What Leaders Should Know about Courage

On the morning of March 16, 1968, Warrant Officer One Hugh Thompson JI. flew above the hamlet of Son My, near the village of My Lai in the Republic of Vietnam, in support of U.S. Army ground operations. His mission was dangerous but routine-provide reconnaissance for a battalion task force searching for enemy forces. What he saw and did that day, however, would irrevocably change his life. The My Lai massacre is a well-documented stain on American military history: An infantry company led by Captain Ernest Medina, Lieutenant William Calley, and others entered Son My and systematically murdered hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. Villagers were raped, bodies mutilated, children summarily executed in front of their parents. Seeing the carnage below; Thompson and his crew-Specialist Glenn Andreotta and Specialist Lawrence Colburn-placed their helicopter between American forces and the villagers. Thompson dismounted from his pilot\u27s seat, then instructed his crew to cover him with machine-gun fire if the Americans began firing at the group of civilians he intended to help. He was aware that the order put him at risk of a court-martial or possible injury. Thompson coaxed several Vietnamese from a bunker and aboard evacuation helicopters and later evacuated a wounded young boy to a Vietnamese military hospital. Upon returning to base, he reported the massacre to his superiors, who immediately ordered an end to hostilities in Son My. Commanders repeatedly tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. In a ploy to keep Thompson quiet, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions that day, though he later threw away the bogus citation because it stated his heroism was a result of withstanding intense crossfire between friendly and enemy forces. This of course was a lie. Subsequent investigations by the military and the media found that the villagers were unarmed, so there could have been no crossfire. Thompson made his official report-he had witnessed American soldiers kill unarmed Vietnamese civilians-and he stuck by it despite intense pressure to recant. He repeatedly told his story to investigators and testified before the House Armed Services Committee. Committee members lambasted him for his actions, and Chairman Mendal Rivers of South Carolina stated that Thompson was the only person involved in the event who should be held accountable because he had turned his weapons against fellow Americans. Rivers even tried to have Thompson court-martialed, to no avail. Nevertheless, the damage was done, and Thompson received hate mail and death threats. Thompson\u27s story, however, did not end with the investigation. He continued to fly in Vietnam and was shot down several times. He spent many months recovering in a hospital after breaking his back in a crash, but even that could not stop him. Thompson was commissioned and continued to fly in the Army, retiring in 1983 as a major. The immediate years following My Lai had been tough for him. He was constantly shunned by fellow officers, who considered him a turncoat. The public\u27s perception of Thompson began to change in the decades following My Lai. A letter-writing campaign gained traction, and he and his crew were eventually awarded the Soldier\u27s Medal-the highest award for valor not involving enemy forces and a more poignant replacement of the Distinguished Flying Cross he had received during the attempted cover-up. He received numerous civilian honors for his actions at My Lai, including the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award. Thompson spoke of My Lai and battlefield ethics often and lectured at the United States Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies, though doing so took an emotional toll on him. Even after a diagnosis of terminal cancer, Thompson pressed on with his message: Common people can act with uncommon courage when necessary, and doing so can make a difference in the lives of many

What Leaders Should Know about Courage

On the morning of March 16, 1968, Warrant Officer One Hugh Thompson JI. flew above the hamlet of Son My, near the village of My Lai in the Republic of Vietnam, in support of U.S. Army ground operations. His mission was dangerous but routine-provide reconnaissance for a battalion task force searching for enemy forces. What he saw and did that day, however, would irrevocably change his life. The My Lai massacre is a well-documented stain on American military history: An infantry company led by Captain Ernest Medina, Lieutenant William Calley, and others entered Son My and systematically murdered hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. Villagers were raped, bodies mutilated, children summarily executed in front of their parents. Seeing the carnage below; Thompson and his crew-Specialist Glenn Andreotta and Specialist Lawrence Colburn-placed their helicopter between American forces and the villagers. Thompson dismounted from his pilot\u27s seat, then instructed his crew to cover him with machine-gun fire if the Americans began firing at the group of civilians he intended to help. He was aware that the order put him at risk of a court-martial or possible injury. Thompson coaxed several Vietnamese from a bunker and aboard evacuation helicopters and later evacuated a wounded young boy to a Vietnamese military hospital. Upon returning to base, he reported the massacre to his superiors, who immediately ordered an end to hostilities in Son My. Commanders repeatedly tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. In a ploy to keep Thompson quiet, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions that day, though he later threw away the bogus citation because it stated his heroism was a result of withstanding intense crossfire between friendly and enemy forces. This of course was a lie. Subsequent investigations by the military and the media found that the villagers were unarmed, so there could have been no crossfire. Thompson made his official report-he had witnessed American soldiers kill unarmed Vietnamese civilians-and he stuck by it despite intense pressure to recant. He repeatedly told his story to investigators and testified before the House Armed Services Committee. Committee members lambasted him for his actions, and Chairman Mendal Rivers of South Carolina stated that Thompson was the only person involved in the event who should be held accountable because he had turned his weapons against fellow Americans. Rivers even tried to have Thompson court-martialed, to no avail. Nevertheless, the damage was done, and Thompson received hate mail and death threats. Thompson\u27s story, however, did not end with the investigation. He continued to fly in Vietnam and was shot down several times. He spent many months recovering in a hospital after breaking his back in a crash, but even that could not stop him. Thompson was commissioned and continued to fly in the Army, retiring in 1983 as a major. The immediate years following My Lai had been tough for him. He was constantly shunned by fellow officers, who considered him a turncoat. The public\u27s perception of Thompson began to change in the decades following My Lai. A letter-writing campaign gained traction, and he and his crew were eventually awarded the Soldier\u27s Medal-the highest award for valor not involving enemy forces and a more poignant replacement of the Distinguished Flying Cross he had received during the attempted cover-up. He received numerous civilian honors for his actions at My Lai, including the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award. Thompson spoke of My Lai and battlefield ethics often and lectured at the United States Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies, though doing so took an emotional toll on him. Even after a diagnosis of terminal cancer, Thompson pressed on with his message: Common people can act with uncommon courage when necessary, and doing so can make a difference in the lives of many

