Tuesday Twofer Must Reads

As a former (non-aviator) Navy Officer during Vietnam and a former corporate executive and previously a project manager, as usual, I couldn't disagree more with McCain. I realize he was a prisoner of war and behaved admirably in that capacity, as did many others, but that does not make him in any way an expert on the skills required to be a successful executive--in or out of the Navy.

Leadership is a difficult vocation. "Comparatively" few persons have the ability to motivate others to obey their orders; however, no one would be successful in a higher level leadership position who also is not a highly capable manager. Apparently McCain doesn't understand that possessing an MBA or any advanced degree is not synonymous with management. Management is the ability to know which tasks need to be done, in what sequence, at what cost, at which time, and then have the ability to see these efforts are planned, their execution controlled, and have the controls in place enabling one to take the necessary steps when activities do not proceed according to plan. And, to be able to do so in an environment where the project, program, business or military effort involves hundreds of thousands of tasks, some of which must be done in intersecting sequences at various points in time. Establishing objectives, Budgeting, organizing, planning, executing, controlling, communicating, modifying, etc constitutes management, not taking MBA courses, although I am a fan of advanced degrees and the knowledge that comes with them and have my own.

A leader who does not understand how to manage, i.e. plan, organize, budget, define end objectives will lead his men and women to disaster and utter failure. Napoleon was a leader, but his failure to manage his Russian Campaign utterly destroyed his army and state. Similarly, while Lee was considered a great leader, his management of his Gettysburg Campaign was a total failure and the cause of his army's defeat. He failed to control his general's movements, failed to issue explicit orders, failed to issue a written plan, failed to have his staff officers ensure his (non-existent) detailed plans were timely carried out or to report a failure to perform; failed to state clear objectives to his corps commanders when attempting to concentrate them; etc. etc. Not be to sacrilegious, first criticizing McCain and now Regan, but the Regan team's management of their Lebanon intervention was an absolute management disaster, and look at the result. Enough said, at least Regan rebuilt the military which later carried out a well managed campaign in the Gulf War.

On the other hand, while I am not a fan of COIN, General David Petraeus and his deputy in Iraq (General Raymond Ordierno) are examples of highly capable leaders and managers. He / they knew precisely which tasks were to be completed, the order in which they were to be carried out, the needed timing for each, knew how to manage (allocate) resources, knew how to manage and adjust for unplanned situations, etc. Read his counterinsurgency doctrine--it is a first class management manual.

A leader who lacks management responsibilities is called perhaps a supervisor. A leader who fails as a manager is called retired or fired.

Further, anyone who thinks technical experts are a dime a dozen has never led a complex technical development effort. Being able to spout facts does not make someone a technical expert. Being able to apply that knowledge to the unknown and create complex weapons system where the code is millions of lines that must work in hundreds of thousands of variable sequences under varying conditions or developing an aircraft or missile with more interacting parts that proceeds in a physical manner different than before, such as in stealth aircraft is what makes individuals technical experts, and having worked, led, and managed in that aerospace environment (and in others), I only wish they were a dime a dozen. We certainly never could fill all the openings we had and were forever searching for mentally capable technical experts.

McCain's speech was to much hype and certainly not reflective of the later half 20th century and 21st century military, and while again recognizing his admirable behavior in the Hanoi Hilton, he never was "admiral material,” and even Captain (O-6) was a stretch at best. He never commanded an operational squadron or Carrier Air Wing. He commanded what the Navy refers to as a RAG (Replacement Air Group) squadron, or in reality an activity. A training activity where Pilots assigned to fleet squadrons pass through to obtain familiarization with the aircraft they will be flying rather than have them obtain that familiarization in the squadron itself. A command where management skills are the key requirement, but not one held by someone tagged for admiral.

Regardless, one can only wonder whether McCain would have been a better leader / manager on this nation's economy than the current commander in chief.