strategy and tactics Archives - Page 2 of 4

How a society organizes itself

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led – between two levels of hierarchy – is imbedded in how that society makes decisions. In its political system.

If that working relationship does not function well, if it fails, not only are the political policies of those elected to office in jeopardy, the direction of the country, state, city or municipality is at risk. Defining and managing the line between strategy and tactics is in the political context a matter of moving forward or backward as a society.

The American political tradition involves a close working relationship between president and cabinet, between governor and mayor and their respective cabinets, between all holders of public office and their direct reports.

The American president is the head of the executive branch of government. The president‘s cabinet – the next level of management within the executive – reports directly to him or her and does not possess any domestic political power which could challenge the president‘s authority. Members of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President, who may dismiss them or reappoint them to other posts at will.

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President can require „the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.“ The Constitution did not then establish the names (or list or limit the number) of Cabinet departments. Those details were left to the Congress to determine.

There is no explicit definition of the term „cabinet“ in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. However, there are occasional references to „cabinet-level officers“ or „secretaries“, which when viewed in context appear to refer to the head of the „executive departments“ as listed in 5 U.S.C. §101.

The President’s Cabinet is an institution whose existence rests upon custom rather than law. Presidents have differed in their opinions as to the utility of the Cabinet, but all have found some political and administrative strengths in its continuance.

The Cabinet is retained because it provides to the President: political and managerial advice; a forum for interdepartmental conflict resolution; a location where he can address most of the executive branch and thereby enhance administrative coherence; and a source of political support for his programs and policies.

The Cabinet is not now, and is not likely to become, a body with collective responsibility. Presidents cannot appropriately share their legal authority or responsibilities with the Cabinet. The Cabinet, its members, and its sub-groups provide the President with an adaptive resource with which to manage the executive branch of government. (from CRS Report for Congress. The President’s Cabinet: Evolution, Alternatives, and Proposals for Change, September 12, 2000).

Stratēgia

Strategy: The science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war; the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions; a careful plan or method; the art of devising or employing plans toward a goal. From Greek stratēgia generalship, from stratēgos. First known use 1810.

Strategy is the goal, the mission, the end result, what is to be achieved by the team. It is a decision or a series of decisions. Tactics is the action taken to achieve that goal, to execute that decision. Strategy is the what. Tactics is the how.

Tactics: The science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat; the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end; a system or mode of procedure. New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikos of order, of tactics, fit for arranging, from tassein to arrange, place in battle formation. First known use 1626.

In American football, basketball or baseball the strategy of a team can be seen in the formation of their players on the field. The strategy of American companies, of their individual teams, can be seen in their organization structure. A political campaign strategy is explicit in their organizational set-up, in which states they deploy what people and resources.

Lead: To guide on a way especially by going in advance; to direct on a course or in a direction; to serve as a channel for; to go through; to direct the operations, activity, or performance of; to have charge of; to go at the head of; to be first in or among; to aim in front of. From Middle English leden, from Old English lǣdan; akin to Old High German leiten to lead, Old English līthan to go. First known use before 12th century

Manage: To handle or direct with a degree of skill; to make and keep compliant; to treat with care; to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of; to work upon or try to alter for a purpose; to succeed in accomplishing. From Italian maneggiare, from mano hand, from Latin manus. First known use 1579.

Administer: To manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of; to mete out; to give remedially. From Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad + ministrare to serve, from minister servant. First known use 14th century.

Signs That You’re a Micromanager

“Signs That You’re a Micromanager.” Muriel Wilkins. November 2014. Harvard Business Review.

“Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some managers can’t seem to help themselves. The signs are clear:

You’re never quite satisfied with deliverables. You’re often frustrated because you would’ve gone about the task differently. You laser in on the details and take great pride in making corrections. You constantly want to know where all your team members are and what they’re working on. You ask for frequent updates on where things stand. You prefer to be cc’d on emails.

Wilkins suggest four things to reduce micromanaging:

Get over yourself. We can all rationalize why we do what we do and the same holds true for micromanagers.

Let it go. The difference between managing and micromanaging is the focus on the micro. Let go of the minutia.

Give the what, not the how. There’s a difference between sharing that expectation and dictating how to get to that result.

Expect to win. Be clear on what success looks like. Provide the resources, information, and support needed to meet those conditions. Give credit where credit is due.

“Stop micromanaging”

Harvard Business Review. “Stop Being Micromanaged.” Amy Gallo, September 22, 2011.

There are managers who have very high standards who like some degree of control. They pay a great deal of attention to detail and exercise some degree of control, but they don’t stifle those who work for them.

Then there are pathological micromanagers who need to make it clear to themselves and others that they are in charge. These are the bosses that give you little to no autonomy, insist they be involved in every detail of your work, and are more concerned about specifics, such as font size, rather than the big picture.”

It is counterproductive to fight against micromanagement. Gallo suggests: “Make upfront agreements. Talk to your boss before a project starts about how she will be involved. Try to agree on standards and basic approach.

