Posted on

War on the Rocks Interview with GEN Martin Dempsey

War on the Rocks Interview with GEN Martin Dempsey

Hear the Chairman describe how the US will keep the force highly-trained and ready despite the constrained fiscal environment:

The sacred responsibility is to ensure that we never send a man or woman into combat unless they are prepared – best-trained, best-led, best-equipped and prepared to overmatch any adversary decisively, you know. And those words are carefully chosen. You know, we don’t want to just win. You know, we want to win 50 to 1, not 5 to 4 because we should be able to do that, you know; the nation has given us the resources necessary to do that.

Toward the end of the article, he also explains that the phased, structured approach to operations planning may be mistaken:

Once you introduce yourself into an experiment, you change the outcome. And I think that’s true. And that’s somewhat how I’ve watched the use of the military instrument evolve over time, where, in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we’d have to admit that although we had what we thought was a definable end state and a series of objectives, that when we touched it, it changed it. And when it changed it, we then had to adjust the end state because some of it became literally infeasible and others opened up opportunities.

I think we’ve got to develop strategic thinkers who, although they understand how to – how to identify an end state, back plan, phase – you know, put in these extraordinarily exquisite phases – that’s all important work, but it’s not actually the way it plays out. The way it plays out is once you touch it, it changes and then you’ve got to be adaptable.

Posted on

Where’s Your Latitude? (ADP 6-22)

Effective organizations rely on leaders to balance uncertainty, remain flexible, and provide a climate where subordinates have the latitude to explore options.

–  ADP 6-22 Army Leadership, pg. 2

It’s happened to all of us. We receive a mission or task and launch into generating creative ways to execute it…only to be told which course of action to take and methods to use. This is a let-down for people who like tackling challenges on their own. Further, this directed approach prevents the subordinates from contributing alternate (and perhaps better) solutions.

Several factors about the military culture make it easy for leaders to reduce subordinate latitude:

  • the premium we place on the leader’s “experience”
  • the severe consequences of underperformance or failure
  • the complexity of the missions
  • the fast pace of operations

Nonetheless, doctrine asserts that the good units are the ones that foster critical thinking and creativity in solving problems. In fact, consider the opposite point…units will be ineffective if they do not give subordinates latitude in executing their missions.

Consider a few ways to ensure you’re giving your team the freedom to explore options:

  1. Acknowledge that you don’t have all the answers
  2. Ask for different perspectives in defining the problem and generating solutions
  3.  Realize that your perspective is different from your team’s (you’re probably giving more guidance than you think)
  4. Adopt the “left and right limits” approach to giving guidance (typically associated with Mission Command)
  5. Be patient when subordinates complete a mission in a way that’s not what you would have chosen; as long as it’s not illegal, immoral, unethical, and meets your intent…let it ride.

Subscribe to The Military Leader

Complete Archive of Military Leader Posts

Back to Home Page

Posted on

What would YOU ask a deployed Brigade Commander?

Leader interviews are on the way! 


Next week, I’ll interview a forward-deployed Brigade Commander about his leadership experience and lessons. 

What would you like to hear in the interview?

Post question recommendations and topic suggestions in the comment box or in an email to: admin@themilitaryleader.com.

Thanks for getting involved!

Posted on

12 Things Good Bosses Believe (Rule #6)

“I strive to be confident enough to convince people that I am in charge, but humble enough to realize that I am often going to be wrong.”

Rule #6 of Robert Sutton’s “12 Things Good Bosses Believe” is one that should resonate with military leaders. Typically, we do not have difficulty convincing people that we are in charge; the long history of service and discipline inherently gives authority to leaders/commanders.

Still, exerting authority at the right time/place does not come naturally for some, so it may be necessary to look for opportunities to lead with intention and assertiveness. But let’s be honest, most military leaders need to pay attention to second half of Sutton’s statement.

Being in charge doesn’t mean you’ll always be right. In fact, being a leader almost guarantees that your decisions will be wrong in at least some people’s eyes.

