Solid points that are applicable for any role: don’t show the ideas that never went anywhere (or started and then withered on the vine upon departure), demonstrate that the ability to drive towards results, especially under less-than-ideal conditions.
Leaders won’t always show rank/experience blindness to favor talent, but one needn’t ask for permission to perform at the level demanded (or possible).
Jer, thanks for the note! While I know most folks don't want to know about things that didn't work out, if we're really looking to pick/hire a pro, then you do want to hear about the things that didn't work out. It's important to suss out the factors that led to failure, if for no other reason than that strategist will be mindful of those factors going forward. That doesn't mean we show our warts to the world all the time, but when we're selecting a strategist, in my mind, sometimes we should.
Ha! Agreed - my broader view was undoubtedly biased towards the tendency in military circles to capture "wins" (really, in-progress activities) as part of performance reports and then never assess long-term results. I'm sure there are a lot of "strategists" out there who wrote "winning" bullets for their role in, say, shaping the strategy for Afghanistan as part of some deployment or staff gig... not sure how many of them would want / be able to do what you describe, but if you find one who does / can, I'd be inclined to think they're a good egg using that heuristic alone.
Strategy strikes me as a longitudinal activity, so anything with short-term views raises questions in my mind - not to say you can't have short-term strategies (you definitely can), but I'm not sure those are the same thing, per se. You're much better versed than I in all these things, so that perspective could be wildly off-base, just where I'm at right now in my own learning journey.
I would like to perhaps push your argument in two slightly different, and some might say harsh, directions. The first deals with organizational culture and the US Army not only rewards/preferences quantity of time in most cases, it also preferences tactical mastery. Those with large quantities of time often became successful because of their hard earned tactical mastery leading formations conducting tactical tasks. Those skills do not always translate and the individuals have learned what gets rewards - tactical success. The second direction is related - cognitive flexibility. Again, being reductive, but most humans as they get older tend to become less flexible in their approaches to problem solving. They create heuristics in the areas in which they often deal or where problems arise and begin to rely on those more and more rather than continually seeking to challenge and adjust the principles and concepts they frequently use. As individuals spend ever longer times in the Army advancing in rank, building up that time quantity that is rewarded, many often lose that flexibility of thought. That does not bode well for strategic output.
Louis: muchas gracias! Great points. I don't see those directions as harsh at all, I think they're just facts of the career-lives we've got. What would be worse is if we didn't look at the way people really are and just avoided uncomfortable truths. I hinted at your points in the essay by noting that learning isn't linear...so, we may leap quite a bit in one way of thinking in a certain assignment, then plateau a bit in another, then experience another leap forward. And, yes, unfortunately, as we age we do get a bit more set in our ways. But...my understanding is also that with age comes context - the accumulated gains start to pile up and you do tend to see the bigger picture (even if it is a bit more hardened and inflexible). I guess in the end I see benefits to strategists at all age-levels...but, and here's the big "but" - we should rank and sort them based on their work-product, and not presumed goodness based only on how long they've hung around.
I dunno about not harsh and uncomfortable truths bit dove tailing well with the Army. I've worked with some O6s (and a few O5s) who take great umbrage and get a bit pouty when you point out that individual X or Y (tends to be junior) has a more appropriate, grounded, or valid take and/or certain biases are very evident in the argument. Then again, this may just be an artifact of how I frame it ("Bit too much sunk cost fallacy there, bub." "Soooo, that's a tautology.")
If we can extend just this point (uncomfortable truths) just a bit (and the singular of data is not anecdote, but anecdote is what I've got) - in the recent extremism stand-down there seemed to be great hesitation to have uncomfortable discussions. Rather than say, "Here we have a problem, let us examine why we got to this point and how we should correct and move above and beyond it" the discussion was presented as "This is wrong, don't do it (with a side order of whataboutism)." I would suggest that tack is taken to avoid having very explicit conversations that will be very uncomfortable for many involved. There is some long, dark tea-time of the soul searching that needs to happen on this subject, and many subjects. But as an organization there is some hesitancy to do too much self-reflection.
I'd like to caveat my negativity in the above paras by pointing out that there are some positive developments in talent management, etc. Perhaps not enough, but it's a start.
Leaders prevent younger, and perhaps more talented, team members from succeeding if they do not set conditions removing bureaucratic hurdles. Some are also unaware such hurdles exist within their teams which may impede progress of the Captain described below.
A trend I enjoy in your writing is “strategy is life, and life is strategy.” Meaning, you relate what seem disparate topics deducting on how to draw lessons from the tooth fairy for a successful strategy.
Thanks! I'll try to take on a recent strategic decision - whether to vaccinate widely (what the UK gov chose) versus deeply (US gov choice). I find that whatever field of strategy you find yourself in, real decisions and choices are few and far between. I'm a military officer, and I may not go to war again (heck, I hope not to go to war again). But that doesn't mean I can't benefit from what the world provides us about strategic decisions. I find parenting, sports, business, politics, relationships, work-bureaucracies...strategy's all around us, and if we just pay attention, we can learn a heckuva lot. And if you see something and want to knock it around here, please feel free to reach out.
Fully concur. First day on the job at the Pentagon my new two-star boss said rank didnt matter, and that I needed to master process and that a Captain who had ideas and had mastered the arcane Action Processing system could be more valuable than a Colonel.
Solid points that are applicable for any role: don’t show the ideas that never went anywhere (or started and then withered on the vine upon departure), demonstrate that the ability to drive towards results, especially under less-than-ideal conditions.