Explain what you think the ideal plan of action is and then ask for her input. Be sure you understand upfront what the guiding principles are for the work, not just the tactical elements. These principles are what you should be discussing with your boss.

The author recommends: “Remind your boss that she is better off not getting involved in the minutiae because her time and effort are more valuable to the big picture. And keep your boss in the loop.”

U.S. Army 22-100

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led – between two levels of hierarchy – is imbedded in how that society defends itself. In its military.

If that working relationship does not function well, if it fails, not only is the respective mission in jeopardy, the very lives of the soldiers are at risk. Defining and managing the line between strategy and tactics is in the military context a matter of life and death.

The American military tradition in practice involves a close working relationship between leader and led, between strategy and tactics.

The U.S. Army Field Manual 22-100 states: “Leadership is the process of influencing others to accomplish the mission by providing purpose, direction, and motivation. Purpose gives soldiers a reason why they should do difficult things under dangerous, stressful circumstances. Direction shows what must be done. Through motivation, leaders give soldiers the will to do everything they are capable of doing to accomplish a mission. Effective leaders use both direct and indirect influence to lead.”

Mission Command. The U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 525-3-0 states: “Mission command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based on mission orders. Successful mission command demands that subordinate leaders at all echelons exercise disciplined initiative, acting aggressively and independently to accomplish the mission within the commander’s intent.”

Army Leadership Doctrine: U.S. Army Field Manual 6-22, Part 3 describes a direct leader as someone who “influences others person-to- person …. instructs, recognizes achievement, and encourages hard work.”

A direct leader carries out the goals of higher-level commanders on a day-to-day and minute-to-minute basis. Because higher-level leaders cannot dictate the specific actions that should be taken in every possible situation, direct leaders must act independently. However, their actions, and those of their subordinates, always support the commander’s intent:

“At the direct level, a platoon leader knows what a battalion commander wants done, not because the lieutenant was briefed personally, but because the lieutenant understands the commander’s intent two levels up. The intent creates a critical link between the organizational and direct leadership levels.”

Section 7-26 distinguishes between long-term, strategic intent – which is a written statement indicating the goals of the operation – and day-to-day intent, which is communicated more informally from the direct leader to his subordinates. “Leaders in command positions use commander’s intent to convey purpose. The commander’s intent is a clear, concise statement of what the force must do and the conditions the force must meet to succeed with respect to the enemy, terrain, and desired end state.”

It states further: “Besides purpose and motivation, (direct) leaders influence also consists of direction. Direction deals with how a goal, task, or mission is to be achieved. Subordinates do not need to receive guidance on the details of execution in all situations. The skilled leader will know when to provide detailed guidance and when to focus only on purpose, motivation, or inspiration.”

Omar M. Bradley, an American four-star general during the Second World War, summarized the relationship between soldier and non-commissioned officer in the following way: “In battle, the American soldier wants to know that the job is going to be done right, with no unnecessary casualties. The non-commissioned officer is supposed to be the best soldier in the platoon and he is supposed to know how to perform all the duties expected of him. The American soldier expects his sergeant to be able to teach him how to do his job. And he expects even more from his officers.”

In addition to teaching and directing their subordinates, direct leaders must constantly supervise the work of their soldiers. FM 6-22 points out that effective supervision requires leaders to get to know their subordinates very well. “Proper supervision is essential to ensuring mission accomplishment to standard. It is an integral part of caring for soldiers. The better they know their unit and subordinates, the more they can strike a balance for finding the details.”

Although constantly “looking over their shoulders” is not something that American direct leaders should do, they are expected to tell subordinates both what is to be accomplished (mission intent) and how it is to be accomplished (instructions). The detailed instructions direct leaders give to subordinates is [not are? The instructions; plural.] a key hallmark of American military leadership.

How a society feeds itself

How a society fundamentally defines the everyday working relationship between leader and led – between two levels of hierarchy – is imbedded in how that society feeds itself. In companies engaged in commerce.

If that working relationship does not function well, if it fails, not only is the respective project in jeopardy, the ability of companies to meet the needs of their customers is at risk. Defining and managing the line between strategy and tactics is in the business context critical to the profitability of every team within every commercial enterprise.

The American business tradition in practice involves a close working relationship between leader and led, between team lead and team.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an American company, for example, is the leader of the company. He or she manages directly the other managing board members, such as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Führen mit Auftrag

Führen mit Auftrag, a multifaceted leadership concept roughly translated as Leading by Mission, has been the foundational leadership principle in the German military over the last two hundred years. It has its roots in the famous Prussian Reforms of the early 19th Century when the Germans did a comprehensive root cause analysis of why they were so suddenly and thoroughly defeated by Napoleon‘s armies.

Führen mit Auftrag – leading by mission – is how Germans define Menschenführung or leadership of men. The officer issues to his troops a mission, a goal. It is generally formulated, includes a time component and an indication of forces required. It is then up to the next level to devise how they will complete the mission independent of their leadership.

