensure we are treated as credible, and that winning the media war, or the war of ideas, is perhaps as important as defeating insurgents ‘on the ground’. I think (and this is just a personal view) that Wikileaks is also nothing new really. The phenomenon of books being published which reveal rather more than they ought to has been around for some time. All Wikileaks does is accelerate the process when someone breaches the trust placed in them by their nation.

“Military intelligence” is sometimes referred to in jest as an oxymoron. What forces inside or outside of the military get in the way of intelligent decision making? What can be done to compensate and make better decisions?

There has been so much written about this subject, and professionally of course it is a highly relevant question that we must ask ourselves whenever we make a judgement upon which military decisions will be based. I think it is vital when presenting an argument or assessment to highlight and describe a competing hyphothesis, i.e. an alternate argument, that would contradict the one you are making, giving evidence for it and showing, at the end, what has led you to discard it. One should also make clear what information would alter your conclusion, and finally highlight any information that you consider to be an ‘intelligence gap’, weakening your argument. This should allow you to make clear to whomever is making the decision, as to how confident you are in your judgment.

Is torture a valid intelligence gathering method? To what degree is it currently employed? How effective is it?

No it is not valid. It is not practiced in the British, U.S. or allied militaries, nor is it condoned or supported. Nor, from what I’ve read of historical examples, can if be considered effective. More importantly, as a French official wrote when considering the use of torture in the Algerian war when ‘efficacy has become the sole justification…illegality has become justified’.

Who is the “enemy” in Afghanistan? What is their agenda? What do they seek to accomplish, and why?

In short, the Taliban are not homogenous, they represent a range of grievances and political opinions, from those wanting greater autonomy for the Pashtun regions through to those that seek an Islamic State that rejects all innovations to Muslim society that have developed since the time of the Prophet i.e. they are the extremists who want a strict interpretation of Sharia law, and a literal translation of the Koran to be the guiding constitution of their state. Then there are those that fight for personal reasons, financial reasons, nationalistic or patriotic reasons. It is wrong to see all the Taliban as the same. Just as within the major political parties in Britain and the US there exist a range of opinions, with areas of overlapping agreement and areas of disagreement, so there exist divisions with the Taliban.

Why are coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan? What are their goals?

The initial war in Afghanistan was launched to deny al-Qaida a safe haven in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. But after this was achieved there was a need to build the Afghan state sufficiently that it would not be vulnerable to threats or blandishments from such groups in the future. We are fighting in Afghanistan to hold off those that would reverse many of the reforms the Afghan state has undertaken, and to leave Afghanistan stable and democratic.

Can coalition forces realistically achieve their goals in Afghanistan? Are they on course to get there? Otherwise, what must change to ensure a resolution in their favor?

There is to be a formal review of the current Afghan strategy in December 2010. It is for those more highly qualified (and ranked!) than I to determine this.

What would likely happen if coalition forces pulled out of Afghanistan now? What consequences would there be for those involved?

Again, this is a question for senior commanders to answer. You can get an insight into their thinking at blogs like the Small Wars Journal or from Foreign Policy Magazine or Foreign Affairs.

How has the military adapted to what General James Mattis refers to as “irregular warfare” as opposed to conventional war? What are some key lessons learned and/or changes that have been made? What still needs improvement?

One of the most remarkable military developments of recent times is the transformation of the US Army in Iraq. This is still an ongoing process in Afghanistan, we, the coalition, are still training linguists in order to improve our ability to communicate with Afghans, yet in Afghanistan there is a huge number of languages spoken by different groups, which complicates things enormously. I think it is possible to overestimate the differences between irregular warfare and conventional conflict. What we are seeing is an evolution of tactics by our adversary to maximize his strengths to our weaknesses. I think that in any prolonged conflict, there is a need to be adaptable, open-minded and to be clear about the desired end state, maintaining a single minded focus on the aim whilst continually reassessing the best means to achieve it in light of the enemy’s adaptations. In Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 we fought the war we had trained for, against an enemy that tried to hold ground and prevent our advance, and the Afghan and Iraqi forces did not have time to adapt to our strengths and our tactics. In the aftermath of both of those remarkable victories, those that opposed the coalitions’ aims were forced to recognize their shortcomings and adapt. Likewise the coalitions then had to be pushed to the point where defeat seemed to be looming before they adapted. The US Counter-Insurgency Field Manual makes clear that the organization that learns and adapts fastest in counter-insurgency wins. I would argue that the same is true in prolonged conventional warfare too. We could talk technical details: training, the increased use of intelligence, the need to work more closely with civilian agencies, etc. But I think the more fundamental point is that we must ensure that our militaries learn faster than their enemies. We do so by empowering our personnel to challenge judgments and to question policies, not easy for any military organization to do, but essential.