Leadership sometimes means making people mad.
– General Colin Powell

Sutton’s point is that sometimes leaders will be flat-out wrong, and the good one’s will:

  • Be open-minded enough to sense it
  • Be humble enough to admit it, publicly if necessary
  • Be willing to listen to advice and correct the mistake

Subscribe to The Military Leader

Complete Archive of Military Leader Posts

Back to Home Page

Posted on

Video: A New Look at Rewards and Motivation (TED – Dan Pink)

TED – Dan Pink: The Puzzle of Motivation. Here is an illuminating talk that challenges the way we view rewards and performance.

– The promise of reward only works when performing basic or mechanical tasks.
– Reward actually impairs performance of even rudimentary cognitive tasks and stems creativity.
– Members perform best when they are given Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.

What place does Autonomy have in military organizations?
When do you incorporate rewards when leading your team? 

Posted on

Getting Your Mental Map Realigned (Sadr City 2008)

In Deep Survival, author Laurence Gonzales describes how the brain assembles a “mental map” of the world based on spatial orientation, experience, emotion, cognition, and every other facet of who we are. This mental map is our unique perspective of the world. It’s our comfort zone; it’s what we rest on; it’s where we feel safe.

Sadr City

But there’s a problem in that our mental map doesn’t always align with “the real map”… i.e. the real world.

Gonzales relates numerous accounts in which people found themselves in survival situations and continued to cling to their old reality…the one where they were still sitting safely in a plane at 30,000 feet…or the one where a bear hadn’t just wrecked their campsite leaving them stranded. The people that died are the ones who failed to update their mental maps to their new situation.

The essential point is that sometimes there is a fate lying just around the corner that we have never, EVER considered, but will have to react to.

Sadr City

In March of 2008, such a “new fate” arrived in Sadr City, Iraq. The urban enclave of 2 million people in northeastern Baghdad had quieted down to the point that just two companies of Stryker Infantry were needed to contain it. We had regular meetings with local leaders and enemy attacks were very low. Some might say that we had reached “steady-state operations,” and a routine of stability. We were in a comfort zone.

But as the saying goes, the enemy gets a vote…and Muqtada al-Sadr’s vote came at the end of March, when he unleashed an hourly barrage of rocket, mortar, IED, RPG, and gunfire attacks on the Green Zone and units in the area. In a matter of hours, the tactical situation in Sadr City shifted from low to high-intensity, with engagements akin to the Black Hawk Down depiction of Mogadishu in 1993. The digital map erupted red icons all over the city as our units tried to get a handle on the emerging situation. The enemy had achieved surprise and units were sustaining casualties.

This post is not a narrative of the combat in Sadr City that year, but it does serve as a perfect example of a situation that requires leaders to reframe their mental maps to the new reality. Holding onto the prior trend of stability was pointless and risky. We needed a new plan, and fast.

The command deployed additional assets from surrounding areas and blocked the routes in/out of the city, then platoons fought their way north to reclaim a key road. Where two companies once occupied, 14 companies now stood. The resulting month-long fight ultimately reduced the Sadr militia’s combat power and a new 2.4 km wall across the city prevented them from affecting key coalition bases. From the Soldiers on the street to the Commanding General, the dramatic change in the tactical landscape demanded mental agility, measured emotional response, and poised leadership.

Bottom Line

The lesson is that leaders must be open-minded enough to sense a changing environment, willing to discard what is comfortable and accept the new reality, and then be decisive in the new environment, not the old. Leaders also need to accept that unseen “realities” exist and have momentum along tracks that will ultimately intersect with and affect the organization. Muqtada al-Sadr had likely been planning the April 2008 offensive for months. Intelligence efforts, of course, seek to discover these initiatives, but leaders must live in a state of open-ended readiness to adjust and lead their organizations through change.

Posted on

Quote: Visionary and Practical

Great leaders always seem to embody two seemingly disparate qualities. They are both highly visionary and highly practical. Their vision enables them to see beyond the immediate. They can envision what’s coming and what must be done. Leaders possess and understanding of how:

  • Mission provides purpose – answering the question, Why?
  • Vision provides a picture – answering the question, What?
  • Strategy provides a plan – answering the question, How?

– John C. Maxwell in the The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership