Counseling: A Leader's Imperative
by LtCol Andrew Eckert
The day is half over, yet as you look at your to-do list, it has somehow doubled in length since morning PT. The unit heads to the field tomorrow, the training plan for next quarter is due by Friday, the supply request was sent back requiring further justification, and the list goes on. You are fairly certain that you will need to let one of those rubber balls bounce in order to make sure the glass balls stay aloft, but which task is the least useful? You look at your calendar, and see some time you set aside to meet with one of your Marines. What was that for? Was it a FITREP counseling? Did they just want help with their assignment? Maybe that can wait. Afterall, they are a pretty good Marine, so I’m sure they can get by without it. If you are anything like me, the temptation to delay engagements like this with your Marines can be powerful in the face of mounting tasks. It was only when I had a clear idea about how the activity served to further my unit’s purposes and contribute to success that I could overcome this temptation.
Maj Tom Hathaway did an excellent job laying out how one third of the counsel, coach, and mentor paradigm can work for leaders, highlighting how to understand the utility of coaching and approaches to effectively engage with our Marines. However, a reader may have walked away from his article with a too simplistic understanding of another part of the triumvirate: counseling.
As Maj Hathaway indicated, MCO1500.61 states that counseling is “the top-down transmission of expectations for future performance and feedback on past performance.” While this is true, it fails to capture what I have discovered over time as the reason why counseling is a critical component of building effective teams. The lack of clear articulation of why counseling is such an effective tool, as well as few examples of effective counseling methods and techniques, means that too often Marine Corps counseling is marginally effective at best or counter-productive at worst.
A note before beginning. This article is not intended to be a review of formal Marine Corps orders or policies. It presumes the reader is familiar with MCO 1500.61 Marine Leader Development and NAVMC 2795 User’s Guide to Counseling as an introduction to counseling. Instead, this article attempts to capture some of my own lessons learned.
In this article, I intend to share “why” I’ve come to view counseling as more important than I initially believed as a junior officer, deserving the space I set aside in my schedule. It will examine what I have found as the “when” and “how” of effective counseling and then examine some common pitfalls and mistakes in counseling as I’ve either made or observed.
Why Counsel: It is more than a check in the box
Every Marine is told early and often that counseling is required. However, lacking a more explicit “why” beyond Marine Corps orders and directives can make counseling feel more like an administrative burden that soaks up much needed time and attention, rather than a useful leadership tool. Therefore, as a young officer, I sought out challenges within my organization that might be addressed by counseling in order to justify the time commitment.
First, and foremost, I found an early hurdle to developing trust within my unit was reconciling disparate perspectives and understanding. I have come to realize that my view of what success looks like and any subordinates’ understanding are both shaped by previous experiences. When our understanding is misaligned, it can lead to confusion or even cross purposes. Counseling, both initial and midterm, became a tool to align that understanding, but only when I tailored my counseling to accomplish this end. When I just used the counseling to only articulate the assigned responsibilities, it accomplished little more than if the subordinate had read the training and readiness manual or reviewed the MOS manual. Instead, I could use the opportunity to clearly describe how winning looked, and how the Marine could demonstrate proficiency in the various characteristics I would evaluate them on. Subsequent counseling then used that description as a way to point out the subordinate’s successes or failures and discuss a way forward. By starting with a common vernacular, and later using the same description to review performance, there seemed to be a greater amount of trust built that the follow-on evaluation was objective and appropriate.
Second, I was consistently attempting to find ways to improve individual and team performance. Counseling seemed like a likely tool to achieve this, but the reality was that it was only useful if designed to that end. If not done systematically and as part of a normal battle rhythm for all personnel, it became haphazard and rarely contributed to lasting impact. Obvious issues, typically behavioral, that required correction did not need a full counseling to address (a good read for methods to address this sort of situation can be found in the book Crucial Accountability). Instead, counseling was better suited toward underlying causes or persistent disfunction within the entire organization that needed perspective changes. Counseling sessions geared toward achieving this end needed preparation and more than superficial analysis in order to actually contribute to improvement. This meant that if I couldn’t sequester the requisite time, I was better served to not make counseling a part of my dedicated improvement system. However, if I was capable of putting in the time, it became very beneficial in the long term process of improving the team’s efficiency and effectiveness.