Happiness Drives Performance

The article of record as published may be found at https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/happiness-drives-performance-103120049

The Connection Between Pulsation, Mass Loss and Circumstellar Shells in Classical Cepheids

Recent observations of Cepheids using infrared interferometry and Spitzer photometry have detected the presence of circumstellar envelopes (CSE) of dust and it has been hypothesized that the CSE's are due to dust forming in a Cepheid wind. Here we use a modified Castor, Abbott & Klein formalism to produce a Cepheid wind, and this is used to estimate the contribution of mass loss to the Cepheid mass discrepancy Furthermore, we test the OGLE-III Classical Cepheids using the IR fluxes from the SAGE survey to determine if Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheids have CSE's. It is found that IR excess is a common phenomenon for LMC Cepheids and that the resulting mass-loss rates can explain at least a fraction of the Cepheid mass discrepancy, depending on the assumed dust-to-gas ratio in the wind.Comment: 5 pages, 3 figures, proceeding for "Stellar Pulsation: Challenges for Theory and Observation", Santa Fe 200

Developing the Psychological Capital of Resiliency

In these turbulent times, we propose the importance of developing the psychological capital dimension of resiliency. After providing the theoretical background and meaning of psychological capital in general and resiliency in particular, the authors present proactive and reactive human resource development (HRD) strategies for its development. The proactive HRD includes increasing psychological assets, decreasing risk factors, and facilitating processes that allow human resources to enhance their resilience. The reactive HRD largely draws from a broaden-and-build model of positive emotions and self-enhancement, external attribution, and hardiness. The article includes specific guidelines for HRD applications and an agenda for future needed research

Leading in Dangerous Situations \u3ci\u3eAn Overview of the Unique Challenges\u3c/i\u3e

The idea for Leadership in Dangerous Situations: A Handbook for the Armed Forces, Emergency Services, and First Responders evolved from the editors\u27 collective experiences and research in dangerous contexts and from Patrick J. Sweeneys experience directing a course in combat leadership at the United States Military Academy, West Point. We discovered that the leadership literature lacked a comprehensive guide outlining how and why leadership is different in dangerous contexts; how to prepare oneself and followers for the unique challenges of operating in such contexts and how to recover following exposure to adversity; how to lead when group members face danger; and how to leverage organizational systems to facilitate group members\u27 resilience in the face of and after adversities associated with dangerous contexts. The intent of Leadership in Dangerous Situations is to fill the gap in the leadership literature by providing the brave men and women who risk their lives to serve the public a comprehensive and easily understandable guide, backed by research, to prepare themselves and their units for the unique psychological, social, and organizational challenges of leading and operating in dangerous contexts

Trust \u3ci\u3eThe Key to Leading When Lives Are on the Line\u3c/i\u3e

The Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called in to assist the bureau\u27s Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team in Memphis to apprehend a married couple wanted on drug trafficking charges. The fugitive couple and an adult son, all with criminal records, were believed to be living in trailers in a mountain valley where outsiders would be easily noticed. The fugitives were known to stockpile weapons and had vowed never to be taken alive by law enforcement. Thus the FBI considered them to be armed and extremely dangerous. Two HRT snipers along with two SWAT snipers were given the mission of positively identifying the fugitives and providing security and containment for the assault force. The snipers would have to travel several kilometers through wooded, mountainous terrain using night vision goggles (NVGs). The SWAT snipers did not have nighttime, overland movement capability, which is why HRT was brought in

Dopamine D_2-receptor activation elicits akinesia, rigidity, catalepsy, and tremor in mice expressing hypersensitive 4 nicotinic receptors via a cholinergic-dependent mechanism

