Lessons in Military Leadership: Learn to be a Manager

This discussion and lead notation reminds me of the SWJ Blog post of September 13, 2011, the essence of which was a link to a speech giver by John McCain. In his speech, McCain is reported to have in part commented:

“Today, we hear a lot about ‘management’ and not enough about leadership. That worries me. One thing of which I am certain – there is a great difference between managers and leaders. Good managers are plentiful – in fact, our nation graduates over 150,000 MBAs ever year. But true leaders are rare. And believe me, there is a difference
--Leaders inspire people; managers, well, they “manage” people and assets.
--Leaders think about protecting and promoting their people; managers think about protecting their own careers.
--Leaders take charge and accept responsibility; managers often pass the buck to higher authority for fear of making a wrong decision.
--Leaders take risks when necessary; managers are taught to avoid risks whenever possible.
“Ronald Reagan was a leader – Jimmy Carter was a manager. Halsey, Nimitz, and Spruance were leaders. Henderson, McClusky, and Waldron were leaders. If any one of them had opted for caution rather than courage when their moment of testing came, the outcome at Midway would have been radically different."

A view many aspiring military officers and aspiring business executives erroneously hold.

As a former Navy Officer during Vietnam and a former corporate executive who was once in his (comparatively) youthful years a project manager in the aerospace industry, as usual, I couldn't disagree more with McCain. I realize he was an heroic prisoner of war as were 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.

Yes, 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 also a highly capable manager.

Management is the ability to know which tasks need to be done, in what sequence, at what cost, at what staffing level, using what equipment, at which time, etc.--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 or merely being able to move a few things around, 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.

Rommel was a great leader and tactician. Montgomery was a decent leader and a brilliant manager in the placement of his artillery, etc. at El Alamein and note who won.

Not be to sacrilegious, but the Regan team's management of their Lebanon intervention was an absolute management disaster--and recall the result. Enough said, at least Regan rebuilt the US military which later carried out a well managed campaign in the Gulf War. The US military’s logistical management ability was a key factor which enabled success in that endeavor, which would have failed otherwise.

Further, 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. His counterinsurgency doctrine is a first class management manual.

A lower level leader who lacks management responsibilities is called perhaps a supervisor or maybe a fire team leader. A higher level successful leader who is not simultaneously a successful manager is called involuntarily retired or fired.

The Omani gentleman was essentially correct, but should have noted that "While Leadership may be important, Managing is what is really critical, and difficult."

To put my comment in context, I'll first say that I am currently in my final year at USNA.

I, for one, completely agree with notion that military officers fail in management. After having completed three years at USNA, which have included two separate "leadership" courses, and hearing the term "leadership laboratory" repeated ad nauseum, looking forward, I can see why graduates are so incredibly leadership-centric. I have also been subjected to what was described in the another comment, I believe, as leadership "card tricks."

A great deal of what the Naval Academy teaches its Midshipmen seems to be taught by putting Midshipmen in "leadership positions" (another favorite phrase of the administration) for the sake of giving Midshipmen "leadership experience." While I do believe that those positions and experiences (generally afforded exclusively to upperclassmen) are tremendously important, they are rarely accompanied by any real ends to be sought. Thus, these Midshipmen end up with incredibly simple, mundane, and generally contrived tasks through which the must "lead" junior Midshipmen. Midshipmen rarely have any real or challenging tasks to manage. In my experience as a Midshipman, the only opportunities I had for challenging management and leadership were as an Offshore Sailing Team JV Skipper, a position which tasked me with the training and saftey of my crew, the preparation of our boat, and making strategic and tactical decisions before and during racing. (As an aside, I would say that recent cuts to USNA's sailing programs are to the detriment of the Navy and Marine Corps as whole institutions, not just to the ability of Midshipmen to competently operate sailboats.)

I cannot speak to any other commissioning programs as I have little or no experience with them, but my bet is that they are similarly leadership-oriented and fail to teach management whatsoever.

The critical issue with leadership v. management, in my opinion, is that managers manage "things", such as getting vehicles through services in an orderly fashion. Leaders lead people and that's a giant difference.

I've seen a lot of "managers" in the military. They tend to look good around the boss because their slides are squared away and they make the "numbers" look good. Most of them have been poor leaders and many have been a bad influence on morale. Managing tends to work for people when there's no forward movement, no obstacles to be overcome - which tends to be office type environments. That doesn't work for other types of units.

The big point I take from this article and the discussion, though, is that you need to know when to focus on leading and when to focus on managing. I've found it impossible to be a leader and a manager simultaneously.

While I concur with much of what Major Munson writes and strongly agree that our management ability and instruction is indeed quite poor, I would urge readers to not totally discard leadership as a skill for commanders.

As the author and I know, 'leadership' in Oman -- or the Middle East in general -- is effectively discounted in many cases because management skills are needed whereas leadership skills are generally not. Authoritarian regimes and institutions provide leadership in their own way. They also often fail in a crunch...

You can manage Americans, they will generally tolerate it without more than normal griping -- but they do appreciate it when the Boss shows a little leadership ability as well. To most denizens of the US, leadership is simply know your job; do your job; and be fair. Knowing and doing one's job are essential for good management. Applied fairness makes good managers effective leaders.