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?
So the question to ask is how is SOCOM surviving in today’s wars and is SOCOM effectively managing missions–‘command and control’? If not, then what are some of the reasons?
Or how about ‘inter-service coordination’? Is everyone playing well with each other? Good questions, and these are some of the things that a study group need to delve into.
I have been digging around, and here are some of the things I have come up with. This is just a collection of ideas from comments I have been reading from all over the place. Yesterday, I was just saturating myself in everything SOCOM, and then let it all incubate last night, and today is the illumination period. I would have liked to extend this process, to really dig into it, but for a short quick reply, this is what I have come up with.
*Inter-service rivalries
*Everyone wants to get in on everyone else’s action.
*Too many managers.
*Managers making poor decisions.
*Careerism.
*Poor rotation cycles.
*Equipment selection problems.
*The Branches fighting with SOCOM over control of their SOF.
*Quality of SOF operators, because of lack of manpower–fast tracking.
*Losing guys to burn out or retirement or even contracting.
So that is the starting point, and I am sure there are more issues. My process for finding these issues, was to get a shared reality. I read the comments section of blogs and read the replies on forum posts, all to see what the guys out there thought of SOCOM and how they were being managed. If I had further resources, I would fly around the country and meet with as many folks face to face as possible, just to hear what they have to say. But for my initial investigation, and for this article, I just read and listen to others online. I think SOCOM would be well served to do the same–to open up the discussion within their community, and get a feel for where the problems are, and what is working.
So that brings me up to your question Pete about what I thought of the ‘Group of 99’, and the concept of learning from self and others what the best direction is for your company. I will also take off my Marine cover, and put on my Kaizen Otaku and throw around some ideas.
First off, I think the Group of 99 is an excellent concept, and it deserves a Web 2.0 twist. Back when the Group of 99 was doing it’s thing, I think the internet would have made their job a lot more easy. That, and today’s work force is more computer savvy and Web 2.0 centric than ever before. I think the Group of 99 with the use of the internet, could have taken less trips around the world and saved the company some money. But the concept is still sound as a pound–get that shared reality.
I also think it is interesting that they only had 99 guys. Malcolm Gladwell talked about the best size for a company, and I think he came up with 100. The reason for that, was the networking aspects of company size. A company that is too big, does not have a sense of community which lends itself to better problem solving. Marge does not know who Bob is in accounting, and is less likely to ask Bob a question. Bob could care less, because he has not clue who Marge is and he is way to busy answering the emails of hundreds of other employees. The smaller the group, the more interactivity and personal connections there will be. 99 is a good size for such a group.
The things to remember with SOCOM, is the age group of the SOF community(younger) and how Web 2.0 Savvy they are(SOF guys use Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums, etc. just as much as anyone else). But then you have their field obligations, that takes them away from the internet, and keeps them focused on missions(which is equally as important as sharing their lessons learned-gaining experience). But guys are still able to get back to a computer, and they can still connect in some way via uplinks in the field. This is a good thing, and should be a priority for SOCOM to keep that connection going. But the important one here, is they are able to connect and act off of those lessons learned–the vital component of a learning organization. Has SOCOM created this kind of environment of mutual respect and learning from each other within the organization? Or is it a ‘us versus them’ management structure, designed around pumping up the careers of officers and not caring about what the ‘snake eaters’ out in the field think?
So is SOCOM tapping into the ideas and thoughts of their people, and truly listening to what they have to say? Or better yet, have they opened up the floor for discussion? Or even how do you go about this process of re-invention and self evaluation, much like what Saturn and GM did with the Group of 99 study group?
My solution for that, is to ask what Google or Toyota would do to make a better SOCOM?
I believe the Group of 99 pretty much came to the conclusion that Toyota had the best model of organization and philosophy, and they modeled Saturn after them. (and a little bit after the European car market) But did they have to visit more than 100 benchmark companies and travel more than two million miles throughout the world to get to that conclusion? Maybe back then, but today I think the internet and all the Web 2.0 tools we have can certainly make that a more cost effective process. At least it could help to refine the process so they would not have to do so much leg work. It would be nice for frequent flier air miles though. lol
But back to Google. So how would Google build a better SOCOM? First they would determine who is the customer that uses SOCOM, are they happy with the service, are the employees and management of SOCOM happy, and is SOCOM being efficient and cost effective? I am pretty sure Toyota would go through the same process of evaluation, but I want to focus on Google because of their Web 2.0 expertise.
When ever Google comes up with something new, they put it into Beta and look for the input of the users to build a better product. So SOCOM would have to put their newly packaged service out in the open, and ask for people to make it better. I think the two groups that should add to that Beta, would be everyone in their community, and all of the branches of the military. The theme would be, how can we better support your operation or work with you in your area of operations? And then ask the community within, what is the SOCOM you would like to see, what is the future of SOCOM, and what kind of services would you like it to do? I bring up the Army/SEAL fusion in the Sherrif of Ramadi book, as an example of the Army using Special Forces in a unique and effective way. That is customer satisfaction, and that is efficient collaboration for the even bigger picture of winning wars.
