View Full Version : Good article on leadership + a hero!
Trip_Wire (RIP)
08-11-2005, 12:30
By Col. James Moschgat, 12th Operations Group Commander, graduate USAFA class of 1977
William "Bill" Crawford certainly was an unimpressive figure, one you could easily overlook during a hectic day at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Mr. Crawford, as most of us referred to him back in the late 1970s, was our squadron janitor.
While we cadets busied ourselves preparing for academic exams, athletic events, Saturday morning parades and room inspections, or never-ending leadership classes, Bill quietly moved about the squadron mopping and buffing floors, emptying trash cans, cleaning toilets, or just tidying up the mess 100 college-age kids can leave in a dormitory. Sadly, and for many years, few of us gave him much notice, rendering little more than a passing nod or throwing a curt, "G'morning!" in his direction as we hurried off to our daily duties.
Why? Perhaps it was because of the way he did his job-he always kept the squadron area spotlessly clean, even the toilets and showers gleamed. Frankly, he did his job so well, none of us had to notice or get involved. After all, cleaning toilets was his job, not ours.
Maybe it was his physical appearance that made him disappear into the background. Bill didn't move very quickly and, in fact, you could say he even shuffled a bit, as if he suffered from some sort of injury. His gray hair and wrinkled face made him appear ancient to a group of young cadets. And his crooked smile, well, it looked a little funny.
Face it, Bill was an old man working in a young person's world. What did he have to offer us on a personal level? Finally, maybe it was Mr. Crawford's personality that rendered him almost invisible to the young people around him. Bill was shy, almost painfully so. He seldom spoke to a cadet unless they addressed him first, and that didn't happen very often. Our janitor always buried himself in his work, moving about with stooped shoulders, a quiet gait, and an averted gaze. If he noticed the hustle and bustle of cadet life around him, it was hard to tell. So, for whatever reason, Bill blended into the woodwork and became just another fixture around the squadron. The Academy, one of our nation's premier leadership laboratories, kept us busy from dawn till dusk. And Mr. Crawford...well, he was just a janitor.
That changed one fall Saturday afternoon in 1976. I was reading a book about World War II and the tough Allied ground campaign in Italy, when I stumbled across an incredible story. On Sept. 13, 1943, a Private William Crawford from Colorado, assigned to the 36th Infantry Division, had been involved in some bloody fighting on Hill 424 near Altavilla, Italy. The words on the page leapt out at me: "in the face of intense and overwhelming hostile fire ... with no regard for personal safety ... on his own initiative, Private Crawford single-handedly attacked fortified enemy positions." It continued, "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty, the President of the United States ..."
"Holy cow," I said to my roommate, "you're not going to believe this, but I think our janitor is a Medal of Honor winner." We all knew Mr. Crawford was a WWII Army vet, but that didn't keep my friend from looking at me as if I was some sort of alien being. Nonetheless, we couldn't wait to ask Bill about the story on Monday. We met Mr. Crawford bright and early Monday and showed him the page in question from the book, anticipation and doubt on our faces. He starred at it for a few silent moments and then quietly uttered something like, "Yep, that's me." Mouths agape, my roommate and I looked at one another, then at the book, and quickly back at our janitor. Almost at once we both stuttered, "Why didn't you ever tell us about it?" He slowly replied after some thought, "That was one day in my life and it happened a long time ago."
I guess we were all at a loss for words after that. We had to hurry off to class and Bill, well, he had chores to attend to. However, after that brief exchange, things were never again the same around our squadron. Word spread like wildfire among the cadets that we had a hero in our midst-Mr. Crawford, our janitor, had won the Medal! Cadets who had once passed by Bill with hardly a glance, now greeted him with a smile and a respectful, "Good morning, Mr. Crawford."
Those who had before left a mess for the "janitor" to clean up started taking it upon themselves to put things in order. Most cadets routinely stopped to talk to Bill throughout the day and we even began inviting him to our formal squadron functions. He'd show up dressed in a conservative dark suit and quietly talk to those who approached him, the only sign of his heroics being a simple blue, star-spangled lapel pin.
