Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Friday, August 15, 2014
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Gen. Stanley McChrystal writes about " The Courage to Change "
As a student of Leadership and a HR Professional, I have spoken to many about " change " and why it is so difficult for people.
WE are creatures of habit....each one of us has our daily routines and we use these to set our schedules on a daily basis. By doing so, we can control our life and try to have an expectation of what to expect. I try to help others understand that "change" is the one true constant in life.
Here, General Stanley McChrystal talks about how he had to come to grips with change to make sure his efforts and the efforts of his troops were effective.
This is part one of his posting and I will follow-up with part two when it is published.
WE are creatures of habit....each one of us has our daily routines and we use these to set our schedules on a daily basis. By doing so, we can control our life and try to have an expectation of what to expect. I try to help others understand that "change" is the one true constant in life.
Here, General Stanley McChrystal talks about how he had to come to grips with change to make sure his efforts and the efforts of his troops were effective.
This is part one of his posting and I will follow-up with part two when it is published.
The Courage to Change
By General Stanley McChrystal
At 49 years old, I was a two-star general, and less than a year into what would ultimately be an almost five-year tour as the Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. Within two years I would be wearing a third star, and would ultimately spend almost the entire command tour forward deployed in combat zones. My position placed me in charge of thousands of the United States’ most elite service-members, men and women who had been screened and tested at multiple levels throughout their careers to make it into the military’s most demanding units. I commanded Army Rangers and special operators; the most highly-selected Navy SEALs; the best helicopter pilots in the world; the Air Force’s finest medics and communicator;, and a host of brilliant specialists whose diverse expertise was required to keep our organization moving. We were thousands strong, dispersed around the globe, and by any measurable standard the best trained and most rigorously selected organization that the battlefield had ever seen. My force comprised people selected (amongst other qualities) for their inability to accept anything but victory: We were hard-wired to win.
All of this made my revelation that spring all the more difficult. We were losing. There were no front lines to measure, no enemy higher-headquarters to spy on. This type of conflict was new to us. My units were nightly engaging Al Qaeda in Iraq’s fighters, but our enemy’s influence continued to spread. We were pushing ourselves to our physical and mental edge, but the enemy network was expanding faster than we could move. Most importantly, every metric I could think of was trending negative: al Qaeda acts of violence were on the rise, shadow governments were surpassing the influence of local authorities, civilian casualties were steadily rising, car bombs were exploding every day in Baghdad. Meanwhile, my organization simply had no more capacity, human or technical. Like most soldiers, I’d never contemplated finding myself on the losing side in a war, but I was increasingly convinced that this was what if felt like.
The word—losing—pounded in my head as the hot desert air whipped through the helicopter. I had felt it in my gut for several months, and my visit that night had confirmed it for me intellectually.
But the challenge was this. Our people weren’t losing: They won all their fights. Our units weren’t losing: They could point to their progress. Every element of my several-thousand-strong task force was effectively and steadily winning when it came to their area and their problem set. Yet, collectively, we were still losing. The challenge we faced, I was beginning to realize, was unlike anything we’d ever encountered—or, worse, anticipated—as a possibility.
The members of our force in Anbar were risking their lives every night to address the problem they faced. But did we have the right solution? More important, did we understand the real problem? It was hard for anyone in our force to truly articulate how their actions, effective as they were, tied to the larger effort across the battlefield to debilitate Al Qaeda’s insurgency. At best, I sensed, we were winning in small pockets—capturing enemy leaders and weapons—and hoping that this somehow supported an overarching strategy. At worst, we were risking, losing, and taking lives without knowing that those sacrifices were getting us any closer to ending the war.
