Decision-Making in the New ‘Leadership Organization’
Last Friday, I posted Leading The Charge: Leadership Lessons from the Battlefield to the Boardroom as the Video of the Week. The video featured General Anthony Zinni, retired four-star Marine Corps General and a former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). If you haven’t seen that post yet, please take some time to view it. If you do not have the time to watch the video, I have provided a comprehensive summary of what General Zinni said in his lecture.
In that video, at the very end, following his lecture, around the 50th minute, General Zinni conducted a question and answer session with the audience. A few of the questions were focused on World affairs and military actions in Afghanistan. However, the second question that was asked (at approx. minute 56:43) led to one of the most poignant and educational messages of the entire video. The answer that General Zinni provided compelled me to write this post. I summarize the question and its answer below:
Question - Military teaches that leadership is a two-way street. However, that thought process seems to be missing in the civilian sector. Corporate executives are often viewed as ‘first in the chow line.’ How can we change this culture?
General Zinni’s Answer – What’s important is how you view the leadership in your organization. If you view the leadership as top down, the leadership is a structure – there is a line and a chain – There are designated bosses. So, leadership in your organization is through that line, through that chain, through those tiers, through those individuals, and comes from the top and goes down to the bottom, which is a common way people think about it. You’re missing the boat.
Think about your organization, in total, as a leadership organization, where you invite participatory involvement in decision-making; where people at every level, from the sides and the bottom, have a voice and a view, and are permitted and encouraged to provide feedback. If you delegate more, if there is more distributed decision-making, then you see an organization that is a ‘leader organization.’
When we went to the all-volunteer military, after the Vietnam War, we changed to that model. And, what became important, when we used to give an operations order, the commander gave a mission statement and a set of tasks. And, we added to that what was called “Commander’s Intent”; the intention of the commander. That overrode the tasks and the mission, because you were given a set of missions and tasks that were based on what you knew at that moment. Like everybody knows, no plan survives the first shot that is fired.
By giving that intent, by making sure your unit and your organization understood your style of leading – what your expectations were – what you wanted to achieve – what you hoped those tasks would achieve – if those tasks don’t work, the freedom of subordinates to act within the intent, and not to the letter of the law.
In many ways, this is what frustrated our enemies. The Soviet system was pure “top down.” The commanders at the smallest levels did not have transmitters in their combat vehicles; they could only receive. We wanted sergeant’s and corporal’s to input and respond. We wanted to have a pool system; “tell me what you’re seeing up front?” To take independent action, but it was very difficult because you had to create a culture and an understanding of where we were heading. Everybody knew where we were heading and what we wanted to do.
General Zinni then proceeded to talk about when he was a regimental commander, talking to his junior officers who wanted to know what ‘intent’ meant. He said to them, in a role-play-oriented conversation:
“Lieutenant, when you’re sitting on a hill, and you have no communications, you’ve executed your last mission and you don’t know what to do next, you’re going to say to yourself, “What would Colonel Zinni want me to do right now?” And, you’d be able to answer that question, and act. And I would have known I had succeeded in communicating intent, creating an environment (an organizational environment) that we understood how we operated. That would have been a successful way we do business.”
(That lieutenant) is part of the leadership. He isn’t just the receiver of instructions, he is an executor of intent. He provides leadership; sometimes laterally, sometimes from the bottom up. He makes recommendations. He doesn’t just report. “Don’t just tell me what you see, lieutenant, tell me what YOU think should happen up there.” He has a say. It’s integrated into the decision-making process.
So, the answer has to be, and what the military learned through tough experience, the hard-line monkey tree doesn’t work.
What was General Zinni referring to, a ‘monkey tree’ organization? Much earlier in the video, General Zinni described the “Monkey Tree.” It goes like this:
“The leadership chain-of-command is like a tree full of monkeys. When you look from the top down, you see a bunch of smiling faces. When you look from the bottom up, the perspective’s a little different.”
Not everybody gets it in the military yet. You want to change that perception from the bottom up. (Everybody is part of it). It’s a leadership culture – it’s a leadership organization, as opposed to a leadership structure that just comes top down. That’s the philosophy and the way we’ve got to approach leadership in successful organizations today.
That SEAL Team Six leader has to make decisions on that ground, he doesn’t have the next command up – the next command up – the next command up sitting next to him. How does he make those decisions? He is what we call in the military “the strategic corporal”; that young NCO (non-commissioned officer) on a street corner can make or break the entire operation if he makes a bad decision. A (video or television) camera is going to be right on him. (For example), those NCO’s at Abu Ghraib devastated the mission and the good work of thousands of troops by a lack of leadership and a lack of understanding what they were doing.
The organization has to be all glued in to the same intent, and have buy-ins and believe they are part of the leadership, and have input and have a say. That’s the way we have to change the culture in that kind of environment.
That concludes the General Zinni portion of this post. But, regarding decision-making, taking action, and risk-taking, I wanted to bring General George S. Patton, Jr. into the discussion. To hit upon each of these topics, below I present General Patton’s philosophy -
PROVIDE CREATIVE SPACE -
“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
Patton believed in exploiting, encouraging, and rewarding individual initiative. Patton saw leadership as mostly training and motivation. The object of leadership is to create people who know their jobs and who can reliably supply the how to your what.
Source – Axelrod, Alan. Patton on Leadership: Strategic Lessons for Corporate Warfare. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999. Page 165.
“In case of doubt, ATTACK!!!”
Instead of waiting to see what might develop, attack constantly, vigorously, and viciously. If you’re standing around trying to figure out what is happening or what the enemy is up to, you are making one hell of a good target out of yourself and your men. Never let up. Never stop. Always attack. “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.“*
Source – Province, Charles M. Patton’s One-minute Messages: Tactical Leadership Skills for Business Management. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1995. Page 46.
* Translation is, “audacity, more audacity, and even more audacity.” Audacity, if you look in a thesaurus, also translates to boldness, daring, courage, bravery and nerve. So, when in a position of indecisiveness, “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.”
TAKING ACTION and AVOIDING INACTION -
“Lack of orders is no excuse for inaction.”
It’s everyone’s job to strive unceasingly toward goals and objectives to ensure total victory. Don’t think that you’re finished just because you’ve reached one objective. Don’t wait for orders to continue the battle. While you’re working and fighting for the current objective, you must be planning for the next assault. History is full of tragic accounts of campaigns lost because leaders stopped on the wrong side of a river, because they didn’t have the initiative to exploit the advantage of a battle just won, and because they failed to obey the basic requirement to constantly be on the offensive. Patton said, “I assure all of my officers and soldiers that I have never and will never criticize them for having done too much. However, I shall certainly relieve them for doing nothing.” When orders fail to come, they must act on their own best judgement.
Source – Province, Charles M. Patton’s One-minute Messages: Tactical Leadership Skills for Business Management. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1995. Page 55.
“Take calculated risks.”
The key word here is calculated. Almost everything in life is a risk to some degree, especially the outcome of a battle. If you have well-trained soldiers, you have a good chance of winning, even though the odds may not be in your favor. The key to a calculated risk lies in the esprit de corps of your soldiers. If you and your enemy have a parity of resources in weapons, supplies, and men, the purely statistical chances of winning will be fifty-fifty. However, If your men are well-trained, are highly motivated, have good morale, and possess a fighting and winning spirit, they’ll have what it takes to tip the scales and make the fight ninety-ten in your favor. You’ll most probably win. Your soldiers’ good morale and winning attitude can allow you to take a calculated risk.
Source – Province, Charles M. Patton’s One-minute Messages: Tactical Leadership Skills for Business Management. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1995. Page 77.
Copyright © Dale R. Wilson