By Dominic J. Caraccilo
November 12th, 2015
The query was presented to the brigade commander at the morning battlefield update, “How many patrols did you go on today?” Scratching his head in bewilderment as to why that information—or, more accurately, that data—was so important that a division commander was incessant on knowing it, the colonel struggled to answer. In an attempt to combine sarcasm, frustration, diligence and honesty into a formed response, the colonel responded, “All of them.”
While this answer didn’t appease the senior commander’s appetite for collecting data on his own forces, it did make everyone else in the room uneasy. The uneasiness displayed itself in a realization that there existed a propensity in the senior command to persistently query commands on a whole host of needs; to require the attainment and collection of untethered data; and to overly direct the actions of subordinate commands. In short, it was apparent to those in the room that the commander was a micromanager.
Micromanagement tends to lead to a level of mistrust—perceived or actual—in a command. In a 2007 issue of Contract Management, Kenneth Fracaro defined micromanagement as a style “in which a supervisor closely observes or controls the work of an employee. … In contrast to giving general instructions on smaller tasks while supervising larger concerns, the micromanager monitors and assesses every step.”
Fracaro went on to note that micromanaging has an adverse impact on supervisor-employee communication, creativity, productivity, problem-solving, flexibility, trust, feedback and openness, as well as on company growth and goal attainment.
By monitoring and assessing every step, military commanders naturally may feel that they can attain the appropriate situational awareness needed to make sound decisions. However, the already established military decisionmaking process paves the way for commanders to succeed in making sound decisions requiring a finite set of information requirements. Still, many leaders tend to use commander’s intuition—military strategist Carl von Clausewitz called it coup de’oeil—or what some might refer to as a “gut feeling,” based on years of experience and education, as the priority method for making decisions.
Perception Matters
Using an intuition-based decisionmaking process is at times appropriate and effective as long as the need to attain data from subordinates is motivated by tethering the collection of it to a well-defined decision. Otherwise, the perception may be that the senior command is bombarding subordinate commands with apparent meaningless requests for information. The risk of intercommand mistrust is then heightened and has an infused negative impact on the command climate.
While leadership may be the most dynamic element of combat power, trust in subordinates may be the most significant combat multiplier in a command. It is important for subordinate commanders to feel trusted in how they lead. If commanders in combat are micromanaged and led with an iron fist and a lack of trust, they become risk-averse. These commanders, while protective of the reputation of their commands—and at the extreme, overly protective of their own skin—tend to lack creativity and stifle subordinates in their efforts to follow a commander’s intent.
The question about the number of patrols a subordinate commander took is benign at best, and the requirement to gather information to honor the request is understandably tiresome and perhaps even meaningless. However, the question does provide a glimpse into the psyche of a senior commander whose desire for information is insatiable. This insatiable desire to know things that seem of little consequence could be a matter of inquisitiveness or, as most subordinate commanders would claim, an overwhelming need to control the subordinate commander because of the level of mistrust and lack of confidence.
The consequence of excessive queries for information untethered to decisions, however, puts a subordinate commander into a tailspin. He or she ends up spending an inordinate amount of time gathering information that doesn’t seem to be tied to any operational or tactical need. This turns out to be a laborious effort when the zero-sum gain of time could be better spent gathering information requirements tethered to a decision that could be decisive in battle.
Level of Trust Needed
Micromanagers, micromanagement, and the seemingly random queries for unnecessary information by senior commanders are all signals of an infraction of trust within a command. It seems that a level of trust within military commands is anchored on that gathering of information and the method commanders choose to make decisions.
Subordinate commanders need to feel a level of trust from their leaders. This is especially true in combat. The need for subordinate commanders at the tactical level to make quick decisions without second-guessing themselves, and then employ assets and resources to support their decisions, can be decisive in battle.
Commanders who feel confident about attaining the support and, more importantly, the unconditional backing of their leaders can make the difference between success and a risk-averse delay to seize the moment in combat when most opportunities are fleeting. Even if subordinate commanders feel a level of comfort to “move to the sound of the guns” in a decisive manner, many will hesitate if the outcome is habitually a process of overly explaining actions and fighting for legitimacy.
A wise senior leader, after reviewing a very dysfunctional command climate as a retired adviser, once stated that commanders typically do one of two things: maintain and hold all responsibility of making decisions and direct their commands close to their chest; or thoughtfully spread their authorities to the appropriate staff entities and subordinate commands, making the organization more robust.
The argument against the second course of action, and a reason senior leaders refrain from authorizing and delegating decision authorities, is because they feel they need to maintain control. While it may be counterintuitive, maintaining control doesn’t mean to withdraw authority. Rather, it means to disseminate it in a logical manner to thicken the lines of one’s authority so that a command can capitalize on the distribution of the vision and intent that has been infused throughout the organization, if the commander has done his or her job.
Good or Bad?
Some leaders trust no one until their trust has been “earned,” while others tend to trust subordinate soldiers and leaders outright until they prove to be untrustworthy. If a leader believes that people are fundamentally good—meaning that they’re trying to do their best, they’re self-motivated, and they want to perform—then the fundamental leadership style will be one way. It will be empowering subordinates, getting obstacles out of the way, and setting high goals while maintaining standards.
In contrast, if a leader believes people are fundamentally bad or lack the ability to meet standards—if he or she believes people are constantly looking to get over and get by and won’t do anything unless they’re watched—then the leader tends to lead with a very transactional management style that’s built primarily around rewards and punishments.
Tight supervision is a controlling type of leadership style characterized by a great deal of social distance between the leaders and the led. The commands that display this type of leadership style are draconian and foster mistrust. The military is peppered with a reward-and-punishment mentality; the best leaders recognize that while rewards and punishments based on performance are prudent, they should not be the basis for establishing a command climate revolving around trust and confidence at each level.
Responsibility for establishing a level of trust in the command doesn’t reside only with senior leaders. Subordinate commanders must have established a set of characteristics that senior commanders can rely on to maintain trust. Some of the salient elements that subordinate commanders must possess to ensure higher-level command can trust their leadership abilities and stave off potential organizational damage by a micromanaging attitude from above are integrity; communicating understanding and acknowledgement of the commander’s vision and values; displaying an internal command climate that is inclusive and not divisive; demonstrating a focus on shared goals, not personal aspirations; and a proven performance record showing the leader lives by the Army Values by doing what’s right regardless of personal risks.
In today’s military, subordinate commanders fundamentally adhere to these principles since they are interwoven in the military culture. Leaders at all levels attain a high level of trust-inducing attributes gained from experience and received through the military education process.
Therefore, to fundamentally believe a subordinate command can be trusted should not be a difficult concept for senior leaders to grasp. To be trusted and realize the confidence of their boss is a requirement subordinate leaders need to feel so that they can succeed in their commands.
Dominic J. Caraccilo is a retired Army officer. He has commanded at the brigade, battalion and company levels in combat in over 65 months of combat tours. He is currently the chief operating officer of a security firm and most recently was a director at both Facebook and Amazon. He is author of Beyond Guns and Steel: A War Termination Strategy.
- See more at: http://www.armymagazine.org/2015/11/12/micromanagement-can-cripple-a-command/#sthash.6vm1h8LL.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment