Of course, a battle rhythm isn't a process and the leader not a process asset. Even though there may be a healthy battle rhythm to cue up decisions to a leader, sometimes events must take the leader out of the office and away from the immediate team. Customers must be briefed, higher headquarters placated, previously unknown opportunities exploited. Even with a well established battle rhythm, meetings will conflict. Of course, this is the time for the transformational leader to shine. For if the leader doesn't want to be a process asset (something required to do the work), or a barrier to decisions being made (by forcing them to wait until the leader's return), then the systemic leader must prepare deputies, subordinates, and team members to be able to chart those short courses until the leader is next available.
How is this done? Many techniques are covered in the literature (setting standards, etc.), but most important is preparing the team to own the work and ensure they understand the vision for the end objective. Hear what I'm not saying: I didn't mention setting thresholds, transactional delegations of authority, or ensuring people know their boundaries. A transformational, systemic leader has prepared the team to execute, and while the leader's personal presence may be appreciated by the team, the team should understand the group vision and have sufficient ownership to march out without explicit instructions.
Read More......
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thoughts on the "Engineering Battle Rhythm" of Configuration Management
We discussed battle rhythm being important. Even started some definition of Battle Rhythm on the wiki. But now let's look at one close to my heart, the engineering battle rhythm.
In the newest wiki page, Engineering Battle Rhythm, I'm starting a discussion on the nature and impact of various engineering processes and the inherent rhythm that grows up around them in an acquisition organization. The most infamous SE process is that of Configuration Management (CM), and especially the very painful Request For Change (RFC). Nothing can strike fear and doubt into an innovator's heart faster than a first meeting with the configuration managers and all the associated boards and reviews inherent to an RFC.
Of course, what I'm hoping to examine is how to operate as a Systemic Leader in that very process heavy and entrenched battle rhythm of formalized systems engineering processes (such as CM). I'm starting to apply this at work, so hopefully I'll have some perspective and experiences to share and see if any of my thoughts survive their first encounter with "the enemy" (be that enemy the configuration manager or merely reality). Read More......
In the newest wiki page, Engineering Battle Rhythm, I'm starting a discussion on the nature and impact of various engineering processes and the inherent rhythm that grows up around them in an acquisition organization. The most infamous SE process is that of Configuration Management (CM), and especially the very painful Request For Change (RFC). Nothing can strike fear and doubt into an innovator's heart faster than a first meeting with the configuration managers and all the associated boards and reviews inherent to an RFC.
Of course, what I'm hoping to examine is how to operate as a Systemic Leader in that very process heavy and entrenched battle rhythm of formalized systems engineering processes (such as CM). I'm starting to apply this at work, so hopefully I'll have some perspective and experiences to share and see if any of my thoughts survive their first encounter with "the enemy" (be that enemy the configuration manager or merely reality). Read More......
Friday, April 30, 2010
On Battle Rhythm
From our wiki article on Battle Rhythm, we noted an US Army manual that cited a lack of battle rhythm can cause various issues such as leader fatigue and the leader being missing from critical decisions.
In my new job, there seemed to be various battle rhythms starting to develop. Initially, I was content to let the chiefs pick their rhythm. However, over time, I'm beginning to see that establishing a battle rhythm is very difficult, even for the most accomplished of senior leaders. Working in this new office, with a charter unlike any other office within the command, the selected battle rhythm (and several iterations thereafter) have yet to adequately serve the senior leaders.
On the topic of staff coordination and senior staff meetings, finding the right day to go with the command's decision cycle in our role as an integrator is hard. Initially, we chose the day of the week and time that worked best for the seniors. However, that time ended up being immediately after all the command decision meetings, which meant everyone only really knew the immediate out briefs. In our command, the real actions tend to flow a day or so after the meetings.
However, by moving the staff coordination to the start of the week, which would seem to be the optimal date for the command's decision process time line, we haven't had as much staff participation in the meetings. Since the office's charter is to perform coordination and integration (a kind of portfolio manager), many of the staff have subordinate commands to attend on that same day.