Almost overnight, Bill went from being a simple fixture in our squadron to one of our teammates. Mr. Crawford changed too, but you had to look closely to notice the difference. After that fall day in
1976, he seemed to move with more purpose, his shoulders didn't seem to be as stooped, he met our greetings with a direct gaze and a stronger "good morning" in return, and he flashed his crooked smile more often. The squadron gleamed as always, but everyone now seemed to notice it more. Bill even got to know most of us by our first names, something that didn't happen often at the Academy. While no one ever formally acknowledged the change, I think we became Bill's cadets and his squadron. As often happens in life, events sweep us away from those in our past.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
08-11-2005, 12:31
The last time I saw Bill was on graduation day in June 1977. As I walked out of the squadron for the last time, he shook my hand and simply said, "Good luck, young man." With that, I embarked on a career that has been truly lucky and blessed. Mr. Crawford continued to work at the Academy and eventually retired in his native Colorado where he resides today, one of four Medal of Honor winners living in a small town. A wise person once said, "It's not life that's important, but those you meet along the way that make the difference." Bill was one who made a difference for me. While I haven't seen Mr. Crawford in over twenty years, he'd probably be surprised to know I think of him often. Bill Crawford, our janitor, taught me many valuable, unforgettable leadership lessons. Here are ten I'd like to share with you.
1. Be Cautious of Labels. Labels you place on people may define your relationship to them and bound their potential. Sadly, and for a long time, we labeled Bill as just a janitor, but he was so much more. Therefore, be cautious of a leader who callously says, "Hey, he's just an Airman." Likewise, don't tolerate the O-1, who says, "I can't do that, I'm just a lieutenant."
2. Everyone Deserves Respect. Because we hung the "janitor" label on Mr. Crawford, we often wrongly treated him with less respect than others around us. He deserved much more, and not just because he was a Medal of Honor winner. Bill deserved respect because he was a janitor, walked among us, and was a part of our team.
3. Courtesy Makes a Difference. Be courteous to all around you, regardless of rank or position. Military customs, as well as common courtesies, help bond a team. When our daily words to Mr. Crawford turned from perfunctory "hellos" to heartfelt greetings, his demeanor and personality outwardly changed. It made a difference for all of us.
4. Take Time to Know Your People. Life in the military is hectic, but that's no excuse for not knowing the people you work for and with. For years a hero walked among us at the Academy and we never knew it. Who are the heroes that walk in your midst?
5. Anyone Can Be a Hero. Mr. Crawford certainly didn't fit anyone's standard definition of a hero. Moreover, he was just a private on the day he won his Medal. Don't sell your people short, for any one of them may be the hero who rises to the occasion when duty calls. On the other hand, it's easy to turn to your proven performers when the chips are down, but don't ignore the rest of the team. Today's rookie could and should be tomorrow's superstar.
6. Leaders Should Be Humble. Most modern day heroes and some leaders are anything but humble, especially if you calibrate your "hero meter" on today's athletic fields. End zone celebrations and self-aggrandizement are what we've come to expect from sports greats. Not Mr. Crawford-he was too busy working to celebrate his past heroics. Leaders would be well-served to do the same.
7. Life Won't Always Hand You What You Think You Deserve. We in the military work hard and, dang it, we deserve recognition, right? However, sometimes you just have to persevere, even when accolades don't come your way. Perhaps you weren't nominated for junior officer or airman of the quarter as you thought you should - don't let that stop you.
8. Don't pursue glory; pursue excellence. Private Bill Crawford didn't pursue glory; he did his duty and then swept floors for a living. No Job is beneath a Leader. If Bill Crawford, a Medal of Honor winner, could clean latrines and smile, is there a job beneath your dignity? Think about it.
9. Pursue Excellence. No matter what task life hands you, do it well. Dr. Martin Luther King said, "If life makes you a street sweeper, be the best street sweeper you can be." Mr. Crawford modeled that philosophy and helped make our dormitory area a home.
10. Life is a Leadership Laboratory. All too often we look to some school or PME class to teach us about leadership when, in fact, life is a leadership laboratory. Those you meet everyday will teach you enduring lessons if you just take time to stop, look and listen.
I spent four years at the Air Force Academy, took dozens of classes, read hundreds of books, and met thousands of great people. I gleaned leadership skills from all of them, but one of the people I remember most is Mr. Bill Crawford and the lessons he unknowingly taught. Don't miss your opportunity to learn. Bill Crawford was a janitor. However, he was also a teacher, friend, role model and one great American hero. Thanks, Mr. Crawford, for some valuable leadership lessons. And now, for the rest of the story.........
Pvt William John Crawford was a platoon scout for 3rd Platoon of Company L 142nd Regiment 36th Division (Texas National Guard) and won the Medal Of Honor for his actions on Hill 424, just 4 days after the invasion at Salerno. You can read his citation at www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia1.htm. (See below.)