Second, Google likes to create platforms that the user can build off of, which then causes the user to keep using Google products. Perhaps Google would take SOCOM, and create Platforms out of each unit that has a speciality. Then that platform would be built upon by whatever user needs that service. If the Army has a need for riverine operations with a little training expertise, they go to a SOCOM dealer and build off the SEAL platform the kind of SEAL group they need, and then put in the order. If the Army has a problem with the services or platform they constructed, then they simply modify it with the help of SOCOM technical advisors. In essence, allow that Army unit to build the product they want and need for their specific mission.
And just to put a horn on this snowmobile of ideas, I really like the idea of creating a social network site for everyone involved with SOCOM. Ning is an open source social networking site platform, that is fun and easy to use. I think a SOCOM Ning, or a completely new version of what they want(protected, well moderated), would be a good step. Everyone should be encouraged to participate, and log in from all over the world to share realities. Make it fun as well, and provide benefit for hanging out on such a thing. I think about the Gorilla story that you wrote about Pete, and a well constructed and fun social networking site for SOCOM could do the trick to liven up the discussion. I see many older and newer SOF operators participate on forums(like Professional Soldiers Forum), and I think SOCOM could do well by making an open and ‘public’ version of a social networking site to attract these guys. And if they assign moderators that can keep things civil, and protect it from attacks, it could work. The Ning platform also has a blogging feature with each profile you set up. This is key, because to be able to blog is pretty essential for some that hang out on that site. I also think the data fill ins for the profile pages, should be SOF centric. Either way, social networking sites are a pretty valuable thing to a company, if they know how to use them.
A Group of 99 team would do well to even create their own little social networking site, just for themselves. They could put up field reports, and blog on their findings. Everyone can read everyone’s stuff as it is happening. I would also attach a wiki to that site, and everyone should be encouraged to add or dispute the findings, to develop what the perfect SOCOM/organization should look like. ( I say wiki, and not wikipedia) This thing would only be a feature of that group, and it is basically putting the idea into Beta for the group to work and mold. That’s not to say that the main SOCOM site couldn’t have that wiki of the Group of 99 as well, but I would wait first for the group of 99 to come up with their deal, and then throw it out there for others to chew on.
Now on to Toyota. For them, it is Kaizen and customer satisfaction all the way. Is SOCOM continuously improving, and do they get customer satisfaction? Are they delivering on service, and are they cost effective and efficient. Is Kaizen and customer service instilled into the DNA of SOCOM, or are they just limping along trying to survive, and not instilling this kind of passion into their workforce. To me, an organization should never just settle for just good enough, and they should always strive to be the best. That is what is expected of the SOF trooper, and that is what should be expected of their leaders in SOCOM that are using them. Toyota also developed the lean manufacturing concept, and SOCOM needs to ask the same question of itself. If I were a study group, I would totally take all of the concepts of Toyota, and really mash them up with the way things are done in SOCOM. Take the good, throw out the bad.
On a side note, to add some more spice to this thing, is the concept of ‘selection is constant’. It is a concept that is practiced by most of the individual SOF units, and it just means you should never get comfortable with your performance and skill. At any time, if you drop the ball on personal development or performance, then you are in the wrong and your usefulness to the team is in question. This concept ties in well with Kaizen, and I think the leadership in SOCOM would be well served to apply that same concept to their upper level management. You have been selected to be a leader here, but in no means does that indicate that you are free from constant improvement, or performance scrutiny. I know I am preaching to the choir here, but it is important that a leader must be a student of leadership, and never stop improving. Your team is watching, and they do not want to be embarrassed, hurt, or killed because of your poor performance.
But back to Group 99. Some places that this study group should look at, are how all the services do things, how all of their SOF units organize and what their opinions are. The group should also look outside of the US Military and check out how others do things. I would look at all the top military units out there, and see how they organize, and find unique models to learn from. I would also look at actual none military companies or organizations.
One group that SOCOM might learn a thing or two from, is the Federal Government’s Fire Services. They are the ones that manage disasters every summer during the forest fire season, and they are always working in worlds of chaos. They also throw everyone together from all corners of the US (and world), and get them working efficiently together for that goal of putting out the fire. Incident Command System is the glue that holds it all together, and it is so simple in design, yet really applicable to others who are trying to throw together numerous pieces of their mission. It is a system that fuse everyone together under a common goal, and it should be looked at for the civilian/military fusion going on in places like Afghanistan or Africa. On a fire, an Incident Commander could be managing a civilian contracting Type 2 crew, a local Fire Department and Police Department, several Engines from the USFS and BLM and Park Service, Smokejumpers, Hotshot crews from every corner of the US, and call in aviation assets that are both government and contractor, and make all of this work for the overall goal of putting out the fire and saving communities. The Incident Command System is the glue that holds it all together.
Finally, when it comes to strategies for solving problems, it is important to use as many different angles as possible to implement those solutions. For SOCOM, I would take the concept of the Group of 99, and have them use the tools of Web 2.0, and also do some traveling to get some face time and shared reality. This group should share what they know, and ask ‘what is your recommendation’. It will also require the leadership of SOCOM to buy into such a thing, and for the SOF community to participate. In other words, they must tap into the wisdom of the crowd, as well as the wisdom of Group of 99, and make the SOCOM that everyone wants. The theme should be “People will support what they help create” and that is definitely some Kaizen material. –Matt