"That man is definitely Old Guard!" "Well, that's the New Guard for you!" I'd bet that most of you have heard versions of these quotes. Describing something or someone as "Old Guard" or "New Guard" is a pretty frequent occurrence. Perhaps you have even been tagged as one or the other. What do these terms signify, and are they positive or negative? I attended a retirement ceremony recently, where a SCPO celebrated thirty years of exemplary service. Nearing the end of his speech, he made a point to address the district Command Master Chief (who sat in the audience) directly. He said that there was no such thing as "Old Guard" or "New Guard." He was in the Coast Guard, pure and simple.
Evidently, he and the CMC had conversations about the senior chief's Old Guard approach in this new Coast Guard. The SCPO was known as a hard man. He could be harsh with his crew, unyielding with his superiors, and a bit of an egomaniac. However, he was also one of the most knowledgeable and experienced people in his field, a reliable source for the unvarnished truth, and a perfectionist. I believe that an impartial party would probably define him as a man of contradictions. Even so, why did that categorize him as Old Guard?
I've observed that people labeled as Old Guard have some common personality and professional traits. They are resistant to change, pessimistic, and skeptical. They tend to form their leadership/management practices around proven techniques, and look to results over processes. We find them predominately in operational billets where decisiveness and timeliness of action are critical to success. They don't often reflect on their methods, and when they do, their objective has more to do with mission accomplishment than personnel or resource management. On the surface, many of these traits appear to be counter to the service's expectations of its personnel. How can resistance to change, pessimism, and skepticism be anything but faults? Let's look at how they develop.
First, our operational people are trained to be pessimistic. During their years underway, they participate in countless drills preparing for the day when fire will break out, or the ship will be sinking. During their years ashore, they stand countless watches waiting for the distress call that will eventually come. They sail in ships and boats that carry redundant safety features, and participate in boarding teams where every member is paired with another. They work in a dangerous environment where death overshadows all. They constantly prepare for the worst. They know from experience that poor preparation can kill- both those who they are charged to protect and their own. Optimism is a luxury that they can ill afford to have. They have saved lives being pessimists...even their own.
They have also come to believe that an unproven idea or individual is a danger to everyone. Because there are time-restraints in regards to mission accomplishment, these individuals are afforded very little opportunity to spend validating new leadership/management theories- especially in regards to their own personnel. Everyone at an operational unit has to carry his own weight -all of the time. They are skeptical of theories that are based on surveys or study groups rather than the time-tested methods that have been passed down from one generation of Coastie to another. They believe that the "field" is no place for experimentation.
Their approach pits them against a New Guard camp of "reformers." These are personnel in all pay grades, ranks, and experience levels that search for a better way to do the Coast Guard's business. They utilize graphs, statistics, and surveys, and the foundation for their approaches spring from inspirational management/leadership theories and doctoral thesis. They are driven to improve the process of leadership/management. To them, how a mission is accomplished is as important as if the mission is accomplished. Although, one can find them in all type of billets, their jobs are generally not operational. They tend to be somewhat removed from the actual field units. And, in today's environment, they are very people-oriented. So, is one approach better than the other? I think not.
Much of the progress we have seen in personnel management- including educational opportunities, pay and benefits, and improvements in work environments- are due to this "New Guard" camp. Their efforts have resulted in some very tangible improvements in the service. The "Old Guard" camp has also had significant successes. Most of the front-page headlines that regale the public with heroic or seemingly impossible feats are due to these operational men and women. Their ability to get the job done, under any kind of circumstances, is the mainstay of this service's excellent reputation. Their successes, however, don't seem to mitigate the friction that exists between the two groups. There was a very obvious resentment between that SCPO and the CMC. He was angry at being criticized for his methods, and the CMC was annoyed that the SCPO couldn't see his point of view. I think, however, the SCPO had the right idea. He didn't profess himself to be "Old Guard." In fact, he said there was no such thing. I've found this difference in perception to be consistent among others to which I've talked. By labeling the SCPO as "Old Guard" the CMC was in fact defining himself as "New Guard" and implying that the latter was preferable to the former. I believe that he was wrong in a couple of respects.
First, the terms old and new guard are simply ways to view the growing process that the Coast Guard is constantly undergoing. This service is always changing. New mission requirements, social and political trends, standard of living expectations, etc., all require that we reevaluate our methods and procedures and adapt ourselves accordingly. Our "new guard" reformers are critical in this regard. They are looking forward, weighing alternatives, and setting our future path. But, their enthusiasm and desire to improve the service has to be tempered by prudence and cynicism. Our "old guard" camp provides this service. Their pessimism and resistance to change adds a brake to the growing process that keeps this service from sailing full speed into uncharted waters. The struggle between old guard and new guard could really be a check-valve in halting a bad decision. An unchallenged change could be counter-productive and life threatening. As an organization, we must always remember that new ideas and policies are not necessarily better...they're just newer. Only time and careful implementation will prove their worth. Secondly, by criticizing his approach, the CMC marginalized the SCPO's contributions. His unit was not successful despite his approach...it was successful because of it. Effective unit leadership is often at odds with progressive personnel management. Although, we would all like to be able to balance mission needs with personnel needs, the mission must always come first. The SCPO knew this. I'm not sure that the CMC did.
And finally, if we refer to people like the SCPO in such a derogatory way, and discount the contribution that his pessimistic, skeptical approach brings to this organization, we could lead him to believe that he has no place in today's Coast Guard. Can you imagine this service if our most experienced leaders decided to leave because they felt out-of-touch? We have recognized a problem with juniority. How will we solve it if people like the SCPO are minimalized by thought or policy? If we propel ourselves into the future without holding onto some part of our past, we are very likely to overshoot our goal. Enthusiasm to make things better should not overshadow the proven methods (and people) that have been accomplishing our missions for decades. We need to have people like the SCPO grab this service by the arm and slow things down just a little bit. We need the practicality that he developed over his tenure. We need his maturity. If we make people like the SCPO feel as if they are out-dated and out-of-touch, we do them and ourselves a great disservice. We forgo the "brake" that this service needs to achieve excellence and we disrespect an individual that is greatly responsible for the level of excellence that we currently enjoy. The SCPO was correct. He was not old guard or new guard. He was in the Coast Guard...pure and simple.