Early in my Navy squadron XO tour, I was distracted at dinner thinking about an upcoming non-judicial punishment case. When I explained to my wife the history of this continual troublemaker, she nearly cried. “I can’t believe this is what you spend so much time doing at work.” She had come to recognize the “10:90” rule – that 10 percent of your people will take up 90 percent of your time. It was then that I decided to adjust the ratio. I was going to take control of my limited mentoring time and focus on engaging in areas with the highest return on investment.
A Meritocracy for My Time
It may sound uncaring to unequally divide my attention, but we leaders have limited time for all of our responsibilities. The “10:90” rule exists because leaders’ time often gets hijacked by the problem at hand. Getting bogged down in personnel rehabilitation “projects” for repeat troublemakers becomes a distraction from mission accomplishment.
To take control of my mentoring time, I divided my people into three groups: the Rising Stars, the Pack, and the Anchors. These three groups had earned my attention in different ways and I was determined to provide it in such a way as to optimize the benefit to the command, the members themselves, and the Service.
The Rising Stars
The first group, the Rising Stars, had earned my time and attention through sustained reliability, exceptional results, self-motivated achievement, and intangibles that foreshadowed success. I would spend more time in event briefs and debriefs to really sharpen their skills, provide more informal counseling sessions, and delegate them the toughest assignments to foster confidence and experience.
In reality, because Rising Stars possess so much natural talent as leaders, they really don’t require all that much mentoring time; a few tips to hone the edges rather than a long-term plan of action are all that’s required. The time spent on a Rising Star has a huge return on investment, as that is time spent molding one of the Service’s future leaders.
The Anchors
Conversely, the Anchors did not earn my time. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in second chances and providing everyone the opportunity to succeed. However, those who fail to seize opportunities will detract from the command’s overall mission. The leader-subordinate relationship is a two-way street. I am willing to provide time, energy, and resources to help subordinates achieve their goals, so long as they are willing to devote their time, energy, and talent to help the command achieve its goals.
Once the Anchors prove unwilling to uphold their end of the bargain, my time shifts to those who have earned it. This is normally a very small group, and the need for direct, near-constant supervision is best delegated to deck plates. From a return on investment perspective, a little time with a Rising Star creates a future leader, while twice as much time with an Anchor creates a below-average sailor – at best.
The Pack
I divided The Pack into three subsets: top, middle, and bottom. For the bottom group, the deal holds – you support the mission and I will work to get you the opportunities you earn. Some people are content to ride out their time in Service and don’t seek enhanced responsibility, they just want to serve and they don’t cause trouble. That’s okay with me.
Therefore the bulk of my total time was spent on the middle and top thirds of the Pack. By shifting attention to these people, leaders can create Rising Stars from the top of the Pack and create Pack leaders from the middle. The goal was to raise the overall average level of performance in the unit.
There is good logic to improve those who wish to contribute but are in most need of guidance. In his Revisionist History podcast, author Malcolm Gladwell
Conversely, in strong player sports like basketball, with fewer players and more touches by stars, one strong player can carry a team. Think about the lack of international championships by Messi and Ronaldo versus the recent NBA championship won by Lebron James with the previously woeful Cavaliers. Serving in a military unit is a weak player sport. Resources spent on improving the capabilities of the Pack will create a more effective unit overall.
Risk in Segregating Talent
There are concerns with this approach. Leaders must be vigilant in identifying whether subordinates nominated for your mentoring are actually talented…or are just the beneficiaries of the “Good Ole Boys” network (where familiarity and popularity skews true potential). Another concern is the appearance of playing favorites (mentoring is being doled out unfairly and the same people get the choice assignments each time).
As long as the opportunities are fairly offered, people are given the chance to prove themselves, and people are trained to seize the opportunities, then it should follow that success gets rewarded. Leaders must ask hard questions to ensure that potential mentoring dark horses have been approached about volunteering.
When challenged about my approach, I responded with this question: “Does the unusual request from that sailor with the weekly report chits deserve the same consideration as that from the steady sailor who has earned extra qualifications on their own time?” To be fair to the high performer, the answer is no. I judged each request fairly, based on performance. To do otherwise is to punish performance and reward trouble.
Make the Change to Performance-Based Mentoring
Take a look at your own engagement patterns. It’s probably time to scuttle the attention drains that degrade mission readiness and shift your time to those who have earned your time, energy, and experience. Short term, you will increase the focus on mission readiness and make your team more effective. Long term, the Service will benefit from groomed leaders in the future.
In Part 2 (Rank-Based Mentoring for Commanders), I reveal how I divided my mentoring time by paygrade, apportioning my time between the direct reports and the newest members of the Service.
Subscribe to The Military Leader!