Admiral  William H. McRaven gave the commencement address at the University of Texas in Austin in May 2014. A YouTube video of the Admiral’s speech has over a million hits. It was a powerful speech well delivered. The Admiral talked about lessons he learned in Navy SEAL training (SEa, Air, Land), an elite Navy unit.  The Wall Street Journal published part of his commencement address.

The Admiral explained ten lessons for life using vivid examples from his experiences in SEAL training. Here is a brief summary using his words (in quotation marks) and my interpretation of what he said.

• “If you can't do the little things right, you will never do the big things right.”
• “You can't change the world alone—you will need some help.”
• Nothing matters “but your will to succeed.”
• “Sometimes, no matter how well you prepare or how well you perform”, you are not going to succeed. 
• “You will fail. You will likely fail often. It will be painful. It will be discouraging. At times it will test you to your very core.” But it will make you stronger.
• Sometimes you must take risks.
• Deal with obstacles as they arise.
• Be at your best in the darkest moments.
• Have hope and share hope
• Persevere, don’t give up. 

My take-away:

Good advice. I can sum up most of these points with one word: grit. Duckworth and associates researched grit and reported their work in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2007. They defined grit as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals”, “working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress” (pp.1087-1088). In six studies they found grit explained a larger chunk of success than IQ. Grittier individuals achieved higher levels of education sooner, and changed jobs less often. Who gets ahead? People with grit, stick-to-it-ness, perseverance. 

I love what the Admiral said and how he said it. What I hear him saying is, “Have grit.” 

Image of Navy Seals. U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist Andrew McKaskle.
Image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SEAL_Delivery_Vehicle_Team_(SDV)_2.jpg
Image is public domain and free to use and share.

Managers often state concerns about older workers and their use of technology.  While many older workers (55 and up) embrace technology and integrate e-mail, texting, and such into their daily personal and work lives, others do not.  There are older workers who see no need to embrace new technologies. Others have negative concerns about computers, may become anxious, or fear loss of privacy.

This can be a problem in the workplace. Older workers in the workforce are at an all-time high as boomers choose not to retire or financially need to remain employed.  Recently Wolfson, Cavanagh, and Kraiger (all now or formerly of Colorado State University) published a very insightful and important review of older workers and technology-based instruction. Increasingly technology (computer-based, web-based, etc.) is the means by which organizations deliver training. Wolfson and her colleagues argued that technology-based instruction poses different challenges for older adults. Older adults often face a gradual decline in information processing capabilities, although there are large individual differences. They suggested that it is reasonable to acknowledge differences in learning between older and younger workers and make adjustments in delivering technology-based instruction that recognizes these differences.

Having reviewed a massive amount of the research-based information, they developed recommendations. Here are just a few of the highlights concerning effective technology-based instruction that I took from their review:

• “Create a highly structured learning environment.”
  

---Break down material into small, meaningful units. 
---Direct attention to the essential core material.
---Eliminate extraneous material; keep the material focused.

• Provide outlines, concept maps, detailed overviews for content that follows.
  
• Illustrate concepts with worked examples; this reduces cognitive load.
  

---Give problem.
---Give steps in the solution.
---Give final answer. 
---Then present new problems to be worked.

• Allow workers to control the amount of time they spend on each module; do not force time limits.
  
• Provide feedback but also provide information about what lies ahead, how to best master the instruction upcoming.
  
• Keep the interface simple.
  

---Use easy-to-read, large fonts.
---Be sure there is good contrast between font and background. 

My take-away:

The reference to the Wolfson and associates’ article is below. It should be required reading for (1) every corporate Human Resources professional, (2) anyone in Information Technology involved with technology-based instruction, and (3) most leaders.  My few comments about this important review only convey a fraction of the wealth of knowledge this article provides. The older worker can learn new skills, contrary to the popular saying about old dogs and new tricks. It just takes informed leaders who insist on maximizing the learning potential of all employees in any technology-based instruction.

Wolfson, N. E., Cavanagh, T. M., Kraiger, K.  Older adults and technology-based instruction: Optimizing learning outcomes and transfer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (1), 26-44.    

Image of computer training at Taylor Public Library, Taylor, Texas.
From https://www.flickr.com/photos/49730818@N04/8206572584/
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

Life is about learning.  We learn in formal settings; we learn informally as we move through our days.  In an educational setting, what has been your most memorable learning experience?  In the April 18th Chronicle of Higher Education Matthew Lieberman, a professor at UCLA, shared his.

