Avoiding the "army of professional amateurs" paradox: capturing tacit knowledge in our workforce

Defense AT&L, March-April, 2008 by Doug McCallum

I first heard the term "Army of professional amateurs" when I was a lieutenant in Germany in 1982. Our battalion's most dynamic infantry company commander, Capt. "Napalm" Jackson, had just finished his company command and was assigned to be the battalion S1 while waiting for his next assignment. Jackson had absolutely no training (or desire) to be a battalion S1, which is the battalion commander's principal staff officer for personnel support and involves responsibility for glorious tasks such as inspecting mail rooms and tracking a multitude of personnel transactions from evaluation reports to urinalysis testing. But, as with any good officer, he quickly learned how to do it.

Jackson used the term "Army of professional amateurs" to describe how, even though our Army's officers were trained in leadership, problem solving, and branch-specific skills, they were frequently put in assignments in which they had no previous technical or regulatory training. This term stuck with me over the rest of my career.

For branch-specific jobs, the Army provided me excellent training, but every time I had to perform a staff job--which became more frequent as I was promoted to higher ranks--I became an amateur again, having to learn new policies, regulations, office networks/relationships, and the large-scale frameworks supporting Army programs. At the upper levels in the Army and joint Department of Defense organizations, officers had to learn highly complex frameworks such as the Quadrennial Defense Review, program objective memorandum cycle, or training transformation to name a few--for which we did not receive any formal training. We had to teach ourselves the knowledge we needed to accomplish these jobs. It wasn't until I retired and had the opportunity to study new technologies in knowledge management (KM) and the challenges of our organizations undergoing Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) that I realized that significant opportunities exist for the Army, joint DoD, and federal civilian communities to end the paradox of being a professional amateur. We can grasp this opportunity by teaching our leaders how to leverage KM technologies. Developing KM as a core leader competency should be included throughout our leadership's training and education systems-from the initial entry employee to the senior leader. Ending this paradox will assist the Army, joint DoD, and federal civilian communities in their need to transform to knowledge-based learning organizations.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A note: While the examples given in this article are based on the Army, they can apply to all of DoD and the federal government.

Turbulent Conditions

Transitions into new jobs for which our leaders are not fully prepared are the norm in the DoD community--both in the civilian and the military workforce. The civilian workforce faces high rates of turnover, the departure of the aging baby boomer population, promotions, transfers, and civilian deployments into combat zones. In fact, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Recruitment and Retention Plan for fiscal years 2003 to 2007 noted that one of the top three issues identified as their most urgent and formidable human capital challenges was training replacements for a projected surge in retirements, particularly in the Senior Executive Service.

One of the biggest KM challenges faces the DoD organizations undergoing a BRAC move. For many organizations affected by BRAC, a high percentage of their current civilian workforce will not make the move to a new location. By some estimates, as much as 70 percent of the federal workforce (and supporting contractors) will not move to new locations. To use a military analogy, the Army's fire support doctrine states that an enemy unit can be destroyed by inflicting 30 percent casualties. This percentage reflects the damage done not just in raw numbers, but to the systems and single points of failures (such as key leaders or logistical support) that will prevent that unit acting in a coherent, synergistic manner. To continue this analogy, the organizations affected by BRAC face a devastating loss of knowledge because some will lose not just 30 percent, but possibly 70 percent of their current workforce.

Since DoD has faced these turbulent conditions for many years, the department is often slow to grasp that knowledge loss is an avoidable situation.

Different Types of Knowledge

Most knowledge constructs establish a difference between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is easy to capture and transfer. This is the knowledge that is documented and stored--files, standard operating procedures, continuity books, presentations in shared folders, or collaborative portals/sites. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that people carry around in their minds, therefore, it is difficult to access. Tacit knowledge is considered more valuable because it provides context for people, places, ideas, and experiences. The tacit aspects of knowledge are those that are difficult to codify and are typically transmitted via training or gained through personal experience.