Recent studies suggest that high-affinity neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) containing α4 and β2 subunits (α4β2*) functionally interact with G-protein-coupled dopamine (DA) D_2 receptors in basal ganglia. We hypothesized that if a functional interaction between these receptors exists, then mice expressing an M2 point mutation (Leu9'Ala) rendering 4 nAChRs hypersensitive to ACh may exhibit altered sensitivity to a D_2-receptor agonist. When challenged with the D_(2)R agonist, quinpirole (0.5–10 mg/kg), Leu9'Ala mice, but not wild-type (WT) littermates, developed severe, reversible motor impairment characterized by rigidity, catalepsy, akinesia, and tremor. While striatal DA tissue content, baseline release, and quinpirole-induced DA depletion did not differ between Leu9'Ala and WT mice, quinpirole dramatically increased activity of cholinergic striatal interneurons only in mutant animals, as measured by increased c-Fos expression in choline acetyltransferase (ChAT)-positive interneurons. Highlighting the importance of the cholinergic system in this mouse model, inhibiting the effects of ACh by blocking muscarinic receptors, or by selectively activating hypersensitive nAChRs with nicotine, rescued motor symptoms. This novel mouse model mimics the imbalance between striatal DA/ACh function associated with severe motor impairment in disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, and the data suggest that a D_(2)R–α4*-nAChR functional interaction regulates cholinergic interneuron activity.—Zhao-Shea, R., Cohen, B. N., Just, H., McClure-Begley, T., Whiteaker, P., Grady, S. R., Salminen, O., Gardner, P. D., Lester, H. A., Tapper, A. R. Dopamine D2-receptor activation elicits akinesia, rigidity, catalepsy, and tremor in mice expressing hypersensitive α4 nicotinic receptors via a cholinergic-dependent mechanism

The Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness Program Evaluation. Report #4: Evaluation of Resilience Training and Mental and Behavioral Health Outcomes

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the effectiveness of Master Resilience Training, which is a pillar of the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2) program. The report evaluates the relationship between resilience training and diagnoses for mental health or substance abuse problems and whether this relationship was mediated by Soldiers’ self-reported resilience/ psychological health (R/PH). In other words, we tested whether Soldiers with MRT trainers in their units experienced increases in self-reported R/PH, and whether increases in self-reported R/PH were associated with reduced odds of Soldiers receiving diagnoses for mental health or substance abuse problems. The results revealed that exposure to resilience training increased various aspects of Soldier R/PH, which, in turn, appeared to be associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving a diagnosis for a mental health problem (i.e., anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Thus, this finding suggested that the reduced odds of receiving a diagnosis for a mental health problem was partly due to increases in indicators of R/PH that were likely associated with exposure to resilience training. Moreover, the findings provided evidence that Soldiers exposed to the training were diagnosed with substance abuse problems at a significantly lower rate than Soldiers who were not exposed to the training. Importantly, the results of this evaluation bolster findings from previous evaluations by employing more sophisticated and stringent statistical techniques to demonstrate that resilience training can improve the R/PH of Soldiers. Additionally, the analyses included in this evaluation accounted for the potential effects of Soldier deployment; these considerations were not made in previous evaluations of the program. Therefore, the current evaluation provides further evidence that resilience training may improve the self-reported R/PH of Soldiers, even when controlling for a wider range of factors that might be expected to impact the R/PH of Soldiers. The findings of this evaluation have a number of implications. First, this evaluation provides some evidence that resilience training may be related to improvements on objective measures of mental and behavioral outcomes (i.e., diagnoses for mental health and substance abuse problems). Second, when considered at the organizational level, the effects of resilience training may reach beyond improving the health of individual Soldiers by improving the aggregate health and effectiveness of the Army as an organization. Given that diagnoses for mental health disorders are a leading cause for hospitalization in the Armed Forces (Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, 2012b), the findings provide evidence that interventions such as those offered by CSF2 may help relieve the stress that is currently being placed on medical services in the Army. In sum, it appears that the improvement of R/PH through resilience training efforts can protect against problems that undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. As with any large-scale evaluation of this type, there are a number of limitations to be acknowledged. First, the timing of deployment cycles of Soldiers in the eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) that were examined introduced potential confounds with regard to the timing of resilience training and data collection efforts for use in this report. Specifically, it appeared that the timing of deployments was such that Soldiers with MRTs in their units were more likely to have been deployed to combat than were those who had no MRT trainers in their units. This means that Soldiers who received resilience training were also more likely to have experienced combat which likely increased the probability of subsequently experiencing the adverse outcomes examined in this study. While this fact posed a potential confound, statistical controls were put in place that allowed for a meaningful test of the resilience training program’s effect on R/PH and diagnoses for mental health and substance abuse problems. Other limitations of this evaluation effort have been described elsewhere (Lester, Harms, Herian, Krasikova & Beal, 2011c) and are expanded upon later in this report. In light of these limitations, it is important that readers recognize two points when reviewing this report. First, this report builds on previous evaluations of the CSF2 program. Specifically, the analyses used here were more stringent given the nature of the data. It is important to note that, given the more rigorous testing methods, the results of this and previous evaluations are fairly consistent. Second, it is critical to recognize that the findings presented in this report represent the latest effort in an ongoing evaluation of the resilience training program. Future analyses may also be conducted that empirically explore the relationship between resilience training and other objective outcomes. If such analyses are undertaken, it is possible that the results may differ from those presented here and in previous evaluations due to the amount of time that has passed since implementation of the training program. In the end, however, the effectiveness of CSF2 cannot be judged solely on the results of any single evaluation, but instead must be considered in light of the entire body of work done to date