On Hill 424, Pvt Crawford took out 3 enemy machine guns before darkness fell, halting the platoon's advance. Pvt Crawford could not be found and was assumed dead. The request for his MOH was quickly approved. MG Terry Allen presented the posthumous MOH to Bill Crawford's father, George, on
11 May 1944 in Camp (now Fort) Carson, near Pueblo.
Nearly two months after that, it was learned that Pvt Crawford was alive in a POW camp in Germany. During his captivity, a German guard clubbed him with his rifle. Bill overpowered him, took the rifle away, and beat the guard unconscious. A German doctor's testimony saved him from severe punishment, perhaps death.
To stay ahead of the advancing Russian army, the prisoners were marched
500 miles in 52 days in the middle of the German winter, subsisting on one potato a day.
An allied tank column liberated the camp in the spring of 1945, and Pvt Crawford took his first hot shower in 18 months on VE Day. Pvt Crawford stayed in the army before retiring as a MSG and becoming a janitor.
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan officially presented the MOH to Bill Crawford.
TW,
Thanks for a great post.
Thanks Trip Wire. Excellent post.
Doc
A very enlightening post Trip Wire, thanks.
alphamale
08-12-2005, 07:26
Thanks for the post Trip_Wire.
1. Be Cautious of Labels. Labels you place on people may define your relationship to them and bound their potential. Sadly, and for a long time, we labeled Bill as just a janitor, but he was so much more. Therefore, be cautious of a leader who callously says, "Hey, he's just an Airman." Likewise, don't tolerate the O-1, who says, "I can't do that, I'm just a lieutenant."Labels are such a mental crutch. They appeal to our brain's need for simplicity and order. I used to think in terms of labels until I went to college, and my perception of who fit the label "smart kid" was blown to bits.
Out of every ~ 9 applicants who made it through the entire selection process, one of those 9 were then selected. So based on this University's many decades of making these decisions, and based on how incredibly well most of them could solve problems, my new peers were, by these yardsticks, "smart". Yet some of them also completely fit the "label": "druggies", "brainless (not!) jocks", "sluts", "caesars", etc. It was scandalous to my ultra-conservative highly-sheltered TheMathNetwork-only upbringing and made for an eye-opening first semester given the group work required.
At my first job after college, I tutored 2 janitors who worked in my building to help them get their GED (in the US, the high school equivalency diploma). These were my fear-less days; I somehow reasoned that 1:1 would be too personal but 2 at a time would be 'safer'. One was very smart but almost illiterate. The other was... slow. The approach I took, therefore, was to teach them both a concept, and then have one teach the other. This helped prove if the smart one understood it and helped zero in quickly on what the smarter one did not understand. Theoretically, they were supposed to alternate who taught whom. This approach made it easier for the slower one to save face and because he was taught everything twice. But it was not me repeating it, it was a peer of his, showing him how, in different words. Both passed.
When I travel across the pond and work with new clients, I have ~ 60 seconds to break the chick label. Occasionally people are smart enough to figure out in advance that a company wouldn't spend $8000 per trip on someone who could not get the job done. But most still get stuck in labels. Sometimes I'm with my boss and he wants me to keep that label for half the day, and make like a sponge and absorb. Then he would have me lead off in the afternoon with an analysis and something that would indirectly challenge them. In a nice way, of course. I could see the pain on their faces as they were having to re-assemble their labels.
One thing I've noticed over the past couple years is that men who have reached a high level of achievement can completely lose their ability to be good students and learners from others. They get caught up in their own "label", as this is important to their ego. They want to stay in ::Instructor-Mode::. That is their comfort zone. They range from extremely or at least somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that someone perceived "lesser" than they could teach them something new. I think my ability to shift effortlessly from instructor mode to student mode and back, after either accepting or rejecting inputs based on thought, not ego, is a huge advantage in my work. Likewise, to compensate for those who can't, I've learned to make suggestions for change and offer differing opinions in the most oblique manner possible. Usually ;).
The final pair of labels I've abandoned as being meaningful and useful are "good" and "bad". After several years of dealing with the criminal [in]justice system, it all seems very gray. I have shifted to thinking of it as being principled, or not. Strong people are principled. Weak are un-principled. A principled person's actions, taken in isolation, can be objectively good, objectively bad, technically criminal, etc. A strong principled person is willing to accept those consequences, whatever they may be. I'd rather have friends who are principled than friends who are "good" anyday.
FrontSight
The Reaper
08-12-2005, 08:03
FS:
Very insightful.
Thanks for sharing.
Private Crawford, thanks for your service.
TR
I have no real problem with using "labels" to help me understand the world and the people around me. If a label is of any heuristic value, it aggregates the most significant elements of underlying truth in a useful way. The label's utility lies in its ability to help you shortcut decision making. It does this by grouping individuals with important like characteristics so that they can be responded to in a consistent manner. The danger comes when labels are (1) applied with insuffcient information (2) not reexamined upon the introduction of new information or (3) used primarily to reinforce a previously-held view of the "way things are."
