Why do I like the military planning process?

From 2000 to 2008 I served on active duty in the US Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer, and in that capacity, I participated in various planning processes.  In 2009, I transitioned to a civilian position at a 4-star headquarters and continued to plan, but now at the strategic or corporate level.  It was in my civilian capacity that I became familiar with the military planning process.  As shipboard officers, members of the US Navy have not indoctrinated into the military planning process the same way officers of the same rank in the Marine Corps, and Army is.  Marine Corps and Army officers begin using the military planning process during initial officer training and early in their careers while the Navy learns later. So, why do I like this process?  I’ve laid out some bullets below that explain my position.

·      It is a mix of art and science.  There are data driven elements, and there are items that capture the experiences of the planners and leadership. 

·      It clearly defines the problem.  In the military system, the issue at hand is clearly defined, and the developed plan focuses on that matter.  It harnesses the staff to solve one problem, not many.

·      It doesn’t jump to a solution.  One could argue that the system is organized brainstorming with a structure of inputs and outputs that gathers a lot of data, considers multiple options to solve the problem, and then settles on one. 

·      It forces planners to look at various aspects of the problem.  When followed to the letter, this planning process starts with a senior member of the organization calling together the planning team.  The assembled team will then consider the facts, assumptions, constraints (things you can’t do), restraints (things you must do), and develop an initial mission statement to solve the problem.  Following this, the planning team will then develop multiple courses of action which must be unique, feasible, legal, and attainable given the resources available.  The courses of action are then analyzed, compared, and one is chosen.  With the winning course of action approved, the final plan is drafted and put into execution.

·      Links together where you want to be (ends) with the capabilities (ways) and resources (means) into a coherent plan.  I think this is one of the most important aspects of the process since this step allows those working on the scheme and later those that will execute the plan the ability to see how what they are doing fits into the larger intent of the action.

·      Can be done in a deliberate fashion or quickly in reaction to an emergency.  This process isn’t only for long-range, well-predicted events.  Pop up situations or contingencies can be worked using this process as well.  The only thing that changes is the time available. 

In my current job, I work with a collection of law enforcement, State Department, military, and civilians.  We are a military organization, but we struggle with using this process.  I find this struggle unfortunate as this system, if followed, provides a repeatable standardized process that will result in an output that is commonly understood and has considered each option. 

Making Leadership Great Again - the top 10 best and worst practices I've seen

So January 20th was an exciting day.  For some people, it was a moment of joy, for some a time of sadness, and for others, it represented a significant change.  Regardless of how you saw the inauguration of President Trump, his speech indicated that there would be a new type of leadership in the White House and for the American people.  Watching the speech gave me a chance to think about the leaders I've worked for in my life and what I thought was good and bad.  My leadership view comes from three primary parts of my life: (1) working in a circus, (2) working at an academic SCUBA diving operation, and (3) serving in the military.  Each of these unique experiences showed me different aspects of good and bad leadership.  I'll keep the names out of the post to protect the innocent and the guilty alike.  The people are less important than the overall concepts.

Let's start with what worked:

1. Leaders set clear expectations for execution.  Leaders that set clear expectations dot the roadmap of my professional life, from the circus to diving to the military.  When leaders set reasonable expectations, subordinates can develop appropriate ways to arrive at the intended outcome.  When giving guidance, make sure your subordinates understand the "5Ws" of what you are asking for - when is it due?  What is the intended use and audience?  What do you want?  How does this fit into the overall scheme of what the organization is doing?  Armed with this information, those that work for you can turn out a better product.

2. Clear communications, common objective, and a drive to achieve.  I'm stealing this from one of my favorite skippers in the Navy.  We were a small crew, about 105 personnel to be exact and had to accomplish all the inspection items of any warship and deploy for a wartime scenario.  Such an inspection is no small burden.  To keep ourselves ahead of the power curve we relied on each member understanding what we were doing, why were doing it, and pushing when required to get things done.  This philosophy showed me that when a team understands the requirements from top to bottom, there is no stopping that team.

3. Handle paper one time.  I had the opportunity to work for an exceptional civilian leader during my military service.  This particular leader embodied #1 above, and when your task was due, he would review it with you, and that was it.  There wasn't this back and forth iterative nature of getting work done.  When leadership can get to this point, workers can accomplish more work.

4. Strong organizational skills.  This example goes back to my experience in the military and the diving world.  Working for an organized leader makes, at least me anyhow, feel that the work will finish on time and things will not slip through the cracks.

5. Adaptable to changing situations.  The leaders I've worked for that were fluid with the situation and could translate that down to those working for them were the best to work for.  Nothing will stay the same forever. However, it's how you react to the change and how you influence those working for you that matters.

6. Develop an environment that allows subordinates to learn.  Early in my time in the Navy, I used to work for a Department Head that realized I had not yet been to Division Officer's School but he saw that I wanted to learn.  This particular Department Head challenged me and allowed me to try to figure things out on my own and then helped me learn the process which, in my opinion, made me a better officer.

7. Willing to bring in new practices.  Leaders don't have all the answers themselves, and they will need advice from those around them.  While in the Navy we had to prepare for a major inspection that, if failed, would keep us from doing anything else until we rectified the errors.  As we developed our strategy to prepare for this critical examination, a younger Petty Officer made the suggestion that we change the work day into two shifts and staggered those shifts so there would be fewer people on the ship and work could get done that would impact the flow of ships company around the boat.  The skipper implemented this plan, and we passed the inspection.

8.  Leaders should be able to conduct an honest evaluation of self-performance.  Leaders need to be able to evaluate those around them, but to me, it is more important that leaders can assess themselves.  If a leader can honestly look in the mirror and examine the good and the bad, then the organization will benefit.  Additionally, I think leaders that can have a frank conversation with their subordinates about how they handled situations gives subordinates insights into the leadership process.

9. Willing to dive in and do work.  I've worked with leaders on both sides of the spectrum - those that will dive in and work and those that leave that for others.  I prefer the former.  Hands-off leaders quickly lose my respect - I comply with the position and the rank, but I don't think much of the person sitting in the seat.

10. Leaders develop subordinates to replace them.  To me, the single most important thing that a leader does is develop those under him/her that will take over at some point.  Some leaders do this better than others.  Leaders need to allow subordinates to make mistakes and learn from those errors, develop a culture that rewards achievement, and perhaps most importantly show subordinates the leadership process within the organization.

What didn't work:

1. Micro-management.  Pick up any leadership book, and there is likely some mention of micro-management and why it's a bad practice.  I've worked for micro-managers, and they make the work environment horrible.  Simply put, don't micro-manage your employees.  I've found that leaders who state their expectations clearly, have defined a standard of quality, and hold employees accountable will get more out of their workforce.

2. Leaders provide unclear directions to staff.  Perhaps a personal issue, but I dislike doing work twice.  I think this is a pretty universally held feeling.  I've worked for those that exist under the model of "I don't know it until I see it" and that's a tough way to lead an organization.  To me, it's akin to walking into a restaurant and saying, "Bring me food" and then not liking what you get.  This philosophy breeds wasted time and effort.

3. Leaders who take credit for the staff's work without acknowledgment.    I used to work for a supervisor that had to submit his annual review, and I found it on the printer with some of my material.  The leader took complete credit for my work without qualifying the statement that he supervised or oversaw the work.

4. Making arbitrary decisions without supporting logic.  Let's face it, decisions are part art and part science but making decisions from an emotional point of view is a bad leadership practice.  I worked for a time managing force requirements for a 4-star command and watched a senior leader reduce the number of flight hours for a particular program because he didn't agree with the number.  He didn't want to hear how the number but he thought it was too high and would not allow it to go forward.  Leaders have a responsibility to justify decisions.

