Lessons learned from the military to BE

Back from vacation and ready to work :)

As some of you may know, I was in the US Army before I was an English trainer.  As a Sapper (combat engineer) my life was consumed by the neverending cycle of training-execution-training.  During my seven years in the military and three years in combat, I rose to the position of platoon sergeant, including designing several company training programs in insurgent tactics and dealing with improvised explosive devices.  I was passionate about training and adopted the military's models and processes whole-heartedly.

Your author doing a little training... note, I had to swim back, too.

However, after my CELTA and beginning in the BE field, I seemed to forget much of what I had learned and practiced during my previous career.  It wasn't until about a year ago that I sat down and took stock of my military experience and how it applied to my new passion.  In the end, I distilled five points which apply to in-company training.

1.  The Mission Essential Task List (METL)

A METL is a list of key tasks a unit must be able to successfully accomplish in order to fulfill their mission.  For example, when I entered the Army in 2002, we were still trained in the 1980-90s conventional warfare skills.  In that situation, a combat engineer platoon must be able to emplace a standard NATO minefield.  This essential task supported the company's METL to emplace a battional defense.  Below platoon, a squad had a list of essential supporting tasks for the minefield.  Below that, each individual soldier had to master a list of key tasks (such as arm a mine) for the whole unit to be successful.

As an English trainer, this shows us two things.  First, our learners do not exist in communication isolation.  They belong to teams, departments, and business units.  The individual skills we teach them are part of a larger goal.  It is helpful for us to consider how we are supporting these goals.  Second, the key skills needed by the learners are mostly determined by their position within the structure.  In English training, the most generic METL is the ALTE can do statements.  These are particularly valuable for pre-experienced learners just as the individual soldier task list drives the basic training program in the Army.  However, once we are in-company, a key part of pertinent training is defining the essential skills for the learners, their teams, and their departments.

2.  Task, Condition, Standard (TCS)

To evaulate performance, every task needed is outlined using the task, condition, standard format.  Basically, the task is restating what the learner should be able to do.  The condition outlines the environment in which they are expected to perform the task.  And finally the standard is a 'checklist' of performance steps for them to correctly execute.

For example, here are the standards for throwing a hand grenade:

FM 3-23.30 Grenades and Pyrotechnic Signals, Dept. of the Army, approved for public release 

Back to English teaching, this sounds like something we should be doing with our skills training.  Yet measuring can do statements in this way is not universal.  Oxford University Press and John Hughes have taken a step in this direction with their skills assessment criteria in the Teacher Book from Business Result.  However, I would like to see more of this in 'opening a meeting', 'making arrangements on the telephone', etc.  For myself, I have set the task of writing out some of these performance steps and the conditions under which they must be performed (e.g. in a conference room with projector and presentation).  Perhaps we need to borrow something from our academic colleagues on this one... they are the experts at assessment.

Writing a letter home in 2003 near Hit, Iraq

3.  Crawl-Walk-Run

Once each needed skill is defined in the METL and the TCSs are set, the military trains to proficiency using the crawl, walk, run approach.  Under this approach, the task and the standards are kept the same, but the conditions are changed.  This means increasing speed, spontaneity, complexity, and realism.

From FM 7-1 Battle Focused Training, Dept. of the Army, approved for public release

Note, the performance steps remain the same, only the situation becomes more difficult.  For example, in a presentation setting, this could mean that questions from the audience become more difficult, speakers could have non-native accents, etc.

In general, I try to incorporate this into my training.  So, when the learners become confident that they can participate in a meeting, I start adding more challenging elements.  For example, I will add in listening with Asian accents, add the element of interruptions and unclear vocabulary, place the meeting under pressure constraints such as time or consensus, reduce/remove prep time, add an additional skill like note taking, etc.  This helps build the difficulty.

4.  Train as you fight, fight as you train

This all adds up to the next lesson.  In the military the goal (especially in the run phase) is to make the training as realistic as possible.  In the Army this means using live ammunition, throwing in surprises, and generally making the situation as confusing as possible.

I believe once our learners in the BE classroom have mastered the basics in the supportive environment of the classroom, it is time to make the training reflect the real world.  In group classes, here is where the participants themselves really add to the course.  They can ask the tough questions and play the role of difficult people.  They can give the pointed criticism needed to make the situation more realistic.  As Claire Hart pointed out on her blog, getting the learners out of the class on the factory floor adds needed realism.