Even for a small office, this inability to effectively coordinate action has resulted in seniors (and their deputies, such as me) getting fatigued and scrambling to figure out where the next critical decision point lay and get someone prepared to be there.
Of course, since I'm matrixed from the system engineering organization to this coordination office, that gives me two battle rhythms to attempt to satisfy with my boss. Additionally, my parent organization's battle rhythm is well suited for engineers of single systems, but my boss and I have to service a portfolio manager, which makes our efforts unique compared with our peers.
My initial thought that is to consider integrated work/decision environments, such as operating from a war room, so that we can get the best picture of the environment. However, I do hesitate, because although getting the complete information picture appeals to me as a systems engineer, knowing that the seniors lack a battle rhythm that I can know when/where to inject that gained information makes me question if the effort will bear fruit (and here, fruit is reducing leader fatigue and getting leaders to the critical decisions sufficiently prepared).
The one light is that we just this week got a full set of deputies assigned and we seem to be working well together. If we can establish the battle rhythm in the near future, we should be able to start getting our seniors in the right places. Read More......
In my new job, there seemed to be various battle rhythms starting to develop. Initially, I was content to let the chiefs pick their rhythm. However, over time, I'm beginning to see that establishing a battle rhythm is very difficult, even for the most accomplished of senior leaders. Working in this new office, with a charter unlike any other office within the command, the selected battle rhythm (and several iterations thereafter) have yet to adequately serve the senior leaders.
On the topic of staff coordination and senior staff meetings, finding the right day to go with the command's decision cycle in our role as an integrator is hard. Initially, we chose the day of the week and time that worked best for the seniors. However, that time ended up being immediately after all the command decision meetings, which meant everyone only really knew the immediate out briefs. In our command, the real actions tend to flow a day or so after the meetings.
However, by moving the staff coordination to the start of the week, which would seem to be the optimal date for the command's decision process time line, we haven't had as much staff participation in the meetings. Since the office's charter is to perform coordination and integration (a kind of portfolio manager), many of the staff have subordinate commands to attend on that same day.
Even for a small office, this inability to effectively coordinate action has resulted in seniors (and their deputies, such as me) getting fatigued and scrambling to figure out where the next critical decision point lay and get someone prepared to be there.
Of course, since I'm matrixed from the system engineering organization to this coordination office, that gives me two battle rhythms to attempt to satisfy with my boss. Additionally, my parent organization's battle rhythm is well suited for engineers of single systems, but my boss and I have to service a portfolio manager, which makes our efforts unique compared with our peers.
My initial thought that is to consider integrated work/decision environments, such as operating from a war room, so that we can get the best picture of the environment. However, I do hesitate, because although getting the complete information picture appeals to me as a systems engineer, knowing that the seniors lack a battle rhythm that I can know when/where to inject that gained information makes me question if the effort will bear fruit (and here, fruit is reducing leader fatigue and getting leaders to the critical decisions sufficiently prepared).
The one light is that we just this week got a full set of deputies assigned and we seem to be working well together. If we can establish the battle rhythm in the near future, we should be able to start getting our seniors in the right places. Read More......
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Hands on with Systemic Leadership
Well, been busy the past few months getting settled into a new job standing up a new organization (yes, adding to the bureaucracy). I was tapped as an "enterprise systems engineer" responsible to provide architectures, concepts of operations, requirements, and other technical support to future visions.
In this job, there are people, like a former President of a Harris division, who are very interested in understanding how to best set up the organization based on the specific leadership capabilities, personal traits, and other factors of the senior leaders. Fortunately, so far the office is relatively flat in organization, so I have insight into the workings of the seniors.
I'm hoping to start posting my observations from this experience - good, bad, and ugly to see how paying attention to the systemic (or in places where we fail to pay attention) leads to what kinds of behaviors in the organization. Read More......
In this job, there are people, like a former President of a Harris division, who are very interested in understanding how to best set up the organization based on the specific leadership capabilities, personal traits, and other factors of the senior leaders. Fortunately, so far the office is relatively flat in organization, so I have insight into the workings of the seniors.