5.  Leaders value personality over substantive contributions.  Most work environments have a social aspect, and there are some folks we work with that are nice people but lack the skills to handle the work assigned to them.  Leaders need to take an aggressive stance to ensure that workers under their command are pulling their weight to avoid over-tasking a few individuals.  

6. Leaders must manage their time effectively.  You can make more money, but you can't make more time.  With a finite number of hours in the work day, leaders need to maximize the output of the staff. I used to work for a gentleman who was a very nice guy and would give you the shirt off his back, but he had a habit of catching you on the way out the door and saying, "Hey can you come in and help me out with this?"  Sadly, the thing that needed attention was not a quick task and arrived in the morning which could have been taken care of then.  This practice resulted in paying overtime and impacted my family life.

7. Leaders provide unclear guidance which results in iterative work for the staff.  If the direction isn't clear, workers will do their best and try to achieve the intended results.  When subordinates bring forward work, it likely will not meet the expected outcome and will result in re-work, wasted time, and worker frustration.

8. Killing employee enthusiasm.  Just as time is irreplaceable, enthusiasm is a close second.  Employees take personal, professional, and interpersonal risks when bringing forward new ideas to management.  If management dismisses these ideas out of hand without suggesting edits or alternatives, an employee could stop bringing new ideas forward which will ultimately weaken an organization.

9. Not protecting workers from the lack of management direction.  When upper management does not provide clear guidance, it is up to middle management to protect those below from this uncertainty.  Middle management should step in and help provide guidance.

10. Evading answering fundamental questions.  Leadership, to me, has an essential requirement to answer the questions of subordinates clearly and ensure understanding across the staff.  When leadership has a hard time answering simple questions, it erodes the confidence of the team.

What makes a successful organization?

How do you know you are part of a successful organization?  Is it that you've survived the past several years and not gone out of business or is that you've grown by 4% per year or some other metric?  Do you have metrics which define success in your particular field?

I write this recovering from a meeting last week where I listened to a briefer talk about spending the last year developing a set of metrics for an organization's success and the 30 minute brief didn't tell me anything about the organization's metrics, the data that would inform them, or what these metrics would be used for.  In the planning world metrics are a powerful tool that too often are overlooked and take a backseat to other means to determine success.

The most powerful example of this I can provide is that I attended a presentation at a Navy base and the briefer was talking about a deployment of a hospital ship that had just ended and he was going port by port discussing the number of locals treated while the ship was there, medications provided, veterinarian consults conducted on livestock, etc...however he came to one port and the medical numbers were through the roof and he said we won't be going back there again.  I was kinda shocked he said that.  After he talked more the true purpose of that particular visit was yes to treat locals but the most important issue was to increase the public perception of the United States and in this case interviews didn't bear that out.

So successful organizations know what equals success and track those numbers.  They are willing to examine themselves and make adjustments based on the data available.  Additionally, these organizations are keen to understand are they doing things right and are they doing the right things.  Finally, I've noticed that successful organizations are those where the staff knows the metrics and assists in gathering data to enable evaluation.

Thoughts on Planning

General Eisenhower is credited with saying, "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable" and I agree with this sentiment. Plans written and placed on a shelf for a particular situation or an opportunity to develop only serve to gather dust.  However, living plans can be updated too frequently and if that happens they are also nearly useless because the goals and objectives will likely change from update to update leaving those using them uncertain as to the current goals and objectives.  So what’s the best compromise here?  Should we write grand plans that map out the next 5-10 years of our businesses?  Do we know what might or might not happen in that timeframe?   