Finally, every leader is looking for methods of keeping morale high. One item I have found that can easily depress morale is when personnel do not know how they are doing. While some of your Marines may have a clear understanding of where they stand, I have found that the vast majority have questions about how well or poorly they are performing in-between official evaluations. Using formal counseling as a frequent means of feedback provides regular and predictable opportunities for your Marines to receive updates and avoid uncertainty. Even for my lower performers, these touchpoints have had noticeable impacts on their morale, even when it did not lead to noticeable improvement in their performance.
When
I originally thought that the “when” for counseling was cut and dry. Conduct initial counseling within 30 days after starting the relationship, 90 days after that, and every six months based on the Marine Corps order. The reality was that planning for counseling required more thought, with timing, frequency, and duration being driven by specific considerations.
For timing, the mission of the unit mattered. If the unit was deployable and assigned against a Global Force Management requirement with a life-cycle that built over time, counseling sessions were most effective before and after large events that were directly tied to the Marine’s billet. Maybe an exercise or inspection could be a great anchor to plan the touchpoints around. When the unit was within the supporting establishment or a headquarters that was unlikely to deploy, the counseling schedule was best aligned to the unit’s quarterly battle rhythm. Either way, the question that I needed to answer before scheduling counseling sessions was “how will the impacts from these counseling sessions reinforce success or mitigate mistakes based on my unit’s mission?” A poorly-timed counseling session can become a missed opportunity.
The frequency for counseling was driven by how often I had professional interaction with the Marine. If we worked side by side daily, any more often than once every 60-90 days ended up being wasteful and unnecessary. When interactions came at greater intervals, I needed to look more like every 45 days. This initially seemed counter-intuitive since counseling sessions had less material to include for more distant subordinates. But in actuality, it was critical because the challenges mentioned previously that counseling could address were greater for subordinates without regular contact. By programming more frequent touch-points for counseling, I found that even distant subordinates became more closely aligned with the unit’s vision and progressed equally.
Finally, while the other characteristics I’ve discussed are externally driven, I have found that the duration of the counseling sessions is entirely dependent on your own personality and style of interaction. Over the years I’ve executed and participated in counseling sessions that were longer and shorter with different subordinates and leaders. I’ve come to the conclusion that if you attempt to force sessions to go too long because of pre-conceived notion of what is “required” or overly curtail them because of time constraints, the counseling session can do more harm than good because it comes off as artificial vice authentic.
How: Some possible models for counseling sessions
Over the years of counseling, the two models that work best for me are what I call the “Mock Evaluation” model and the “3-2-1” model.
When I have the time to do detailed analysis and preparation, the “mock evaluation” model has worked best. I use this method for initial and interim counseling sessions, using the format of the expected evaluation system (J-PES marks for junior Marines and fitness reports for sergeant and above.) For this method, I communicate my observations of the Marine’s performance in the language of their specific evaluation system. For the initial counseling session, I will go through each characteristic and communicate what it means to me, how I plan on determining markings, and what my typical markings look like for top, middle, and bottom performers. This allows clear articulation of my expectations, but also gives the Marine potential goals to strive for.
For follow-on counseling sessions, I would then tell the Marine, “If I was to evaluate you today, your marks would be….”, followed by a description of what improvement would look like in concrete terms.
By the end of the session, I ask if the feedback is in line with their own assessment of their performance. Surprisingly, the vast majority of Marines I have counseled, regardless of performance level, are not surprised and agree with my assessment. As an added benefit, the time required for my future evaluation actions are significantly reduced since I’ve already put in the mental rigor to identify appropriate marks with marginal adjustments based on small changes in performance since the last counseling. This is my preferred method, because it allows me to tie each counseling together and place it in the larger context of the unit and long term evaluation. It also takes the most preparation and analysis in advance.
