Page 103 - JSOM Winter 2019

by when), the perishable nature of readiness (ready for how milestones, illnesses, deaths, spouse employment outside the
long), or the readiness obligations that fall to the individual. 3 home, etc.) will dynamically change what readiness looks like
for the family. The ebb and flow of readying families mix with
Readiness: The ability of military forces to fight and the ebb and flow of readying Operators; at times, they col-
meet the demands of assigned missions. (See also na- lide and cause distress and conflict as priorities compete. Each
tional military strategy. ) of the SOF Operators’ and families’ tasks and outcomes are
4
braided and influence each other (Figure 1).
Operational readiness: The capability of a unit/
formation, ship, weapon system, or equipment to FIGURE 1 The readiness dilemma: getting ready, ready, always
perform the missions or functions for which it is or- ready, always getting ready.
ganized or designed. (Also called OR. )
4
Readiness and performance are inseparable, yet it is not appar-
ent if and how real readiness expectations are related to actual
in-mission competence and postmission health. For assessments
of Operator readiness to be relevant, the measures must track/
map back to specific tasks the Operator is expected to perform
for the upcoming mission. Otherwise, readiness assessments
would be arbitrary/uninformed and capricious/unreliable. In-
stead, the Defense Readiness Reporting System requires that
components report the staffing levels and completeness of in-
dividual and collective military training of their “measurable
units.” As useful as these metrics may be to senior decision
5
makers, personnel, and training pipeline managers, leaders
of measurable units want to know precisely how ready each
individual Operator assigned to them is across other aspects
of their lives, in addition to military knowledge/skills/abilities
(KSA) and core tasks required by their occupation, rank, and
role on the military team. Unit leaders want granular readiness
information to be able to efficiently and effectively apportion
limited time and resources to optimize each Operator’s indi- The work to achieve each of these outcomes is contextual.
vidual and team readiness for the mission immediately ahead. For example, as deployment ends, the Operator must get their
head and heart into civil society norms. To do this they must
From the Operator’s perspective, achieving mission readiness review their actions, resolve moral conflicts, shed what hap-
can be summarized as: pened in theater, and intentionally redirect their focus to rein-
tegrating. They have to reconnect with loved ones and resume
7
• I have the KSAs needed and can perform the core tasks and redefine their role in the family based on different KSAs
specific to the upcoming mission. from those needed for the just completed mission.
• My head is in the game.
• My heart is in the game. Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
• My loved ones are set up for success. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doctrine designates
SOF units and defines the 12 core activities performed by the
SOF Operators experience significant physical, mental, social, application of KSAs, individually or as small units. To recruit,
and spiritual stressors during missions that have an impact on train, and educate SOF Operators is a lengthy process. Special
their postmission health. The scientific evidence for a relation- Forces are for covert, high-importance, and high-impact mis-
ship between readiness as currently measured and preventable sions: only the most essential assets and shortest of logistical
physical, mental, and spiritual injury is inadequate. Individual tails will be used. Professional competency includes physical
8
readiness beyond personal physical fitness and mission skill capabilities that require dedication to acquiring and improv-
mastery is modified by several outside forces, such as unit lead- ing individual psychomotor KSAs and intricate teamwork.
ership, OPTEMPO, family readiness, and community support. Training is time consuming and physically and mentally rig-
orous. Training loads must be challenging to induce learning
SOF family readiness modulates Operator readiness. SOF and adaptation. And, training loads must be expertly matched
families face the mandate to be always getting ready for what with nutrition and hydration and balanced with sleep, rest,
is next: predeployment—deployment—reintegration. The and recovery. The Operator’s physical (psychomotor) readi-
Joint Staff defines family readiness as “[t]he state of being pre- ness is expected to peak and match in-mission demands. Train-
pared to effectively navigate the challenges of daily living ex- ing- and mission-load adjustments must be made to account
perienced in the unique context of military service, to include: for unavoidable environmental stressors, sleep deprivation,
mobility and financial readiness, mobilization and deployment caloric deficiencies, personal injury, and unit casualties.
readiness, and personal and family life readiness.” 6
Doctrine demands that we measure unit/individual readiness at
The definition acknowledges the temporal aspects of family the moment of deployment but defines sustainment during the
readiness while hinting at the core principle of always ready— mission as personnel and materiel replacement, not as ongoing
always getting ready. However, the definition disregards the personal/unit team readiness activities. For SOF units, once
inevitability that significant family events (births, school deployed the readiness state must be sustained with minimal

Measuring SOF Readiness | 101