In short, we need to prepare them for the battlefield.


5.  The After Action Review (AAR)

The final lesson distilled was the importance of the After Action Review.  Basically, this was a post training meeting to take stock of our performance and formally acknowledges strengths, areas for improvement, and lessons learned.  In the military, we had formal drawn out AARs with written summaries but perhaps more effective were the 5 minutes 'hot wash' AARs.  In these short meetings we sat down as a team and discussed the training event with the following agenda.

• Review the training objective
• What was supposed to happen?
• Relavent training resources we used
• What happened?  Why?
• What did we do well?
• What do we need better?
• What lessons did we learn?
• Make a plan to improve shortcomings and build upon strengths

Overall, AARs were direct and candid, but never personal.  I am still amazed at how the participants were able to criticism.  But the key factor here was that everyone had the same goal... make the team better.

In an in-company training environment we need to use AAR like breaks to critically assess our performance.  In some courses, this can be done after every lesson.  But not all of our participants are going to have such thick skins.  As trainers, our job is to effectively observe their performance and offer feedback without hurting any feelings or damaging reputations.  This is certainly not easy, but the AAR was the key link between our current skills and future improvement.

Conclusion

I am certainly not advocating that we systematically formalize all of our training and execute it lock-step as we did in the military.  Much is to be said for the holistic approach, and such formalized training does not always align with the learners' expectations and desires.  Additionally, implementing these methods requires a significant amount of planning and admin time which can eat away at choosing and designing the best activities.  However, I feel that as professional in-company trainers, such an approach toward training helps us to ensure that the time spent in class is actually making a positive impact on their job performance.

The Tax Burden of ObamaCare

Upon which income earners will fall the greatest burden of paying the greatest tax burden from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare")?

To find out, we tapped our detailed income distribution data for individuals for the year 2010, the most recent year for which it is available (the data for 2011 will be published in September 2012). We then took Henry Blodget's description of how ObamaCare's mandate penalty tax is calculated, then multiplied the amount of tax that would have to be paid for a given level of total money income by the number of people we estimate earned it in 2010!

Here's what we found:

Two quick notes:

• Over 90% of the burden of ObamaCare will be paid by individuals with incomes below $200,000.


• Over one third of the burden will fall upon people with incomes between $9,500 and $37,300, whose ObamaCare tax will be a flat $695 beginning in 2016.

Of course, the alternative to paying the ObamaCare mandate tax is to have health insurance, either on your own or through your employer, which in 2011, cost $5,429 on average for Single coverage and $15,073 for Family coverage in 2011. Henry Blodget describes the "maximum" tax that might have to be paid by high income individuals:

... the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

And that's what sets up the lottery math for healthy Americans, who are much likelier to benefit by dropping their health insurance coverage than paying for it under the ObamaCare law.

Just so long as they also take steps to under-withhold their income taxes, since it appears that the IRS will only be able to collect the tax by seizing part or all of these individual's annual tax refunds!

High Five!

Just when we thought U.S. patents couldn't get any sillier, we found a patented invention for an "Apparatus For Simulating a 'High Five'"!

Issued to Albert Cohen of Troy, New York on 18 October 1994, U.S. Patent 5,356,330 solves the following problems:

...the hand-arm configuration of the invention allows a user to simulate a "high-five" in celebration of a positive event, thereby providing the user with a convenient outlet for the release of excitement. Further, the hand-arm configuration synergistically improves the hand-eye coordination of a user and/or, depending upon specific placement, provides an exercise device for enhancing the jumping skills of a user. More specifically, when the hand-arm configuration is mounted at a sufficient height above the normal reach of a user, the user must jump upwards to strike the simulated hand, thereby simulating many of the jumping drills commonly practiced by basketball players. As such, the leg strength and coordination of a user may be improved through the practice of the present invention.

No, we're not making this up! Here's what the invention looks like:

Here's hoping you have a positive event to simulate with a convenient outlet for your excitement this weekend!

And if it helps, here's an old clip of the "High Five'n White Guys" as they go site-seeing in Seattle (and yes, that really is a young Bill Nye)!

Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist in Chief? Part 2

In mid-2008, General Motors was a failing company. Unable to unload their product line of gas guzzlers, the wrong cars and trucks to be trying to sell at a time of record high gasoline prices, the company's high union-driven labor costs were combined with the extremely high pension and health care costs it had awarded its unions in better times, the company was quickly heading for bankruptcy and quite possibly for liquidation.

