Army Career Essay

Introduction
Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians (NEOD), the organization that I am currently a part of, are a small group (1500 personnel) trained in the art of bomb disposal. As a scalable and agile force, we specialize in a plethora of complex and dangerous tasks ranging from IED to chemical and biological weapon remediation. Post 9/11 global terrorist activities placed tremendous “operational stress” upon the NEOD community with relentless training and deployments (Jones, Hammond & Platoni, 2013, p.8). Successfully responding to, and assuming tactical command of thousands of dangerous events every year merely increased the demand signal from outside organizations. Success breeds success. However, as a Navy EOD Officer in Charge
uniform), a new type of partner nation relationship development has begun. American troops are less often “large and in charge” and more frequently conducting advise and assist missions supporting partner nation capacity building. Termed “The Forever War,” or the “Long War,” skills now required of troops are more dynamic and empathetic (Filkins, 2008, p.121). Emotional intelligence as well as language and cultural skills are necessary to build the continuity, competence, and habitual relationships so critical in combating insurgencies. Our military needs to be able to both dial up and dial down skills dependent upon the situation, such as disarming bombs or having casual conversations with partners during a deployment. Broad spectrum intercultural and interpersonal skills are critical facets of success in the Forever War, but remain under emphasized. As Sun Tzu noted, “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer defeat” (Sun, Sun & Sawyer, 2007,
Individuals, and in this case mid-level managers must clearly articulate apprehensions, directly challenging superiors with the use of humility and positive communication skills. “Ethical communication forges collective understanding and the creation of meaning between individuals” (May, 2013, p.137). Prior to the negotiation of the second in charge, the situation was burdensome, and “negative emotions lead parties to escalate the conflict” (Lewicki, Saunders, Barry, 2011, p. 130). However, the fostering of communication and decision to approach the Company Commander created a constructive conflict and rekindled professional relationships. Additionally, the fact that the second officer in charge had an innovative solution (act as liaison with cultural support teams) exposed underlying organizational issues and determined what the true elements of the conflict were. On an individual basis, it showed maturity, empathetic understanding, and how an individual can contribute during a tumultuous time. By recognizing dysfunctional patterns of leadership and bringing them to the attention of leadership, the Company Commander understood the recommendations, and made a monumental shift from defensive to accommodating (Miller, 2014). The individuals took the correct course of action in this situation, as the encounter could have spiraled even more out of control. My final