Because I have not always had the time for ideal preparation in advance of a counseling, I sometimes use a model for rapid counseling to make sure I didn’t completely skip the action because of constraints. I call this the 3-2-1 method. First, I review with the Marine three specific events/actions/interactions and describe how I saw those actions play out. These actions may have been positive, negative, and neutral, but by limiting it to three, it allows me to pick the most memorable and impactful events quickly. Second, I describe two future activities and what I would expect from sustained success or improvement playing out. Finally, I would identify one strength I’ve observed from the Marine, and praise how that strength has positively impacted the unit. This method can be done quickly, since all of the counseling is described in plain English without having to translate the observations into the evaluation methodology. However, it does have limited utility since it does not necessarily achieve all of the benefits articulated earlier in this article. The reason I’ve developed this method is because the reality is that I was not always able to achieve the best option, but having a good enough option allowed me to at least achieve some of the desired end state.
Common Pitfalls
The pro forma counseling. I’ve experienced, and at times executed, counseling sessions that were simply to check the box. As I look back, these were always insulting to the one receiving the counseling, and were barely worth the time for the counselor. It was obvious that not enough time was put into the preparation to actually provide valuable feedback, and the counseling wasn’t done for any larger purpose beyond saying that it had been accomplished. In situations where the counseling session feels forced, I would personally recommend delaying until it is more useful.
The rose-colored counseling. Sometimes it can be difficult to give your Marine an honest assessment. I have found this typically happens when the counselor becomes convinced that the Marine can’t get any better than they already are, so telling them their deficiencies feels like bringing on unwanted conflict and strife. Even when I’ve felt this way, however, a more positive counseling session that is not in line with your true assessment is worse than no counseling at all. Moreover, even a negative counseling session is still better than a rose-colored because the subsequent evaluation will likely lead to a bitter feeling of betrayal for the Marine being counseled.
The CYA counseling. This is an easy mistake, especially for junior leaders. You realize that your Marine has repeatedly failed to meet your expectations, but you know that you can’t give them an extremely poor evaluation because you’ve failed to appraise them of the failures before the evaluation is due. So, to clear your conscience, you conduct a counseling in close proximity to when your evaluation is due so that you can say, “the Marine was counseled on his performance.” However, you have not afforded the Marine any opportunity to improve, and thus it becomes a cover-your-a$$ action. The obvious solution to this is to have a systematic and deliberate counseling program that affords you the opportunity to tell your poor performing Marines what is wrong, but when that didn’t happen, I would recommend against the CYA counseling because it will undermine any future counseling within your unit.
Instead, you can take two potential courses. One, you can proceed with the poor evaluation, but present a clear path forward to the Marine in subsequent evaluations. This course ensures the report to the Service on the quality of the Marine is most in-line with your observation, and although late, you are still providing the Marine a way forward for improvement. Two, you can give the benefit of the doubt to the Marine by briefing them on their deficiencies and providing them an opportunity to articulate how they intend to improve, and then incorporating their response into your calculation of their overall evaluation. This is the fairest approach to a Marine you have failed to counsel along the way, but may undermine the evaluation process if the counselee fails to meet their commitments. I have only ever used this second course when I knew that I would be the subsequent evaluator for the Marine.
Being out of sync with your higher. Lastly, there have been times when I’ve conducted a robust counseling program, only to find out that my vision of success and failure was drastically out of sync with my boss. This matters when you are a platoon commander or company commander making recommendations on J-PES marks to your battalion commander or when you are making recommendations for RO evaluation for your Marine Reported On. I’ve learned that if you want your counseling program to survive beyond the first evaluation period, I needed to engage my higher on an policies or philosophies on evaluation early. This way, I can ensure my counseling will not be undermined when the evaluation is 180 degrees off from what I briefed my Marine on their performance.
Wrapping it up
As I’ve observed, leaders tend toward one of two extremes. Either they find counseling un-warrior like and presume that any Marine worth their salt would know what is wrong and fix it, or every interaction should be something more akin to a coaching or mentoring session. If counseling is derived from either caricature, it is ineffective or counter-productive. Instead, an intentional, deliberate, pre-programed counseling program is one of the leader’s best tools. I’ve found that putting just a bit of time into designing and planning my counseling program has repeatedly helped my unit, and I hope this has convinced you that it might be worth keeping on the to-do list.
LtCol Eckert is the Commanding Officer of Advanced Infantry Training Battalion - East. He can be reached at andrew.c.eckert@usmc.mil.
One lesson from my State Department career was that I was not a great manager, but I was in good company. Thinking back now I know that organizations like the Foreign Service and the Armed Forces often need reminding that their #1 resource is their people.