How is the current global economic situation affecting the war in Afghanistan? With surging public debt, will the military be able to sustain the war effort long enough to achieve its goals? What is the risk that a weak economy will eventually necessitate an early withdrawal? What role, if any, do such economic factors play in military strategy today?

There is nothing new under the sun. In the aftermath of the Great War and World War 2 Britain faced similar problems, and switched strategies to enable a continuation of the policies of resisting insurgent movements without incurring the huge costs of nation-building. I think that the next decade will require our militaries to be ever more conversant in the language of economics, and an understanding of the economic pressures that governments are under will be essential if we are to speak credibly in military strategic terms. I think that as far as Afghanistan is concerned there will be little change in policy. It was always the aim to withdraw as soon as the country is stable enough for us to do so. I don’t think the economic situation will change that.

Claims of secret agendas, false flag operations, and other conspiracy theories can be found abundantly on the Internet these days. As a military intelligence officer, what advice could you give concerned citizens about how to discern truth from falsehood when they encounter such information? How can we get closer to the real facts and avoid succumbing to fiction? How can we deal with so much uncertainty?

I have always felt that conspiracy theories were a product more of our desire for mystery than from reality. Joining the military has done nothing to change that. The trend towards greater openness in both government and the media should encourage those that are genuinely concerned with getting to the truth. Conspiracy theorists tend to rely on the building up of one hypothesis upon another until one small discrepancy in the narrative of events is used to justify a far larger claim. As analysts we are encouraged to use Ockham’s Razor, a technique which requires the discarding of extra hypotheses and the retention of the simplest explanation. For example, the widespread theory that it couldn’t have been an aircraft that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 relies on the fact that the hole the aircraft created is not aircraft shaped, and from there the conspiracy theories flourish. Is it possible that the impact might not leave a cartoon-like cut-out hole in the shape of the aircraft? Of course it is, so the simplest explanation is likely to be the truth.

What are your plans for the future? What’s next?

I’m now back in London undertaking a study for the RAF at University before a probable re-deployment to Afghanistan.

Thanks so much for taking the time to share your insights with us, Major.

If you've found this website helpful, please click the Donate button. I'm grateful for your support.This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 8th, 2011 at 12:15 pm and is filed under Personal Development. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

View the original article here

Military Intelligence Officer Interview

Here’s an interview I recently did with a British military intelligence officer. We met last July in Las Vegas and talked for a few hours about military strategy, Iraq, Afghanistan, blogging, and many other topics. I thought that some of what we discussed would make an interesting blog post, so I suggested that we do an interview for my website, and he agreed.

At the time, I posted a forum thread to solicit suggestions for questions, which helped us piece together the structure of this interview.

It took quite a while to get the necessary approval to post this, which was granted on the condition that we don’t share his name. His rank is that of Major.

Opening comments

Let me start by saying that I’ve followed the thread with interest and enjoyed the debate and questions. My answers will be 100% honest, but circumspect, as you would expect.

You will all understand that the political neutrality of the military is essential in a democracy, and so it is not my place to contribute a political opinion. For those of you interested in a military perspective on some of the issues raised with regards to our future in Afghanistan etc. I would recommend the Small Wars Journal.

What is a typical day in the life of a military intelligence officer?

