I admit it. The fault was entirely my own. I had let myself get comfortable and now I was short on time, resources, energy, and just about everything needed to make a successful operation. And I could have prevented it.
Revisiting the book Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence led me to an article by General Matthew Ridgway that appeared in the October 1966 edition of Military Review. Entitled “Leadership,” it is a strikingly poignant and upfront summation of basic elements of good leadership, in and out of combat. I recommend that everyone read the entire article, but here are some points to consider.
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.
Last week’s shooting at Fort Hood was a sad, unnecessary tragedy that no community should have to live through. And until the fabric of our society grows past this trend in violence, we will have to continue to prepare for such events. When these tragedies do occur, how the involved leaders respond can determine how damaging the events become, as well as how the public reacts to them.
Unpredictability will be a hallmark, it seems, as will national media attention. This means is that the small-town sheriff, or the unknown hospital supervisor, or the base’s commanding general could progress from ‘business as usual’ to ‘nationally-televised responsibility’ in a matter of hours.
Put another way…the most challenging event in a leader’s life could be just around the corner.
Even though Fort Hood’s commanding general is no stranger to summoning peak performance at critical moments…he didn’t start April 2, 2014 thinking he’d be mitigating a terrible crisis with an audience of millions. What does this example show?
Leaders must live in the mindset that their talents will be put to the test in some unimaginable, untested way…caused by an event that is alarmingly unpredictable. Leaders will have to show staunchness in seeing the tragedy through, while at the same time empathizing and consoling their organization. They’ll have to find a surge of energy at the end of an already-long day, and then continue that pace for weeks. Which means they will have had to live a life of readiness, having developed both the talents and the physical/mental capacity to endure the test.