The parallel in business is that you may be able to throw a lot of money and people at challenges or a crisis, but without effective communications, it won’t make a lot of difference. That’s why the words of wisdom from retired four-star General Stanley McChrystal ring so true in a terrific interview* in Inc. magazine.
Gen. McChrystal was commander of the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan during its peak period of engagement. He is also a third-generation West Point graduate – a soldier’s soldier, as the expression goes. My naïve image of such a man is one of rigid hierarchy, someone who lives and breathes “chain of command,” with little patience for the softer part of operations – i.e., the people side of the equation. So I was pleasantly surprised to read in this brief interview his strong belief in the importance in building relationships as a precursor to establishing effective communications before a crisis hits.
Relationships at the Core
He talked about the value of the physical communications links – telephones and the Internet, for instance – but said that relationships are most important, which he explains as “having people you know and trust that you can communicate effectively with so you can get a clear understanding of the situation and you can begin to craft a credible response.”
In other words, the cultivation and maintenance of relationships is the key to effective communications, which in turn is central to being able to successfully respond to the challenges everyone faces, in both war and everyday business.
Not only is it unwise to await the crisis to begin the effort to build relationships and establish firm communications links, but to wait is to guarantee failure. Especially in the context of a crisis – be it on the battlefield or in the office – the lack of a foundation of established relationships and the trust they embody means that communications will be chaotic and worthless.
As I’ve pointed out here numerous times, a guiding vision or mission is the single most effective way to build those relationships in an organization, to unite people around a shared sense of purpose, everyone striving for the same ultimate result. The same is true in a military context.
“Commander’s Intent”
Gen. McChrystal shares that philosophy, though he uses a different term. “We develop something called ‘commander’s intent’ to put in clear words what it is we really mean … designed to explain, in the commander’s own voice, what it is we were going to do, why we thought that was important, how it fit in to the bigger context of what we were trying to do, and then what might be successful.”
I’ve rarely read a better, more succinct description and purpose of “vision” than that.
As though reading my mind, he went on to say that, in business, “commander’s intent … might be ‘vision’… It would explain to people, here’s what we’re trying to do, and if things aren’t exactly as you expected them to be, this is still the end result. If you empower each employee with that kind of context and understanding, they get what we call ‘shared consciousness and purpose.’ They suddenly understand what it is they are trying to do in what environment, and what the organization is trying to accomplish.”
Beautifully said.
People within a business who fully understand and work toward a vision will always encounter stumbles and barriers along the way. The strategy they so carefully worked out may not unfold exactly as they had planned. But they still keep their eyes on the desired end results, as laid out in the vision.
There’s an old expression about war strategy and planning: as soon as the fighting breaks out, the first thing to get tossed aside is the battle plan. Chaos rules, but the end goal remains unchanged.
When people are working toward a common vision, the way they communicate and the words they use to communicate come more naturally. There is less guessing as to another person’s meaning and intent since they all know where they’re going and their communications are built on the trust inherent in established relationships.
In a military context, say in Afghanistan, if the commander’s intent is secure the Helmand province for the local citizens desirous of peace, then the strategy and component tactics toward that end make sense. The officers within the chain of command continually reemphasize that desired end result, making it relevant for better understanding among their troops. As they then move forward as a unit, securing one town at a time battling the local Taliban forces, in the face of chaos and mayhem of battle force their plans change on the fly.
We face our own Taliban every day in business – albeit, not mortally dangerous. When we’re able to stay focused on the vision that drives our organization, we’re able to communicate our intents clearly to our teammates to surmount the daily struggles and setbacks, better able to help meet the ultimate goals of the organization.
*Thanks and a tip of the hat to Mary Schaefer for bringing the Gen. McChrystal interview to my attention.
1 comment:
Great column, Jack. I couldn't find who said it but this quote sums up your premise: money masks mistakes. I might also add to that, power, past successes, & arrogance.
I am my own worst Taliban.
Post a Comment