The short answer to this question is that there isn’t a typical day. In my career I have served in both my core role, analyzing the ways in which an adversary, or potential adversary might try and shoot down British or allied aircraft only three times, twice for short periods of a few months and once for two years. The first and longest period saw me serve as part of a large team undertaking this role in the UK. The second and third occasions were for 6 months and very similar to each other, albeit one was in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. I was one of just two people supporting an operational detachment of aircraft with warnings about who might want to shoot them down, how, and where. I have also served at Nellis Air Force Base (the reason I was in Las Vegas, to answer another question from the forum) with the 64th Aggressor Squadron. You can learn more about them here.

I’ve also served in two staff officer positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing senior officers with information on the situation in their area of responsibility.

Outside of my core role I deployed as a United Nations military observer with UNOMIG in Georgia. My ‘typical day’ here varied enormously. One day I might be patrolling towns and villages to discover locals’ concerns and ensure the ceasefire agreement (now irrelevant following the 2008 Russo-Georgia conflict) was being implemented correctly, on another, briefing a room of officers from all over the world on the situation across the area we patrolled.

How have your experiences in the military changed you as a person?

After my Initial Officer Training at RAF Cranwell I would have said that it had already changed me quite profoundly. Since then, that which was learned has been internalized, but I think I have retained much of the person I was before. I think this would be a better question to ask a close friend of mine who has know me throughout, rather than me, as it is difficult to say. I still have a strong sense of justice, a desire to help other people, and to make a difference in the world. I am as ambitious as I have always been, and am proud of my willingness to take on new challenges, fascinated by people and history and politics and love travelling. I feel privileged to be part of an organization that allows me to explore my interests, to be amongst people who share my desire to make the world a better place, and with whom, collectively, I am able to test my abilities in pursuance of my ambition while helping to make more of a difference than I ever could alone. Many of the questions on the forum seemed to imply that there was a conflict between positive values and military service. I fundamentally disagree, and could not do my job if I did not think they were compatible. So this is what has not changed, but let us move on to some things which I think have.

Military training instilled in me a deeper confidence in my own abilities. It provided me with training in how to balance competing priorities and to deal with demanding situations calmly and rationally. It gave me a better understanding of my own strengths and weaknesses, and improved my ability to see the strengths and weaknesses in others around me. I benefited greatly from the leadership lessons, and am more confident in positions of responsibility than I would have been otherwise.

The reporting system in the British military is designed to identify your strengths and your weaknesses throughout your career. A good commanding officer provides you with advice on how to overcome your deficiencies and to further develop those areas in which you are showing ability. Institutionalised personal development perhaps? For example, early on in my career I had a tendency to be over-confident, and as a consequence over-bearing. I have worked hard to be more humble, and, though of course some might disagree, I think I am sufficiently aware of this tendency now to manage it better.

The British military is encouraged to study past wars to learn the lessons for future conflicts, and part of that learning experience is seeing the mistakes others have made, and to note their successes, in order to avoid the former and repeat the latter. This is much like ‘modelling’ as practiced in the self-improvement world, where one notes the qualities and actions one admires in another person, and seeks to emulate them. This is something I have undertaken professionally as well, noting the qualities I admire in the men and women who serve with me and seeking to match their example.

The military also attracts some remarkable people, and this can affect you in lots of ways. They tend to be physically fit, which means that you have plenty of people to train with, a certain social pressure (and professional requirement) to maintain your fitness and, if you are competitive, as most of us are, you will have to push yourself that much harder if you want to be one of the fittest amongst your peers.

We also have ‘Officer’s Development Days’. I have been taken to London on one such day, where we were required to visit various art galleries and ‘brief’, i.e. give a 10-20 minute talk, without notes on three paintings at each gallery, which we had researched beforehand. This not only improved my public speaking, but gave me an interest in, and understanding of, art. It would be fair to say that before this my interest in art was minimal, I had always preferred theatre, literature and poetry. I was so enthused by the experience of learning about this new subject that I took a civilian friend of mine, James, who now runs a personal development website, round the same galleries a few weeks later.

As you can see from the length of the answer, being a part of the military has helped to make me who I am. I suspect that the person asking the question wanted to know how serving overseas had affected me. The answer is much shorter. It has made me more broad minded, and only made me want to understand people, from all cultures, more completely.

Why did you decide to join the military? How did you become a military intelligence officer? Why do you work in this field?

I think I have already answered the first part of this. Joining was relatively straightforward, if demanding, I applied through an RAF careers office, passed through a selection weekend, initial officer training and my trade training and, well, here I am.

My job is an extension of my interest in people, politics and international relations. I am intensely curious about the world, and in my job I get to study it continuously, and travel around it often.

What role does the study of military history play in modern warfare? How relevant is the past in terms of present and future military strategy?

I could not do my job without an understanding of history. Winston Churchill said ‘the further back we can see, the further forward we can look’. Modern warfare strategists build on centuries of human thought on the subject. Military colleges in every NATO country, and I suspect everywhere, teach the ideas of Clauswitz, who wrote in the early 1800s, and Sun Tzu, who wrote his theories on war 400 years before the birth of Christ. As we in the RAF look to the future of air power in an age of budget cuts and a possible lack of appetite for large scale military operations after Afghanistan, we are studying British experiences across what was the British Empire between World War 1 and 2 and the post-World War 2 period. History is central to everything we do.

How does the media affect the practice of modern war, including mainstream media as well as irregular sources such as WikiLeaks? What consequences does this have for military strategists?

The advent of 24 hour global news is forcing the military to accelerate a process that was well underway anyway. We are learning, as Gen Petraeus wrote this week, that we have to get our story out first, that we have to tell the truth, to ensure we are treated as credible, and that winning the media war, or the war of ideas, is perhaps as important as defeating insurgents ‘on the ground’. I think (and this is just a personal view) that Wikileaks is also nothing new really. The phenomenon of books being published which reveal rather more than they ought to has been around for some time. All Wikileaks does is accelerate the process when someone breaches the trust placed in them by their nation.

“Military intelligence” is sometimes referred to in jest as an oxymoron. What forces inside or outside of the military get in the way of intelligent decision making? What can be done to compensate and make better decisions?

There has been so much written about this subject, and professionally of course it is a highly relevant question that we must ask ourselves whenever we make a judgement upon which military decisions will be based. I think it is vital when presenting an argument or assessment to highlight and describe a competing hyphothesis, i.e. an alternate argument, that would contradict the one you are making, giving evidence for it and showing, at the end, what has led you to discard it. One should also make clear what information would alter your conclusion, and finally highlight any information that you consider to be an ‘intelligence gap’, weakening your argument. This should allow you to make clear to whomever is making the decision, as to how confident you are in your judgment.

Is torture a valid intelligence gathering method? To what degree is it currently employed? How effective is it?

No it is not valid. It is not practiced in the British, U.S. or allied militaries, nor is it condoned or supported. Nor, from what I’ve read of historical examples, can if be considered effective. More importantly, as a French official wrote when considering the use of torture in the Algerian war when ‘efficacy has become the sole justification…illegality has become justified’.

Who is the “enemy” in Afghanistan? What is their agenda? What do they seek to accomplish, and why?

In short, the Taliban are not homogenous, they represent a range of grievances and political opinions, from those wanting greater autonomy for the Pashtun regions through to those that seek an Islamic State that rejects all innovations to Muslim society that have developed since the time of the Prophet i.e. they are the extremists who want a strict interpretation of Sharia law, and a literal translation of the Koran to be the guiding constitution of their state. Then there are those that fight for personal reasons, financial reasons, nationalistic or patriotic reasons. It is wrong to see all the Taliban as the same. Just as within the major political parties in Britain and the US there exist a range of opinions, with areas of overlapping agreement and areas of disagreement, so there exist divisions with the Taliban.

Why are coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan? What are their goals?

The initial war in Afghanistan was launched to deny al-Qaida a safe haven in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. But after this was achieved there was a need to build the Afghan state sufficiently that it would not be vulnerable to threats or blandishments from such groups in the future. We are fighting in Afghanistan to hold off those that would reverse many of the reforms the Afghan state has undertaken, and to leave Afghanistan stable and democratic.

Can coalition forces realistically achieve their goals in Afghanistan? Are they on course to get there? Otherwise, what must change to ensure a resolution in their favor?