At that point, on that night, I had more questions than answers. But I’d begun to understand what needed to be done. As the leader of this organization, I knew the first step would be significant, and it was one that only I could take. We needed to fundamentally change our organization, and that change would need to start with me. I knew, too, that I was entering what would be one of the most challenging periods of my career. I did so with a message that I and I alone could deliver to the Task Force. It went something like this:
You are the finest force the world has ever known, and I’m proud of everything you’re doing. You go out, night after night, into harm’s way—and do incredible things. As individual units, you're winning every time. I recognize and appreciate that. But I’m here to tell you we are losing this war. I know each of you is doing everything you can, and doing it better than history has ever seen. I also know that your families at home make sacrifices every day to support you, our mission, and our nation. I recognize and appreciate that.
So we need to make a choice. We can continue on this road, and all go home with medals and war stories, but those stories will all end with the fact that we, collectively, lost the war. Or, we can change how we operate. If we don’t, we will lose—of that I have no doubt. Changing will be a painful process, but the road we're on is destined for failure. So we start now. I will be here with you, every step of the way.
Thus began our journey
At 49 years old, I was a two-star general, and less than a year into what would ultimately be an almost five-year tour as the Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. Within two years I would be wearing a third star, and would ultimately spend almost the entire command tour forward deployed in combat zones. My position placed me in charge of thousands of the United States’ most elite service-members, men and women who had been screened and tested at multiple levels throughout their careers to make it into the military’s most demanding units. I commanded Army Rangers and special operators; the most highly-selected Navy SEALs; the best helicopter pilots in the world; the Air Force’s finest medics and communicator;, and a host of brilliant specialists whose diverse expertise was required to keep our organization moving. We were thousands strong, dispersed around the globe, and by any measurable standard the best trained and most rigorously selected organization that the battlefield had ever seen. My force comprised people selected (amongst other qualities) for their inability to accept anything but victory: We were hard-wired to win.
All of this made my revelation that spring all the more difficult. We were losing. There were no front lines to measure, no enemy higher-headquarters to spy on. This type of conflict was new to us. My units were nightly engaging Al Qaeda in Iraq’s fighters, but our enemy’s influence continued to spread. We were pushing ourselves to our physical and mental edge, but the enemy network was expanding faster than we could move. Most importantly, every metric I could think of was trending negative: al Qaeda acts of violence were on the rise, shadow governments were surpassing the influence of local authorities, civilian casualties were steadily rising, car bombs were exploding every day in Baghdad. Meanwhile, my organization simply had no more capacity, human or technical. Like most soldiers, I’d never contemplated finding myself on the losing side in a war, but I was increasingly convinced that this was what if felt like.
The word—losing—pounded in my head as the hot desert air whipped through the helicopter. I had felt it in my gut for several months, and my visit that night had confirmed it for me intellectually.
But the challenge was this. Our people weren’t losing: They won all their fights. Our units weren’t losing: They could point to their progress. Every element of my several-thousand-strong task force was effectively and steadily winning when it came to their area and their problem set. Yet, collectively, we were still losing. The challenge we faced, I was beginning to realize, was unlike anything we’d ever encountered—or, worse, anticipated—as a possibility.
The members of our force in Anbar were risking their lives every night to address the problem they faced. But did we have the right solution? More important, did we understand the real problem? It was hard for anyone in our force to truly articulate how their actions, effective as they were, tied to the larger effort across the battlefield to debilitate Al Qaeda’s insurgency. At best, I sensed, we were winning in small pockets—capturing enemy leaders and weapons—and hoping that this somehow supported an overarching strategy. At worst, we were risking, losing, and taking lives without knowing that those sacrifices were getting us any closer to ending the war.
At that point, on that night, I had more questions than answers. But I’d begun to understand what needed to be done. As the leader of this organization, I knew the first step would be significant, and it was one that only I could take. We needed to fundamentally change our organization, and that change would need to start with me. I knew, too, that I was entering what would be one of the most challenging periods of my career. I did so with a message that I and I alone could deliver to the Task Force. It went something like this:
You are the finest force the world has ever known, and I’m proud of everything you’re doing. You go out, night after night, into harm’s way—and do incredible things. As individual units, you're winning every time. I recognize and appreciate that. But I’m here to tell you we are losing this war. I know each of you is doing everything you can, and doing it better than history has ever seen. I also know that your families at home make sacrifices every day to support you, our mission, and our nation. I recognize and appreciate that.
So we need to make a choice. We can continue on this road, and all go home with medals and war stories, but those stories will all end with the fact that we, collectively, lost the war. Or, we can change how we operate. If we don’t, we will lose—of that I have no doubt. Changing will be a painful process, but the road we're on is destined for failure. So we start now. I will be here with you, every step of the way.
Thus began our journey
Saturday, May 11, 2013
How far we have fallen.... Recalling JFK's "City Upon A Hill" Speech JAN 9th, 1961
We as a nation have allowed people who are highly unqualified to take control of our governments on the Federal, State and Local levels. The people who are in charge are a mere shadow of those who were elected in the past..... Think about people like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, IKE and JFK....Compare them to the faux leaders who are in our halls of government now....
There is no comparison. We do not have the quality leaders we need. There is no comparison and we need better leaders now more than ever.
Take a listen to the enclosed link and read the words that JFK spoke just before he was to be inaugurated. This speech sums up in 8 minutes what we need from our leaders. You don't have to agree with JFK's political views but you can't argue with his principles of what we should be getting from our leaders on all levels of the government we elect and who should serve the people, not the other way around.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/OYhUZE2Qo0-ogdV7ok900A.aspx
City Upon A Hill
President Elect John F. Kennedy
Massachusetts General Court,
January 9, 1961
I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and trust.
For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.
For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my home
It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.
I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.
For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do not imitate--for we are a model to others."
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.
They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.
Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.
For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.
And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.
Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.
There is no comparison. We do not have the quality leaders we need. There is no comparison and we need better leaders now more than ever.
Take a listen to the enclosed link and read the words that JFK spoke just before he was to be inaugurated. This speech sums up in 8 minutes what we need from our leaders. You don't have to agree with JFK's political views but you can't argue with his principles of what we should be getting from our leaders on all levels of the government we elect and who should serve the people, not the other way around.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/OYhUZE2Qo0-ogdV7ok900A.aspx
City Upon A Hill
President Elect John F. Kennedy
Massachusetts General Court,
January 9, 1961
I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and trust.
For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.
For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my home
It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.
I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.
For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do not imitate--for we are a model to others."
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.
They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.
Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.
For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.
And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.
Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Leadership Learning - How to be effective in a TOC (tactical operations center )
Here is some Leadership Learning for you. I wanted to post it as I am a student of Leadership and all that it requires. This is based on military situations but there are many aspects of this that are universal to business and the military.
Those who think they are "natural leaders" are usually BS artists. There are good leaders and there are poor leaders..... The difference is that those who lead properly never have to tell anyone about it as their actions speak for themselves.
http://www.redbullrising.com/2012/03/sherpatudes.html
It's a mix of maxims regarding organizational analysis, knowledge management, and working in a tactical operations center ("TOC").
1. Continually ask: "Who else needs to know what I know?"
2. Continually ask: "Who else knows what I need to know?"
3. Never speak with complete authority regarding that which you lack direct knowledge, observation, and/or suppressive fires.
4. Never pull rank over a radio net.
5. Let the boss decide how he/she wants to learn.
6. Let the boss decide how he/she wants to communicate.
7. "I am responsible for everything my commander's organization knows and fails to know, learns and fails to learn."