I'm hoping to start posting my observations from this experience - good, bad, and ugly to see how paying attention to the systemic (or in places where we fail to pay attention) leads to what kinds of behaviors in the organization. Read More......
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Systemic Leadership Core Model Drafted
First off, we have a wiki for Systemic Leadership. We are still filling out the initial content. This is a place for you to read, and possibly engage directly in the development of this systemic leadership concept we've been talking about on this blog. The wiki contains links to our publications so far. We've loaded those onto Google Docs, so that you can see the various routes we have taken.
Now, we introduce our draft systemic leadership model. After spending much time looking on relational factors of a model, and specifically avoiding reduction, we have seen a simple pattern emerge. In this model, we consider the relationship between a leader and a team as core element operating to achieve some endeavor (project, program, etc) in an environment. While relating leaders and teams to do a project is normal in most leadership constructs, we add in the notion of a battle rhythm.
The US Army uses battle rhythms extensively and is generally concerned if a rhythm is lacking (See section I-66 of RM 4-02.2 for examples of what may happen if the rhythm isn't known). For the systemic model, the decisions needed for the endeavor are presented through the team to the leaders in accordance with the battle rhythm. Good battle rhythms ensure that the leader is present at the right time, with the right supporting information, to make the right decisions. Poor rhythms interfere with the right information getting to the leader at the right time in some fashion. For example, insisting on defining an interface with an external user that may not be needed by either party for several years may take attention away from other critical decisions that the leader must make.
Now, this is a draft model, we welcome comments or thoughts on how you think this model may help leaders take a more systemic view at leading their programs. Read More......
Now, we introduce our draft systemic leadership model. After spending much time looking on relational factors of a model, and specifically avoiding reduction, we have seen a simple pattern emerge. In this model, we consider the relationship between a leader and a team as core element operating to achieve some endeavor (project, program, etc) in an environment. While relating leaders and teams to do a project is normal in most leadership constructs, we add in the notion of a battle rhythm.
The US Army uses battle rhythms extensively and is generally concerned if a rhythm is lacking (See section I-66 of RM 4-02.2 for examples of what may happen if the rhythm isn't known). For the systemic model, the decisions needed for the endeavor are presented through the team to the leaders in accordance with the battle rhythm. Good battle rhythms ensure that the leader is present at the right time, with the right supporting information, to make the right decisions. Poor rhythms interfere with the right information getting to the leader at the right time in some fashion. For example, insisting on defining an interface with an external user that may not be needed by either party for several years may take attention away from other critical decisions that the leader must make.
Now, this is a draft model, we welcome comments or thoughts on how you think this model may help leaders take a more systemic view at leading their programs. Read More......
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Book Review: A Book of Five Rings
Written by Shinmen Musashi circa 1645, "A book of Five Rings" is an interesting set of lessons on learning the warrior path. What strikes me most about the work is the systemic nature of Musashi's observations on how to best learn to be a warrior.
The main premise of the book is to teach a military commander on the tactics of war. For example, in the "Fire Book", the three methods of forestalling the enemy apply equally to the 1-on-1 duelist and the 1,000's-on-1,000's and can be equated to what I have recently learned on strategy at the USAF's Squadron Officer School. This mindset taken, of the interrelation between building of character, self-discipline, building on basics of swordsmanship/combat-arms, and the commander, is similar to what we are discussing here in the Systemic Leadership blog.
In Systemic Leadership, we do advocate that the basic training (such as DAU for young acquisition professionals) should end up producing qualified program directors and program executive officers. In a true systemic sense, like Musashi, this training is best if it builds on itself and we teach the young professionals what will be useful as seniors.
Overall, I recommend this book for its classic take on integrating multiple disciplines together into a systemic whole. Ultimately, many readings are needed to fully appreciate the subtleties of the book. A book, which by the way, is very short - my version (Translated by Vicor Harris in 1974) is only 95 pages, and over half of that are notes, background, and translation points. Read More......