 

To me there’s not that much certainty in the world and let's be honest, writing big plans that have little chance of execution is a painfully time consuming effort that likely will not pay big dividends.  Sun Tzu said that, “Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions” and planning is no different.  That said, I think there’s a compromise that provides clear overall guidance on the way forward with room for more exacting planning when the time is right.  For example, as one surveys the landscape of their particular corner of a market they could see a desired path emerging over the next five years.  But rather than mapping out each exact step over the next five years, I’d offer that this path should be developed somewhat vague which would allow for more detailed planning to be done in yearly increments.  Pushing planning to a yearly cycle will allow those doing the planning to leverage more accurate information for the particular timeframe in question vice using generalizations which might/might not prove accurate. 

 

Plans conceived on a tighter annual timeline will allow planners to take the overarching vision of the five year plan and examine the key goals for that given year, develop accurate assumptions, adjust goals and objectives to the current situation, and take into account the events of the previous year that either negatively or positively impact the next year.  Additionally, a yearly planning cycle will allow management to communicate clearly with their staff on the annual goals and objectives which could build a more inclusive staff that understands how their efforts impact the overall success of the organization. 

 

In the end, planning as a process is worthwhile even if a grand strategy is not realized.  A formal planning process will force an organization to think about situations from different angles and likely will bring out aspects not before considered.  A rigorous planning methodology will tease out truths, shine light on falsehoods, and ultimately will improve the quality of an organization.

Assessments - do you know where you are?

I was reading part of an Andy McNab book about his selection for the British SAS and the portion of land navigation where they were told where to go and took off running to get there.  When they thought they were close they had to take out a topographic map and point with a bade of grass or a small stick where they thought they were on the map and the instructor would confirm or deny their assessed location.  If correct they were given a new waypoint and if not the instructor would tell them to correctly identify their location and then move on.  Long way to get to the simple point that you need to where you organizationally and where you want to go.  It's important that your staff understands what's important from a management perspective and what that means to their organization.

So how do you do this?  Sadly there's not one method that works for all occasions.  You might be able to get away with simply setting goals like, "Increase sales every quarter by 5%" and then following a trend line from one quarter to the next.  Or you might be able to simply chart the number of page views of your site on a daily basis and that is diagnostic enough for your needs.  Or you might need to go to a different extreme and establish what objectives you want to achieve, what effects you need to meet those objectives and what tasks are required to meet those effects.  This last methodology is more of a military way to approach this along with the associate measures of performance and measures of effectiveness which look at task accomplishment and are we doing the right things.

It really boils down to organizational navigation through your business.  You need to know where you are beyond what your gut tells you.  I do concede that a gut feeling is useful but one can start to believe their own assessment and ultimately have a situation go bad on them if you don't consult another source to see where you are.  This is not an easy thing to do sometimes, especially in today's GPS, smart phone world in which you can click a button and see how many people have viewed your profile, like your Facebook status, etc...Assessments are difficult but are absolutely fundamental to learning from your mistakes, and charting a successful way forward.   Invest the time to figure out what's important to you and your organization and ensure your staffs know what these measures are and what they are responsible for in this arena.  An informed staff who knows what they are graded on will, in the long run, be a better performing team that one that does not know the organizational measures of success.

Top or bottom driven - which is better?

I've been in a quandary lately.  The last 12 years of my professional life have been in organizations that are top driven.  By that I mean if you think of a triangle, there is a leader at the top that establishes a clear vision and that guidance comes down to managers, down to workers, etc...However, I currently work at an organization that instead primarily works things from the bottom up.  In our current case the workers push up many ideas based on what they think are important.  There's a place for both concepts, but is one necessarily better than the other?  With ideas coming from the bottom of the triangle to the top there's room for duplication of efforts and a perceived or real lack of clear direction for the organization.  

I've had the opportunity to work for micro managers and the polar opposites of micro managers and after working for both, I've come to this realization.  I work better in a top down organization.  I've found my best successes in an environment where leadership provides some broad overarching goals but doesn't tell you exactly how to get there.  In this case you understand where leadership wants to go but gives you the opportunity to define the route you'll take to get there which ultimately can lead to new and innovative solutions.