8. Know when to wake up the Old Man. Also, know how to wake him up without getting punched, shot, or fired.
9. The three most important things in the TOC are: Track the battle. Track the battle. Track the battle.
10. Digital trumps analog, until you run out of batteries.
11. Always have ready at least two methods of communication to any point or person on the map.
12. Rank has its privileges. It also has its limitations.
13. Let Joe surprise you.
14. Don't let Joe surprise you.
15. The first report is always wrong. Except when it isn't.
16. The problem is always at the distant end. Except when it isn't.
17. Exercise digital/tactical patience. Communications works at the speed of light. People do not.
18. Your trigger finger is your safety. Keep it away from the CAPS LOCK, reply-all, and flash-override buttons.
19. The warfighter is your customer, and the customer is always right.
20. Bullets don't kill people. Logistics kills people.
21. Knowing how it works is more powerful than knowing how it's supposed to work.
22. Cite sources on demand. State opinions when asked.
23. Work by, with, and through others. It's all about empowerment.
24. Do not seek the spotlight, Ranger. Let the spotlight find you. Then, make sure to share it with others.
25. Both the Bible and The Art of War make this point: It's never a mistake to put oneself in someone else's boots.
26. Humor is a combat multiplier. Except when it isn't
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Sir Winston Churchill provides the daily quote....and it is appropriate
Thanks Mr. Churchill as you were from a day when LEADERS understood what LEADERSHIP actually means, unlike now, where we have layabout know-nothings in charge of our country .....
Wish we had more like Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington around now as we truly need them.
Wish we had more like Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington around now as we truly need them.
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" -Sir Winston Churchill.Yeah, we need more like him
— Middleboro Jones (@Leadership_One) March 6, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Leadership and ethics 101 taught to Business Execs by Marines
Leadership and ethics for business executive taught by those who learn LEADERSHIP will be the key to success or failure. In the missions Marines take on, failure is not an option.
SEMPER FI to our Marines. Bravo Zulu.
QUANTICO, Va. – Sunlight was filtering through the trees as the team trudged up yet another hill to the final objective of the morning.
The mission was simple. The team was to meet with a local village priest and establish a relationship.
The plan quickly fell apart when the group realized the solemn ceremony they had been invited to was a forced "wedding" in which a bride whose hands were bound by rope was carried screaming into a tent.
Now they were faced with a choice. Protect the woman from possible harm and alienate an important ally or allow the wedding to take place and avoid interfering in a culture they barely understood.
"I was torn," said Elton Mile, a 28-year-old financial adviser with Morgan Stanley, who led the team.
Mile was part of a group of executives who came to the Marine Corps base here as part of a three-day course to learn ethical leadership from combat leaders. In the wake of the Enron debacle, the collapse of Lehman Bros., Bernard Madoff and other moral lapses, business schools are re-examining ethics training. Traditionally, business schools have taught the skills needed to maximize profits, and given short shrift to softer subjects, such as ethics.
Some executives are turning to the military to fill the gap. The military has long drilled values into their young leaders, emphasizing responsibility and accountability.
Apparently it's paid off. Effi Benmelech, an associate professor of finance at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, co-authored a study completed last year that looked at company chief executive officers who had military experience.
The results were stark. "People who served in the military are less likely to be involved in fraud," Benmelech said. The study looked at the top leaders of 1,500 of the largest publicly traded companies from 1980 to 2006.
The study did not address why that was the case, but Benmelech speculates it is a combination of two factors: People who join the military have a strong value system, and the training in the services emphasizes ethics and responsibility.
Executives out of their element
At Quantico the executives are issued weapons, carry packs and sleep on the cold ground. They had been up since 2:15 a.m., awakened by explosions. The instructors are young officers who have led Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. The scenarios seem to be inspired by the often ambiguous worlds Marines and soldiers navigated in those conflicts.
"The idea is to make them cold, wet, tired and hungry," said Steven Olson, a professor at Georgia State's J. Mack Robinson College of Business who runs the program that brings executives and students to Quantico for the training. The Georgia State group is one of several relationships that the Marines have established with civilian schools to teach leadership and ethics.
The stakes are rarely as high in the business world as they are in war, where lives are at risk. But that's why the military is uniquely qualified to teach ethics, executives and officers say. It is harder to maintain normal values amid the death and chaos of war.
"What combat does to you is it … corrodes that moral sense that you have about the world," said Marine Col. Todd Desgrosseilliers, commander of The Basic School at Quantico, which is where newly minted second lieutenants are trained before entering specialty schools.
Officers are responsible for setting an ethical tone that will allow Marines to keep their ethical balance amid the chaos of war. "You have to be able to return your Marines back to the United States complete, whole — their characters, their integrity, their moral fiber," said Desgrosseilliers, who earned a silver star in Fallujah, Iraq.