Unique about Führen mit Auftrag is the degree of freedom on the tactical level given to those issued the mission. As long as they complete the overall mission, they decide independently which approach is best, including significant adjustments to possible changes in the situation. Required at the tactical level are flexibility, creativity and executing independent of next-level leadership.

Of critical importance to Führen mit Auftrag is that the tactical level understand clearly and thoroughly the strategic thinking of their commanding officer, and are trained to act independently of that commanding officer, yet in the spirit of his strategic intent.

Those on the tactical must also possess both good judgement and the will to make independent decisions. They must have a strong sense of responsibility and duty. The commanding officer, for his or her part, must make their strategic thinking clear, transparent and understandable for those on the tactical level.

Führen mit Auftrag – Elements

Führen mit Auftrag – very loosely translated as leading by mission – is the foundational leadership principle in the German armed forces, and has been since the early 1800s. It has six key elements:

1. Decision making: Those with the most expertise should be involved. The team analyzes the Auftrag (mission), the parameters of the situation, and the possible options to complete the mission. This is the basis for making the optimal decision and for maintaining motivation and morale within the team.

2. The Auftrag describes the goal: The core task of military leadership is to issue well-defined Aufträge, missions. The focus is on defining the end state, not the specific action taken to reach it. Define the goal clearly, allow as much tactical freedom as possible. The path to the goal is best defined by those at the front. A clear Auftrag allows the tactical level to make necessary adjustments due to situational changes independent of their leadership.

3. Context and boundary conditions: The Auftrag includes a description of the mission‘s boundary conditions. The tactical level needs to understand how its mission fits into the broader strategic picture. They should be informed and understand the strategic thinking two level above their own. This allows the tactical level to make independent decisions should next-level leadership not be reachable.

4. Resources: Critical to mission completion is providing the tactical level with all necessary resources. Anything less is not only unfair, it threatens team morale and the mission itself. Capable commanders do their best to prevent a gap between mission and resources.

5. Coordination of forces: If the Auftrag requires action by several units, disciplines, organizations, then it is critical to clarify lines of authority and of communication. Overlaps should be avoided, areas of integrated approaches well defined.

6. Communications and reporting: Information flow needs to be set both on the tactical level and between the tactical and strategic levels. Progress reports are critical not only within military units, but also between the military and their civilian commanders.

Führen mit Auftrag – Requirements

1. Training: Führen mit Auftrag requires well-trained troops who ideally have been fighting together over a longer period of time. Soldiers should be viewed as masters of their craft. This includes not only expertise in using their weapons, but moreso their overall behaviour when in battle.

2. Self-confidence and cohesion: The entire group must possess a high degree of self-confidence. Every member, from enlisted soldier to the highest ranking officer, must view themselves as an expert at what they do. The officers should be proud to lead such troops. They should identify themselves with their troops and not have an eye on their next promotion.

3. Acceptance: Officers should accept soldiers who take different approaches as long as the overall goal is reached. Officers should not get too involved on the tactical level, thus allowing soldiers to develop their skills. Too early, too much involvement on the tactical level frustrates self-leading soldiers.

4. Trust: Officers and soldiers need to trust each other. Officers cover for their soldiers when things go wrong. Mistakes are either not punished or at least not immediately. Common thinking and acting is critical. It is based on common training.

5. Information: Detailed information is important, especially explaining the strategic thinking behind individual missions. Soldiers need to understand the big picture, the broader context in which they are operating. Officers take seriously input provided by the tactical level, thereby encouraging soldiers to think and act independently.

6. Few orders: Commanding officers state only the mission, provide necessary resources and makes sure that participating organizations coordinate their activities. Everything else is left to the tactical level, which makes their own decisions about how to complete the mission. Leadership is decentralized.

7. Motivation: Commanders at the front know best the strengths and weaknesses of their troops, and can best judge the situation. Allowing for independent decision making and action strengthens motivation and morale among the troops. They identify more closely with the overall mission, view themselves as subjects and not objects to be commanded here and there.

8. Deviation from mission: If the situation on the ground has changed, it is expected of officers and their troops to make the necessary adjustments immediately, even without having informed their next level officer.

9. Situation analysis: Officers and soldiers at all levels are expected to constantly reassess the situation. What is our overall mission? What are we expected to achieve? Has the situation changed in any way which requires of us to modify our approach? If so, in what way and when?

Article 65, German Basic Law

Germany‘s Grundgesetz or Basic Law is the equivalent of a constitution. Artikel 65 of the Grundgesetz defines the working relationship between the Chancellor and the cabinet:

„The Federal Chancellor defines and is responsible for the overall political goals of the government. Within the framework of these goals each cabinet member is responsible for leading their department independently.”

It continues:

“Differences of opinion among cabinet members are clarified by the Chancellor and the other cabinet members. The Chancellor leads the government based on a political platform formulated by the Chancellor and the cabinet, and which has been approved of by the Federal President.“