There is to be a formal review of the current Afghan strategy in December 2010. It is for those more highly qualified (and ranked!) than I to determine this.

What would likely happen if coalition forces pulled out of Afghanistan now? What consequences would there be for those involved?

Again, this is a question for senior commanders to answer. You can get an insight into their thinking at blogs like the Small Wars Journal or from Foreign Policy Magazine or Foreign Affairs.

How has the military adapted to what General James Mattis refers to as “irregular warfare” as opposed to conventional war? What are some key lessons learned and/or changes that have been made? What still needs improvement?

One of the most remarkable military developments of recent times is the transformation of the US Army in Iraq. This is still an ongoing process in Afghanistan, we, the coalition, are still training linguists in order to improve our ability to communicate with Afghans, yet in Afghanistan there is a huge number of languages spoken by different groups, which complicates things enormously. I think it is possible to overestimate the differences between irregular warfare and conventional conflict. What we are seeing is an evolution of tactics by our adversary to maximize his strengths to our weaknesses. I think that in any prolonged conflict, there is a need to be adaptable, open-minded and to be clear about the desired end state, maintaining a single minded focus on the aim whilst continually reassessing the best means to achieve it in light of the enemy’s adaptations. In Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 we fought the war we had trained for, against an enemy that tried to hold ground and prevent our advance, and the Afghan and Iraqi forces did not have time to adapt to our strengths and our tactics. In the aftermath of both of those remarkable victories, those that opposed the coalitions’ aims were forced to recognize their shortcomings and adapt. Likewise the coalitions then had to be pushed to the point where defeat seemed to be looming before they adapted. The US Counter-Insurgency Field Manual makes clear that the organization that learns and adapts fastest in counter-insurgency wins. I would argue that the same is true in prolonged conventional warfare too. We could talk technical details: training, the increased use of intelligence, the need to work more closely with civilian agencies, etc. But I think the more fundamental point is that we must ensure that our militaries learn faster than their enemies. We do so by empowering our personnel to challenge judgments and to question policies, not easy for any military organization to do, but essential.

How is the current global economic situation affecting the war in Afghanistan? With surging public debt, will the military be able to sustain the war effort long enough to achieve its goals? What is the risk that a weak economy will eventually necessitate an early withdrawal? What role, if any, do such economic factors play in military strategy today?

There is nothing new under the sun. In the aftermath of the Great War and World War 2 Britain faced similar problems, and switched strategies to enable a continuation of the policies of resisting insurgent movements without incurring the huge costs of nation-building. I think that the next decade will require our militaries to be ever more conversant in the language of economics, and an understanding of the economic pressures that governments are under will be essential if we are to speak credibly in military strategic terms. I think that as far as Afghanistan is concerned there will be little change in policy. It was always the aim to withdraw as soon as the country is stable enough for us to do so. I don’t think the economic situation will change that.

Claims of secret agendas, false flag operations, and other conspiracy theories can be found abundantly on the Internet these days. As a military intelligence officer, what advice could you give concerned citizens about how to discern truth from falsehood when they encounter such information? How can we get closer to the real facts and avoid succumbing to fiction? How can we deal with so much uncertainty?

I have always felt that conspiracy theories were a product more of our desire for mystery than from reality. Joining the military has done nothing to change that. The trend towards greater openness in both government and the media should encourage those that are genuinely concerned with getting to the truth. Conspiracy theorists tend to rely on the building up of one hypothesis upon another until one small discrepancy in the narrative of events is used to justify a far larger claim. As analysts we are encouraged to use Ockham’s Razor, a technique which requires the discarding of extra hypotheses and the retention of the simplest explanation. For example, the widespread theory that it couldn’t have been an aircraft that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 relies on the fact that the hole the aircraft created is not aircraft shaped, and from there the conspiracy theories flourish. Is it possible that the impact might not leave a cartoon-like cut-out hole in the shape of the aircraft? Of course it is, so the simplest explanation is likely to be the truth.

What are your plans for the future? What’s next?

I’m now back in London undertaking a study for the RAF at University before a probable re-deployment to Afghanistan.

Thanks so much for taking the time to share your insights with us, Major.

View the original article here