FS, in your language, labels are just an interpersonal segmentation scheme. If your labels are getting you in trouble or yielding little utility, the problem is likely one of those named above, or perhaps the segmentation scheme is too granular or not granular enough. Saying that you are against labels, though, is the moral equivalent of saying that you are against treating like people in a like manner. BTW, the same flaws of execution that we individually commit when labeling are those that can yield perverse, unfair or useless results when "profiling", IMHO. In a recent book titled Blink (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316172324/qid=1123855063/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2826970-2060812) , Malcolm Gladwell does a convincing job of showing that the human brain not only applies most of the highest-value labels subconsciously, but that it makes use of those labels very efficiently and to great effect. It seems that our conscious attempts at labeling are where we get ourselves in trouble most frequently.
FS, not to pick on you, but I also think that your "principled" criteria is flawed. Committment to principle is a necessary but not sufficient element of character. It implies a committment to internal consistency and a careful examination of the outward world, both good qualities. However, a sociopath could be principled and therefore desirable under your scheme. A sociopath observes the outward world carefully so that he can bend it to his will, is likely to have a well-defined set of operating principles, and is usually consistent to a fault. Committment to principle alone is not a useful segmentation scheme.
A better criteria is integrity. According to Stephen Carter, author of Integrity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060928077/qid=1123853708/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2826970-2060812) , the quality has three essential parts:
1. Knowing the difference between right and wrong
2. Acting on the knowledge of that difference, and
3. Maintaining an open and public committment to acting on that difference
Thus, being principled is a necessary but not sufficient element of living with integrity. However, integrity does not allow an individual to maintain and act upon a belief system that unjustly harms others or violates our committments to God. Islamofascists are principled but have no integrity.
So, just to adhere to type, I'll give you my recommendations in the form of three bullet points :)
Use labels, but design them as you would a good customer segmentation
Recognize that your brain is doing most of the labeling for you anyway, and trust your instincts
Value people of integrity, not principle (which I believe is what you're doing when you come in here cracking your whip and hyena yelping)
Peregrino
08-12-2005, 11:56
jatx - You were doing great until you applied your definition of integrity. Integrity is "adherence to a code of values." That does not necessarilly mean that those values coincide with your own. Anyone can have integrity - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, Pagans, etc., etc. All they have to do is adhere to the strictures of their belief system. "To thine own self be true." Consistent, predictable, behavior is all civilization requires - because that's what we use to apply the labels and devise mechanisms to govern behavior between individuals or groups. People without integrity, that is those who do not demonstrate consistent behavior are "feared" because the rest of us have no reference point for dealing with them. My .02 - Peregrino
alphamale
08-12-2005, 13:35
If a label is of any heuristic value, it aggregates the most significant elements of underlying truth in a useful way. The label's utility lies in its ability to help you shortcut decision making. It does this by grouping individuals with important like characteristics so that they can be responded to in a consistent manner.Agreed given how you are using Label in that paragraph above. The brain is one massive categorization engine. Everything relates to everything experienced and learned before. Labels as definitions, like in segmentation analysis (and other things similar to that), or even more specifically in defining segment personnas, is a great and necessary thing.
However, that is a different usage or connotation of the word "label" than what I am referring of, which is more similar to the base-topic. I'm referring to "labels" as the mental crutches that people employ them and then consequently disallow or subconsciously filter out certain types of inputs or possibilities because their 'label' acts as too strong of a filter. At best, doing that is either harmless or performs some small insignificant social harm. At worst, it can be deadly. (the professional, handsome and charismatic yet psychopathic killer Ted Bundy).
A better criteria is integrity.Probably a better word to communicate what I mean. I was going to say 'principled and moral', but morals... What I consider moral and right and good now is very different than what I used to.
But even using your quoted definition of integrity:
"1. Knowing the difference between right and wrong
2. Acting on the knowledge of that difference, and
3. Maintaining an open and public committment to acting on that difference"
Well... I don't know... I might still mean principled.
For example, I have integrity, but I don't think I am principled, since a lot of my actions are just based on fear.