This is not Harvard Business School. The military is used to creating realistic training to prepare men and women for war. The training is designed to be so authentic that it triggers real emotions and fear. There are no right answers.
After one tough scenario in which the executives confronted an angry man waving around a pistol, team leader Chris Dempsey described his course of action as "the least worst decision we had."
"I expected situations, but nothing with this level of realism," said David Lyons, a 56-year-old senior vice president at Wells, a food company.
No rule book to go by
The priest that Mile's team encountered seemed welcoming at first as he invited the team to view a special celebration. Most of the actors, such as the priest, are second lieutenants training at The Basic School. They take their roles seriously.
The team was thrown into confusion when some men carried a bound and screaming woman into the tent. The woman tore out of the tent and sought protection from other members of the team.
The priest responded by demanding the team give the woman back to her groom and stop interfering in an important religious ceremony, insisting the Americans didn't understand the local culture.
The team was uncertain what to do and debated among themselves as the scene grew more chaotic.
"Please release her right now," the priest shouted. "You are ruining a great day." The bride was sobbing and clinging to a female student.
Eventually the students gave the bride back to the priest, but were clearly uncomfortable with their decision.
"It's legal in their country, so …," Mile said, his sentence trailing off as the woman was dragged screaming back to the tent were the marriage was to be "consummated" amid shrieks.
The Marine officers then took the team aside to discuss what happened.
Mile had wrestled with his decision. "We tried to prevent it, but at what end," he said in response to questions from the instructors. "I didn't feel it was our place to stop an arranged marriage."
Marine Capt. Matt Klobucher challenged his thinking. "So what happened as a result of that decision?"
"She was raped," Mile acknowledged.
Other students pointed out that they were powerless to change a culture that believes in forced marriages, and even if they stop this one incident it won't change the culture that allows it.
"But this is the first time you had an opportunity to do something about it," Klobucher countered.
Business students are often surprised to find that the military is not the rigid hierarchical organization they had expected. Instead, officers are taught to think for themselves.
Ironically, it is the civilians who try to fall back on the rule book when struggling for a decision, Olson said.
"They want to fall back on the narrow technical definition of the mission they receive from higher, just like they do in the corporation," Olson said. "They can't believe the Marines shove it back in their face and say, 'Wait a minute. You're falling back on the rules, and you've missed the values and the ethics in play here.
SEMPER FI to our Marines. Bravo Zulu.
Executives learn ethics the hard way: From Marines
QUANTICO, Va. – Sunlight was filtering through the trees as the team trudged up yet another hill to the final objective of the morning.
The mission was simple. The team was to meet with a local village priest and establish a relationship.
The plan quickly fell apart when the group realized the solemn ceremony they had been invited to was a forced "wedding" in which a bride whose hands were bound by rope was carried screaming into a tent.
Now they were faced with a choice. Protect the woman from possible harm and alienate an important ally or allow the wedding to take place and avoid interfering in a culture they barely understood.
"I was torn," said Elton Mile, a 28-year-old financial adviser with Morgan Stanley, who led the team.
Mile was part of a group of executives who came to the Marine Corps base here as part of a three-day course to learn ethical leadership from combat leaders. In the wake of the Enron debacle, the collapse of Lehman Bros., Bernard Madoff and other moral lapses, business schools are re-examining ethics training. Traditionally, business schools have taught the skills needed to maximize profits, and given short shrift to softer subjects, such as ethics.
Some executives are turning to the military to fill the gap. The military has long drilled values into their young leaders, emphasizing responsibility and accountability.
Apparently it's paid off. Effi Benmelech, an associate professor of finance at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, co-authored a study completed last year that looked at company chief executive officers who had military experience.
The results were stark. "People who served in the military are less likely to be involved in fraud," Benmelech said. The study looked at the top leaders of 1,500 of the largest publicly traded companies from 1980 to 2006.
