Military Review English Edition July-August 2016 | Page 13

LEADING AND MANAGING

Resource management is often reduced to a simple and very wasteful “use it or lose it” approach. It is
often dismissed derisively as the province of the “bean
counters” and is not considered a high priority among
the many responsibilities of command. Consequently,
matters of cost, organizational design, information
system capabilities, and performance management are
not viewed as “commander’s business” and are often
relegated to deputies or executive officers.
In contrast, at Headquarters, U.S. Army Pacific
(USARPAC), leadership and management go hand in
glove, and the results have been impressive. Under the
USARPAC commanding general’s direction, purposeful
management is emphasized as a valued command-centric trait and a key element of the command culture.
One technique the USARPAC command effectively uses to inculcate management into its command
climate is a quarterly multi-echelon executive steering
board to comprehensively review the command’s progress against its strategic plan. According to the chief
of staff, Maj. Gen. Chris Hughes, “This process drives
organizational cross talk, collaboration, and critical
thinking.” Hughes continues, “Gen. Brooks constantly
challenges his senior team to find ways to get more
from their efforts: no new starts, only new outcomes.”7
Similarly, organizational change, innovation programs,
and the institutionalization of a “cost culture”—evidence of a culture that highly values management
practices—all enjoy a high priority at USARPAC.
Communicate a shared vision and organizational
strategy. This tenet is fundamental. Despite the reputation of military leaders for being masters of strategic art,
organizational strategies for noncontingency operations
are often absent or deficient. Most military leaders are
familiar with the process of devising a strategy and planning to defeat an adversary within a given area of operations. However, arguably, a more difficult task is to devise
a multiyear strategy that will allow an organization to
succeed in a complex, changing environment with multiple stakeholders, often with competing or conflicting
interests. For example, consider the challenge involved
in crafting a multiyear strategy for U.S. Army Recruiting
Command to convince qualified American citizens
that they should join the Army in sufficient numbers to
meet evolving manpower requirements under changing
social, economic, and demographic conditions. Because
the skills needed to develop such a roadmap differ so
MILITARY REVIEW  July-August 2016

significantly from normal operational art, Army leaders
are often challenged by conducting such a task. Still,
many are successful.
One example of managerial success is Fort Stewart,
Georgia, home of the 3rd Infantry Division. The installation has won the coveted Army Community of
Excellence award an unprecedented six times, most
recently in 2015. To achieve such recognition in the face
of stiff competition, Fort Stewart’s culture recognizes
that strategic planning, vision, and strategy development
form the basis for everything that is done.8 Bringing
together a diverse group of tenants, senior mission-command representatives, and the garrison, Fort Stewart
leadership effectively forges a shared vision where everyone can clearly see their interests represented.
Col. Townley R. Hedrick, garrison commander,
offers, “Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield are run
using the IPB (Installation Planning Board) process to
maintain a strategic, long-term focus on the installation’s needs. The key to the successful IPB is the participation and buy-in of all stakeholders that live, work,
train, and deploy on and from Fort Stewart and Hunter
Army Airfield; combined with the guidance and vision
of the Senior Commander.”9 The Fort Stewart strategic
planning process is disciplined and repeatable, and it is
an Army best practice.10
Routinely assess and benchmark your performance. Without a means to implement and measure
execution, the best strategy is just another “coffee table
book.” That is why this third tenet is so critical and inextricably tied back to strategy development. You cannot objectively assess a strategy that does not contain
tangible goals and objectives. And, you cannot effectively improve performance without goals. Therefore,
the best strategies have their assessments built together
in an integrated fashion.
The goals should adhere to the principles identified
in the acronym SMART; they should be specific, measurable, achievable, results‐focused, and time‐bound.11
And, when establishing goals and associated metrics,
leaders should include some that are “stretches.” Stretch
goals inexorably pull the organization to levels of performance that at first blush may seem unachievable.
Army organizations often struggle with creating
balance in the SMART concept, establishing so many
measures that assessments become bogged down, or
setting the bar too low to ensure a goal can be met.
11