The main premise of the book is to teach a military commander on the tactics of war. For example, in the "Fire Book", the three methods of forestalling the enemy apply equally to the 1-on-1 duelist and the 1,000's-on-1,000's and can be equated to what I have recently learned on strategy at the USAF's Squadron Officer School. This mindset taken, of the interrelation between building of character, self-discipline, building on basics of swordsmanship/combat-arms, and the commander, is similar to what we are discussing here in the Systemic Leadership blog.
In Systemic Leadership, we do advocate that the basic training (such as DAU for young acquisition professionals) should end up producing qualified program directors and program executive officers. In a true systemic sense, like Musashi, this training is best if it builds on itself and we teach the young professionals what will be useful as seniors.
Overall, I recommend this book for its classic take on integrating multiple disciplines together into a systemic whole. Ultimately, many readings are needed to fully appreciate the subtleties of the book. A book, which by the way, is very short - my version (Translated by Vicor Harris in 1974) is only 95 pages, and over half of that are notes, background, and translation points. Read More......
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Transformational AF SOS?
I recently graduated from the US Air Force's second Basic Developmental Education (BDE) course, which is better known as Squadron Officer School (SOS). The curriculum of SOS is undergoing a revision (as indicated here). One aspect I noticed was the retirement of Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory in favor of the Full Range of Leadership Model (FRLM) as the model of choice to mid-career AF Captains. Of course, the AF added its own spin on FRLM.
One aspect that was taught by my flight commander and the main lecturer was that both transformational and transactional leadership preferences have their place at different times. The claim boils down to that being a master "Management by Exception" (MBE) leader could be preferred over "Inspirational Motivation" in some circumstances. One example discussed was the under-fire scenario. In this scenario, the effective AF leader would use MBE to direct their troops, relying on the base relationship and training that the leader set with inspirational motivation to prepare the forces for battle. Transactional and transformational, under this theory, are now viewed as equal - the traditional "up and to the right" from laissez-faire up through transactional and up to transformational is replaced with a model in which laissez-fair is discounted and transactional and transformational are put on an equal horizontal footing.
This issue was debated at a fevered pitch in my flight room. A special forces officer commenting that transactional leadership is essentially dead and that he get the best results in the field using idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Other officers commented that sometimes the leader's attention may be over too many issues, so that using a more transactional approach can ensure a critical, single operation succeeds.
SOS did help prepare young officers to use the FRLM. SOS used several different methods: a lecture on FRLM, some discussion classes that attempts to build strategies for using FRLM in our home units, and a self assessment for each officer against the FRLM. Unfortunately, we used a different model to assess each other later in the course, which may be an artifact of being in the middle of the curriculum revision.
So, does this view hold? What issues do you see in advocating transactional preferences as being equal to transformational preferences? Read More......
One aspect that was taught by my flight commander and the main lecturer was that both transformational and transactional leadership preferences have their place at different times. The claim boils down to that being a master "Management by Exception" (MBE) leader could be preferred over "Inspirational Motivation" in some circumstances. One example discussed was the under-fire scenario. In this scenario, the effective AF leader would use MBE to direct their troops, relying on the base relationship and training that the leader set with inspirational motivation to prepare the forces for battle. Transactional and transformational, under this theory, are now viewed as equal - the traditional "up and to the right" from laissez-faire up through transactional and up to transformational is replaced with a model in which laissez-fair is discounted and transactional and transformational are put on an equal horizontal footing.
This issue was debated at a fevered pitch in my flight room. A special forces officer commenting that transactional leadership is essentially dead and that he get the best results in the field using idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Other officers commented that sometimes the leader's attention may be over too many issues, so that using a more transactional approach can ensure a critical, single operation succeeds.
SOS did help prepare young officers to use the FRLM. SOS used several different methods: a lecture on FRLM, some discussion classes that attempts to build strategies for using FRLM in our home units, and a self assessment for each officer against the FRLM. Unfortunately, we used a different model to assess each other later in the course, which may be an artifact of being in the middle of the curriculum revision.
So, does this view hold? What issues do you see in advocating transactional preferences as being equal to transformational preferences? Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)