Lieberman described a critical time when he was working on his doctorate. He had to prepare for the comprehensive examination, a major hurdle in doctoral studies.  This exam would determine whether or not he could continue on the path toward earning a doctoral degree. Lieberman was not in this boat alone. Several other graduate students also were facing the upcoming comprehensive exam. Instead of trying to review and master the material individually, the graduate students organized. They took different topics, learned those topics upside-down-and-backwards, and then taught each other. All passed.

Lieberman used this example from his life to illustrate the “social view” of learning (not to be confused with Bandura’s Social Learning Theory). He cited research from Yale in which students thought they were learning material to teach others. These students actually performed better on a test than those who were simply tested on something they had read individually.

Lieberman’s fMRI research suggests the brain functions differently depending on whether the learning is individual, such as preparing for a test, or learning for social reasons, such as teaching something to others. In other words, if you really want to learn something, teach others.

My take-aways:     

As a professor, I teach others and I learn a lot. I agree with Lieberman’s premise. In my classrooms, I emphasize student-centered learning, active learning, authentic learning, collaborative learning. I try to facilitate students learning from each other. In nearly all my classes, students sit in groups and learn in groups.  

The social view of learning could be transformational not only in education but also in corporate training. Think about the training provided by your organization. Is it on-line with no interaction? With interaction? What about the corporate classroom? Is instruction in the “classic” push mode, here’s the information, fill your mind, learn it. Or doe the social view come to the forefront?

My guess is that the key is in the give-and-take.  Much learning, real learning, can come from the shared examples, stories, and clarifying comments among those who are doing the learning. The challenge for those of us in the role of “teacher”, whether in education or training, is to find ways, creative ways, to enact the social view of learning.

Lieberman, M. D. (2014, April 18). Learning from others. The Chronicle Review, B4-B5.

Image from:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/jiscinfonet/291383069/
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

Does leader development move through stages? Komives’s Leader Identity Development (LID) model answers yes and describes the stages.

Shepherd and Horner (2010) used the LID model in their discussion of leadership at institutions of the United States government where formal, intensive leader development is at the heart of the mission: the Naval Academy in Annapolis, the Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force Academy in Colorado, and the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut. They studied leadership at “a highly selective, East Coast military college” following students from their first year through their senior year.

Shepherd and Horner described leader development at the service academies as being hierarchical and consistent with the LID model. During the first year the emphasis is on self-leadership, learning to follow orders, learning teamwork, and understanding the culture. In the second year students supervise the new first year students and help them learn professional knowledge. After two years, most students will have reached the LID stage of Generality where they are developing an understanding of the greater good and a better understanding of the potential of leadership to effect change. During these last two years students assume even greater responsibilities leading other students through actions and as role models. Their focus moves from the individual level to the organizational level. Leadership is internalized and each student develops a model of his or her own leadership identity. This hierarchical system is common to all service academies.

Shepherd and Horner’s study asked what is the best predictor of leadership ability, which they defined as aptitude for commissioning as a military officer. This aptitude is measured each semester. What has the greatest impact on this measure of leader ability? Was it GPA? Athletic participation? Years at the academy? Or peer rankings?

Their finding: “Consistent with industrial-era leadership studies, there is sufficient evidence to support the argument that ranking by one’s peers continues to be a significant indicator of an individual’s leadership development” (p. 26). There was no close second.

My take-aways:

(1) Leadership is about relationships. The service academies are unique. Students rating each other live with each other in a relatively closed environment nearly 24/7.  Even here though, there will be different levels of relationships. Different types of situational leaders may be masked. But overall, who best to assess leadership potential than those who work and live with each other?  How do you see the leader potential of those around you? How do they see your leader potential? Regardless of whether or not you are actually in a leadership position, are you perceived as a leader?

(2) Shepherd and Horner’s study underscores the importance of peer feedback. Add in feedback from direct reports and supervisors and a good case can be made for 360 degree feedback. But a caveat, if trust is not part of the culture, 360 degree feedback may be problematic. Do you have those you trust who can give you honest feedback? Do you ask for that feedback? If so, do you use that feedback to grow as a leader?

(3) A self inventory of our relationships and how others see us may be a good exercise. Where are our relationships strong? Where do we need to reach out and build new or better relationships?

(4) The service academies have a structure that allows educators to construct intense leadership experiences and opportunities for young men and women. Do all become leaders? Probably not. But I would venture the academies as leadership laboratories produce their fair share for our nation’s future.

Sheperd, R. S., & Horner, D. H., Jr. (2010). Indicators of leadership development in undergraduate military education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (2), 18-29.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Julia A. Casper/Released. https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/9194221810/in/photostream/
Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en