In that environment, GM decided to bet big on a new mass market production car, one that could deliver 50 miles per gallon - more than double the mileage of the average vehicles of its product line - and it would bring it to market in 2010, making a technological leap in the process: the Chevrolet Volt.

From Failure to Federal Entity

And then, General Motors, as it was, failed. In December 2008, the company's management and its unions sought and received a special bridge financing from the federal government which would provide a cushion of time during which the company would attempt to restructure itself before becoming insolvent.

In January 2009, Barack Obama was sworn into office and changed the direction of the company's restructuring efforts, forcing out the company's CEO as he increased the federal government's role in managing the company as it prepared to enter bankruptcy. Ultimately, the U.S. government would become the largest stakeholder in the company that acquired GM's name, trademarks and assets in the company's bankruptcy. For all practical purposes, GM became an entity of the U.S. federal government.

In the restructuring that followed, GM closed plants, dealerships and shut down entire product lines as it laid off many of its employees. Yet the Chevy Volt, with its "green" imprimatur that augmented President Obama's willingness to spend billions of dollars to back various risky "clean energy" technology initiatives as part of his 2009 economic stimulus bill, was given the green light to go forward into production, even though it was clear that it would face a difficult path to market success in a recessionary economy.

After the Chevy Volt was introduced, it was declared to be 2011's Car of the Year, in both the United States and in Europe.

Declared by many in the press to be a innovation revelation, a "pioneering" automotive engineering and computer programming achievement. An primary electric battery-powered automobile that can travel solely on electricity for up to 50 miles before switching to a backup gasoline-powered motor, meaning it burns very little gasoline and emits very little pollution into the environment. A car whose electric battery can be recharged overnight by plugging it into a regular wall socket or very quickly using a special recharging station.

And yet, hardly anybody seems to want to buy it, even though its $39,995 sticker price can be offset with a special $7,500 federal tax credit, which would lower the basic price of the four door sedan for consumers to $32,495, making it very competitive with other vehicles in its class.

With sales so far below expectations, the Chevy Volt should be headed off the market, given that its production numbers are worse than the all-time automotive flop that was Ford's Edsel. And yet, there are two unique entities, aside from General Motors, that are determined to keep it afloat: the U.S. federal government and General Electric.

Stacking the Deck for His Favorites

It's easy to understand why the federal government under President Obama is so keen to use its power to make the Chevrolet Volt a success, as so many of President Obama's other green technology investments have failed. Here, to help stack the deck in the Chevy Volt's favor, President Obama has mandated that the vehicles that automakers produce must increase their average gasoline fuel efficiency to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, which will rise to an average of 54.6 miles per gallon by 2025.

By contrast, the average new vehicle fuel economy in February 2012 was 23.7 miles per gallon. Unless automakers like GM produce vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt in mass quantities and in very short order, they will have to pay large penalties to the federal government based upon how far below the fuel economy standard that their vehicles fall. As an established product on the market today, the Chevy Volt stands to benefit from the President's Obama's fuel economy mandate.

More interesting though is General Electric, itself a major federal bailout recipient in 2009, and a company whose nearly every product relies upon the federal government's contracts, mandates, subsidies and other support for its revenue.

Unable to compete in the marketplace independently of such government assistance, GE relies upon its close contacts with federal officials to sustain its revenues - using its influence to lobby for favorable legislation, affect regulations and their enforcement, and also to create special tax breaks from which it benefits.

That level of influence was kicked up a notch during the Obama administration as GE's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, became a close adviser of President Obama, serving as the chairman of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Here, just months after the Volt had a major setback with a number of vehicle fires, General Electric announced in February 2012 that it would acquire nearly 12,000 Chevy Volts by 2015, and the sudden surge in sales for the Chevy Volt in March 2012 likely reflects a large number of GE managers and employees purchasing the car.

GE's motivating factor in supporting the Chevy Volt at such a critical time is fairly transparent. GE collects 10% of every dollar invested in electric vehicles.

On a side note, the ever-tax credit conscious company would also cash in on the $7,500 federal tax credit for each of its Chevy Volt purchases. For the full total of 12,000 Volts that GE has indicated it would purchase by 2015, the company will receive a total of $90 million back from the federal government. The gains for the company would be only greater if President Obama's 2012 budget proposal to increase the tax credit to $10,000 had gone anywhere.