FrontSight
jatx - You were doing great until you applied your definition of integrity. Integrity is "adherence to a code of values." That does not necessarilly mean that those values coincide with your own. Anyone can have integrity - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, Pagans, etc., etc. All they have to do is adhere to the strictures of their belief system. "To thine own self be true." Consistent, predictable, behavior is all civilization requires - because that's what we use to apply the labels and devise mechanisms to govern behavior between individuals or groups. People without integrity, that is those who do not demonstrate consistent behavior are "feared" because the rest of us have no reference point for dealing with them. My .02 - Peregrino
Peregrino,
I believe that you are using "principled" and "integrity" almost interchangably, which is not incorrect according to their dictionary meanings. However, Carter expands the definiition of integrity a bit to include objective right and wrong as a reference point. I enjoyed his arguments and so am using "integrity" with the added connotation. You make an interesting point about the practical demands of society, though. If someone acts with predictable internal consistency, that is usually enough for a productive exchange.
Peregrino
08-12-2005, 15:57
Peregrino,
I believe that you are using "principled" and "integrity" almost interchangably, which is not incorrect according to their dictionary meanings. However, Carter expands the definiition of integrity a bit to include objective right and wrong as a reference point. I enjoyed his arguments and so am using "integrity" with the added connotation. You make an interesting point about the practical demands of society, though. If someone acts with predictable internal consistency, that is usually enough for a productive exchange.
I went to the Amazon site to check the reviews. I liked the one titled "religous gobbleygook". All of the reviews lead me to believe that Carter is attempting to define a broad concept with his own narrowly idealized morality. I will not be reading his book even though I have no problem with the idealized version of Judeo-Christian morality. As a meter to regulate social conduct, it serves better than anything else Western civilization has attempted. But it is not the only "principle" nor does adhering to an opposing value system mean that you lack integrity. I believe "principled" and "integrity" have considerable overlap but they are not interchangable. I also believe they apply equally to all value systems. (I don't have to agree with a person's beliefs to acknowlege that they can demonstrate integrity and principled behavior.) I illustrate my point with the following "broad brush" characterizations. Feel free to disagree. Jimmy Carter has integrity. Richard Nixon was principled. Ronald Regan was both, Bill Clinton is neither. Who set the leadership example worth emulating? (To get back to the topic for this thread.) Consider that "self-interest" and "situational ethics" are both "principles" yet both require a moral flexibility that would make true "integrity", e.g. consistency/predictability of behavior and rigid adherence to a personal/internally acceptable moral code impossible. More stirring the pot - Peregrino
Peregrino,
Am I to take it that you are defining integrity as principled behavior + moral scrupulousness? If so, I'd be inclined to agree with your characterizations above.
::Holding pot while you stir::
Peregrino
08-12-2005, 16:50
Peregrino,
Am I to take it that you are defining integrity as principled behavior + moral scrupulousness? If so, I'd be inclined to agree with your characterizations above.
::Holding pot while you stir::
Yes - though we've wandered far afield from the purpose of this thread. Would that the norm for integrity and principles was Mr. Crawford's. As it is he represents a goal (that I wish more would try to emulate). Genuine humility is a rare gem. I had read COL Moschgat's "Lessons" before and still find them valuable. The most important one - from a practical perspective - is the necessity to re-evaluate labels regularly, even without new input. We all use them, unfortunately what starts as a convenience becomes a limiting crutch - one that eventually hurts the user more than the object of its disregard. My thanks to TW for bringing this story out "into the light" again. Peregrino
The Reaper
08-12-2005, 18:51
"Integrity", to me, has been defined to be doing the right thing, whether anyone is watching, or not.
TR
alphamale
08-13-2005, 05:49
Peregrino, interesting analogy you made
re: Carter --> Nixon --> Reagan --> Clinton
re: integrity --> principled --> both --> neither
Genuine humility is a rare gem.While I know I'm not a good judge of character, that is one thing I can tell very quickly about someone. Best example of this was an Israeli boss (VP) I had. He was an extremely accomplished person in his field, carried himself in a way that commanded respect, yet one could immediately know he was a very humble person. To be humble at that level usually means the person also has the ability to step outside of their own skin and understand and articulate others' points of view as though they were his own, even if he disagreed with them. Made for interesting meetings. He was one of the fastest people at moving a room full of people to the same "place" (decision) I've ever seen, without angering, even in controversial decisions.
The most important one - from a practical perspective - is the necessity to re-evaluate labels regularly, even without new input. We all use them, unfortunately what starts as a convenience becomes a limiting crutch - one that eventually hurts the user more than the object of its disregard. My thanks to TW for bringing this story out "into the light" again. PeregrinoDefinitely! From a practical work perspective also - when the labels used for the segmentation analysis are no longer valid for the decisions you need to make. It's like how acronyms can change in purpose over time and people forget what the acronym ever meant and when someone asks, it has nothing to do with how it's used now.
though we've wandered far afield from the purpose of this thread.Hmm... I think these topics are very related to the traits discussed in the base-topic, and the type of person that Private Crawford is.
FrontSight