Leaders won’t always show rank/experience blindness to favor talent, but one needn’t ask for permission to perform at the level demanded (or possible).
Jer, thanks for the note! While I know most folks don't want to know about things that didn't work out, if we're really looking to pick/hire a pro, then you do want to hear about the things that didn't work out. It's important to suss out the factors that led to failure, if for no other reason than that strategist will be mindful of those factors going forward. That doesn't mean we show our warts to the world all the time, but when we're selecting a strategist, in my mind, sometimes we should.
Ha! Agreed - my broader view was undoubtedly biased towards the tendency in military circles to capture "wins" (really, in-progress activities) as part of performance reports and then never assess long-term results. I'm sure there are a lot of "strategists" out there who wrote "winning" bullets for their role in, say, shaping the strategy for Afghanistan as part of some deployment or staff gig... not sure how many of them would want / be able to do what you describe, but if you find one who does / can, I'd be inclined to think they're a good egg using that heuristic alone.
Strategy strikes me as a longitudinal activity, so anything with short-term views raises questions in my mind - not to say you can't have short-term strategies (you definitely can), but I'm not sure those are the same thing, per se. You're much better versed than I in all these things, so that perspective could be wildly off-base, just where I'm at right now in my own learning journey.
I would like to perhaps push your argument in two slightly different, and some might say harsh, directions. The first deals with organizational culture and the US Army not only rewards/preferences quantity of time in most cases, it also preferences tactical mastery. Those with large quantities of time often became successful because of their hard earned tactical mastery leading formations conducting tactical tasks. Those skills do not always translate and the individuals have learned what gets rewards - tactical success. The second direction is related - cognitive flexibility. Again, being reductive, but most humans as they get older tend to become less flexible in their approaches to problem solving. They create heuristics in the areas in which they often deal or where problems arise and begin to rely on those more and more rather than continually seeking to challenge and adjust the principles and concepts they frequently use. As individuals spend ever longer times in the Army advancing in rank, building up that time quantity that is rewarded, many often lose that flexibility of thought. That does not bode well for strategic output.
Louis: muchas gracias! Great points. I don't see those directions as harsh at all, I think they're just facts of the career-lives we've got. What would be worse is if we didn't look at the way people really are and just avoided uncomfortable truths. I hinted at your points in the essay by noting that learning isn't linear...so, we may leap quite a bit in one way of thinking in a certain assignment, then plateau a bit in another, then experience another leap forward. And, yes, unfortunately, as we age we do get a bit more set in our ways. But...my understanding is also that with age comes context - the accumulated gains start to pile up and you do tend to see the bigger picture (even if it is a bit more hardened and inflexible). I guess in the end I see benefits to strategists at all age-levels...but, and here's the big "but" - we should rank and sort them based on their work-product, and not presumed goodness based only on how long they've hung around.
I dunno about not harsh and uncomfortable truths bit dove tailing well with the Army. I've worked with some O6s (and a few O5s) who take great umbrage and get a bit pouty when you point out that individual X or Y (tends to be junior) has a more appropriate, grounded, or valid take and/or certain biases are very evident in the argument. Then again, this may just be an artifact of how I frame it ("Bit too much sunk cost fallacy there, bub." "Soooo, that's a tautology.")
If we can extend just this point (uncomfortable truths) just a bit (and the singular of data is not anecdote, but anecdote is what I've got) - in the recent extremism stand-down there seemed to be great hesitation to have uncomfortable discussions. Rather than say, "Here we have a problem, let us examine why we got to this point and how we should correct and move above and beyond it" the discussion was presented as "This is wrong, don't do it (with a side order of whataboutism)." I would suggest that tack is taken to avoid having very explicit conversations that will be very uncomfortable for many involved. There is some long, dark tea-time of the soul searching that needs to happen on this subject, and many subjects. But as an organization there is some hesitancy to do too much self-reflection.
I'd like to caveat my negativity in the above paras by pointing out that there are some positive developments in talent management, etc. Perhaps not enough, but it's a start.
Leaders prevent younger, and perhaps more talented, team members from succeeding if they do not set conditions removing bureaucratic hurdles. Some are also unaware such hurdles exist within their teams which may impede progress of the Captain described below.
A trend I enjoy in your writing is “strategy is life, and life is strategy.” Meaning, you relate what seem disparate topics deducting on how to draw lessons from the tooth fairy for a successful strategy.
Thanks! I'll try to take on a recent strategic decision - whether to vaccinate widely (what the UK gov chose) versus deeply (US gov choice). I find that whatever field of strategy you find yourself in, real decisions and choices are few and far between. I'm a military officer, and I may not go to war again (heck, I hope not to go to war again). But that doesn't mean I can't benefit from what the world provides us about strategic decisions. I find parenting, sports, business, politics, relationships, work-bureaucracies...strategy's all around us, and if we just pay attention, we can learn a heckuva lot. And if you see something and want to knock it around here, please feel free to reach out.
I’m hoping you’ve read “Range” by David Epstein—if you haven’t, you’ll enjoy it by your comment above.
Fully concur. First day on the job at the Pentagon my new two-star boss said rank didnt matter, and that I needed to master process and that a Captain who had ideas and had mastered the arcane Action Processing system could be more valuable than a Colonel.
I'd like to work for that two-star. I really, really would.
He retired as a four star. I am still in contact with him some 37 years later. People loved working for him.