GE then has a very direct stake in making sure the Chevy Volt succeeds in the market. If the Chevy Volt flops, a political change in Washington D.C. could derail President Obama's mandated fuel economy standards that are critical to GE's current business strategy.

As your "ecoimagination" might tell you, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is a major fan of automotive fuel economy standards, and since he has clearly had the President's ear, he has every incentive to use his special connection to push for standards that would force the adoption of the products GE manufactures. And if that means buying up to 12,000 Chevy Volts over the next three years to help keep its production line from permanently shutting down, and helping President Obama avoid the embarrassment of yet another green energy failure in the process, all the better for business in the Crony Capitalists Club.

Whether or not any of that is in the best interest of regular Americans is another matter. Clearly, despite President Obama's wishes that they should drive Chevrolet Volts, they are so far very determined to not do so.

It would be one thing if it were only GE, GM and individual American consumers who were involved, but under President Obama's federal government, every American taxpayer is being forced to contribute to all this waste for no meaningful purpose other than benefiting the members of the club. Instead, we find that the time, effort and resources being devoted toward putting Americans in Chevy Volts is proving to be economically destructive, especially when you consider that just about anything else would be a better use of these scarce resources.

References

U.S. Department of Energy. One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015, February 2011 Status Report. February 2011.

"Seven Things I Learned from Rap Music"

Since the days of Kurtis Blow, I have loved rap music.  I'll grant you that some of it's becoming hard to justify, but there are some lessons that I've learned from it over the years that have helped me in life. Here are some of my favorites:

"You don't grind, you don't shine." - Mike Jones

If this current economy has reminded us of anything, it's that most of us should no longer expect financial prosperity to come without sacrifice. Solomon said that there is profit in all hard work and the converse is true: if you don't grind, you don't shine. Put your top effort into creating the future you desire.

"If I can't change the people around me, I change the people around me." - Chuck D

The Bible says that we should not be deceived; that bad company corrupts good morals. Throughout the Proverbs, there are warnings to choose our friends and associations very carefully. A lot of who we become results from those with whom we spend the majority of our time. Surround yourself with people who are pursuing purpose.

"Before we go any further, let's be friends." - Whodini

Relationship advice from the great Rappin' Jalil (or was it Ecstacy? or Grandmaster Dee?). A lot of times we push relationships too far, too fast because of infatuation and hormones. I advise my sisters all the time to resist the urge to let relationships become "sexualized" too soon because once a guy has sex on his mind, he can't think. Let's not just get to know one another. Let's be friends.

"You see me? I eat, sleep, _____ and talk rap. You see that '98 Mercedes on TV? I bought that." - Juvenile

One thing that I've always admired in successful people is their focus. Solomon spoke of this, too, when he advised that we should do with all our might whatever it is that we do. This is in Ecclesiastes 9:10 in case you're wondering.

"It's what you keep, not what you cop." ~Beanie Sigel

Making money doesn't profit much if you spend it all. We Americans have developed the nasty habit of spending even MORE than we earn.  W. Clement Stone said, "If you cannot save money, the seeds of greatness are not in you."  Wise words.  Very. 


"Don't let a win go to your head or a loss to your heart." - Chuck D

Fight to stay encouraged when things are tough by taking control of your emotions. Don't take it personally. Things happen to all of us in this life. Also, use the positive emotions of victories to propel yourself forward without becoming complacent. Good seasons don't last always the same way Winter doesn't last forever.

"It takes two to make a thing go ri-ight! It takes two to make it out of sight!" ~Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock (See also Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 because Solomon said it, too: "Two are better than one...")

Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist in Chief? Part 1

President Obama opened a controversy when he made the following comments during a campaign stop at a fire station in Roanoke, Virginia:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

That was news to a lot of business people and entrepreneurs who actually have built their own businesses, many from scratch, many without the benefit of any government research or support. We wondered where President Obama may have gotten the idea businesses were so completely dependent upon the government to even be in business.

And then, it came to us! We remembered that two of the biggest business basket cases of President Obama's tenure in office are represented by General Motors and General Electric! Neither one of these companies is capable of existing without significant government support, as both are highly dependent upon government contracts, subsidies, mandates and special protections for their revenue.

