Hey everyone, this is a treat. I wanted to expand on a interesting conversation in the comments section, that I think deserves it’s own home. This is from the article called The Importance of Shared Reality. –Matt
——————————————————————-
Matt
Been thinking about your post while hiking the Laotian trail–more about that later. Since we are using the auto industry as a source of metaphor for organizational best practices, I thought we might hyper-link to another–the Saturn Car Company concept. Remember the original GM logic for creating Saturn–they realized that they had gotten too big, and too bueracratic to compete with the smaller more nimble company’s–like Toyota. So GM selected 99 people (“the Group of 99”) and turned them loose to identify key founding principles for a new organization (Saturn) and to search the world for the best ideas in all key areas. The group consisted of a functional cross-section of people, including plant managers, superintendents, union committee members, production workers, and skilled tradesmen, as well as 41 UAW locals(which is fascinating because one of their findings was to scrap the Union model) and GM staff from 55 GM plants.
The group split into seven coss-functional teams to explore stamping; metal fabrication and body work; paint and corrosion; trim and hardware; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and powertrain and chassis. In all, the Group of 99 visited 49 GM plants and 60 other companies around the world (shared reality). They made 170 contacts, traveled two million miles, and put in 50,000 hours of interviews and visits (listening to the guys on the ground).
The group’s findings were presented in April 1984. The keys to success identified included ownership by all employees, the assumption of responsibility by all, equality and trust among employees, the elimination of barriers to doing a good job including the union, giving staff the authority to do their jobs, and the existence of common goals. Specific recommendations included the formation of consensus-driven partnerships within work teams as well as between the union and company management.
Although initially a mega-success, Higher Headquarters eventually reigned Saturn back in and squashed their entrepenuerial decision-making and management methods, the lesson still stands as a precient model for how a large organization can reinvent itself to stary nimble, and stay competitive.
I believe that the Saturn Car Company model is what USSOCOM needs to follow in order to stay nimble and meet the challenges of modern day–I hate to use the word but I have to–assymetrical warfare.
What think you? –Pete
——————————————————————-
Pete,
Laos would be a cool country to check out, and I certainly would like to hear those stories. As for your question, I hope I can do it some justice. It is something that all companies in my industry can learn from, and any ideas about how to better organize and manage a company should be listened to and studied. The concept of Group 99 is intriguing, and it has certainly kicked in the thought machine within my head. I also wanted to make this answer for you, more reader friendly, and include a historical base as well. So you will have to pardon the beginning here, because this is me just priming the pump for the reader.
The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) or what I will call SOCOM was originally created out of the ashes of Operation Eagle Claw(the failed Iran hostage rescue mission), and I think it is important to look at this first. The investigation of this incident, chaired by Admiral James L. Holloway III, cited lack of command and control and inter-service coordination as significant factors in the failure of that mission. So this is one side of the story.
The other side of the story, is the reality of what the Special Operations Forces (SOF) were up against. Whereas my belief is that the SOF community was getting the short end of the stick well before Operation Eagle Claw, and certainly were aware of these command and control issues. The guy on the ground was not being listened to, which is too bad. It was classic conventional versus unconventional mindsets, and of course the bigger of the two will win. So no one of importance or influence was really sold on the concept, and looked upon SOF with skepticism, all while gobbling up budget money for their projects. “All of my forces are special” was the mindset, “and money needs to go to my tanks, jets, and large scale infantry forces”.
And Carter, when confronted with a situation that required a clean and sharp scalpel, to cut those hostages loose from Iranian control, looked to the military to solve his problem. Did they have a developed Special Operations capability, or were they too focused on tanks and planes? No wonder things failed, but I put that responsibility on the top leaders who were not forward thinking enough to even acknowledge the potential for a situation like what happened in Iran. So this is where SOCOM came from, and what it’s purpose in life is–to prevent another Operation Eagle Claw and effectively manage today’s Special Operations community.
Then over the years, they have done much to work on the command and control issues and inter-service coordination, and have conducted numerous missions all the way up to the present wars. But really, the current wars are the true test of the effectiveness of SOCOM, and I think this is why a conversation like this even takes place. The true test of an organization’s strengths is not when all is well, but when they are tested and pushed to it’s limits. Much like how does a company like Toyota weather the storm during a bad economy?
(more…)