In fact, both businesses are so dependent upon the federal government for their cash flows that they have effectively become junior partners or subsidiaries of the federal government. As a result, rather than recognizing that his proper role as President involves running the federal government and not setting the agendas for America's businesses, President Obama instead views himself as the CEO of America's crony capitalists.

What is crony capitalism? Investopedia explains:

A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.

Does the progressive worldview behind President Obama's comments seem clearer now?

If it helps bring greater clarity, there is a different word that perhaps better describes the political system that goes hand-in-hand with the economic system of crony capitalism: corporatism:

Corporatism, Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of organizing society into "corporations" subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

In Part 2 of this series, we'll reveal what we suspect will become the modern-day example of why crony capitalism, and the corporatism it entails, is really a destructive economic and political system.

[Note: The link for Part 2 will not be live until 19 July 2012!]

Maryland vs Virginia: Tax Returns

We're going to feature three charts today, in which we'll compare the states of Maryland and Virginia in the United States. Why? Well, aside from the rivalry between each state's respective college football programs, Maryland has long held a reputation for reportedly being the home to the largest concentration of millionaires (aka "rich, seafood-loving snobs") in the United States, while Virginia maintains itself as a much more down-home kind of place, especially once when you get away from the parts closest to Maryland.

Is that changing?

We ask the question because of the ongoing controversy of whether or not Maryland's chronically high state income taxes are progressively convincing its highest income earners to live and work somewhere else.

To find out, we'll turn to the people who would know: the IRS. Since the 1997 tax year, the rapacious government agency has published data for the number of tax returns filed in each state, including breaking out data by Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) ranges. Even though what we'd really like to do is see how many million-dollar plus tax returns were filed in each state, the IRS has been inconsistent about reporting this data from year to year, so we'll substitute the number of tax returns filed in each year with am AGI of $200,000 or greater.

Our first chart shows the number of federal income tax returns filed in the states of Maryland and Virginia from 1997 through 2010:

Right away, we see that something is up - although both states started very near the same level in 1997, Virginia would appear to have strongly outpaced Maryland in adding to the ranks of its highest income earners in the years from 1997 through 2010.

But is that as strong a pace as it seems? There are two main factors that might play into the numbers here - the relative economic growth between the two states and the respective size of each state's population.

Considering economic growth first, we'll look at the year-over-year growth rate of the number of $200,000 or greater AGI earners, since that value would be more likely to be affected by economic factors, because incomes change faster than population. Here, a state with stronger economic performance will see higher growth rates, which affect the number of $200,000+ tax returns filed each year by boosting people's incomes.

We find that Virginia has outpaced the economic growth of Maryland in eight of the 12 years of data presented in the chart, sometimes greatly, while Maryland has only edged Virginia in four. This factor suggests that Virginia's economy has been considerably more robust and dynamic than Maryland's economy has been during this period of time.

One thing we do note is that in bad economic times, which correspond to negative growth rates, each state's performance is similar, while Virginia has typically outstripped Maryland in good economic times. Even though its economy has gone through larger boom-bust type cycles, Virginia's busts have been no worse than those of Maryland's less dynamic economy.

That's not the entire story though, since we still need to consider the change in each state's population over time. To do that, we'll calculate each state's percentage of the number of tax returns with an AGI of $200,000 or more with respect to the total number of tax returns filed in each tax year from 1997 through 2010.

This chart is telling because what it communicates is that while Maryland has long had a larger share of higher income earners as compared to its full population of income tax filers, Virginia's population of high income earners as a share of its full population of income tax filers has nearly fully converged with the level observed in Maryland.

Taken all together with the data presented in the previous charts, what that means is that Virginia is doing much better than Maryland in attracting a growing number of high income earners to live and work within its state borders. If all things had been equal, we would see the gap between the percentage share of high AGI tax filers for Maryland and Virginia either hold largely constant over time, or if Maryland were a more positive place for high income earners, the gap would grow over time as Maryland's share of these tax filers would separate from Virginia. Instead, it appears that high income earners are increasingly finding their homes more often in Virginia than in Maryland.

There are reasons for that. And though this analysis doesn't definitively answer the question, each state's relative level of taxation on high income earners and their influence on the choice of where to live and work is among the reasons for what we observe.

References

IRS. Statistics of Income. Historical Table 2. 1997-2010. Accessed 17 July 2012.