The study did not address why that was the case, but Benmelech speculates it is a combination of two factors: People who join the military have a strong value system, and the training in the services emphasizes ethics and responsibility.
Executives out of their element
At Quantico the executives are issued weapons, carry packs and sleep on the cold ground. They had been up since 2:15 a.m., awakened by explosions. The instructors are young officers who have led Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. The scenarios seem to be inspired by the often ambiguous worlds Marines and soldiers navigated in those conflicts.
"The idea is to make them cold, wet, tired and hungry," said Steven Olson, a professor at Georgia State's J. Mack Robinson College of Business who runs the program that brings executives and students to Quantico for the training. The Georgia State group is one of several relationships that the Marines have established with civilian schools to teach leadership and ethics.
The stakes are rarely as high in the business world as they are in war, where lives are at risk. But that's why the military is uniquely qualified to teach ethics, executives and officers say. It is harder to maintain normal values amid the death and chaos of war.
"What combat does to you is it … corrodes that moral sense that you have about the world," said Marine Col. Todd Desgrosseilliers, commander of The Basic School at Quantico, which is where newly minted second lieutenants are trained before entering specialty schools.
Officers are responsible for setting an ethical tone that will allow Marines to keep their ethical balance amid the chaos of war. "You have to be able to return your Marines back to the United States complete, whole — their characters, their integrity, their moral fiber," said Desgrosseilliers, who earned a silver star in Fallujah, Iraq.
This is not Harvard Business School. The military is used to creating realistic training to prepare men and women for war. The training is designed to be so authentic that it triggers real emotions and fear. There are no right answers.
After one tough scenario in which the executives confronted an angry man waving around a pistol, team leader Chris Dempsey described his course of action as "the least worst decision we had."
"I expected situations, but nothing with this level of realism," said David Lyons, a 56-year-old senior vice president at Wells, a food company.
The priest that Mile's team encountered seemed welcoming at first as he invited the team to view a special celebration. Most of the actors, such as the priest, are second lieutenants training at The Basic School. They take their roles seriously.
The team was thrown into confusion when some men carried a bound and screaming woman into the tent. The woman tore out of the tent and sought protection from other members of the team.
The priest responded by demanding the team give the woman back to her groom and stop interfering in an important religious ceremony, insisting the Americans didn't understand the local culture.
The team was uncertain what to do and debated among themselves as the scene grew more chaotic.
"Please release her right now," the priest shouted. "You are ruining a great day." The bride was sobbing and clinging to a female student.
Eventually the students gave the bride back to the priest, but were clearly uncomfortable with their decision.
"It's legal in their country, so …," Mile said, his sentence trailing off as the woman was dragged screaming back to the tent were the marriage was to be "consummated" amid shrieks.
The Marine officers then took the team aside to discuss what happened.
Mile had wrestled with his decision. "We tried to prevent it, but at what end," he said in response to questions from the instructors. "I didn't feel it was our place to stop an arranged marriage."
Marine Capt. Matt Klobucher challenged his thinking. "So what happened as a result of that decision?"
"She was raped," Mile acknowledged.
Other students pointed out that they were powerless to change a culture that believes in forced marriages, and even if they stop this one incident it won't change the culture that allows it.
"But this is the first time you had an opportunity to do something about it," Klobucher countered.
Business students are often surprised to find that the military is not the rigid hierarchical organization they had expected. Instead, officers are taught to think for themselves.
Ironically, it is the civilians who try to fall back on the rule book when struggling for a decision, Olson said.
"They want to fall back on the narrow technical definition of the mission they receive from higher, just like they do in the corporation," Olson said. "They can't believe the Marines shove it back in their face and say, 'Wait a minute. You're falling back on the rules, and you've missed the values and the ethics in play here.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
The Leadership of USMC General James Mattis, known to most as " The Warrior Monk"
Amen Sir.
Read a bit about him and understand better why he is beloved by all in iniform who fight for our country.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
LEADERSHIP makes a difference
The needed quality in our nation's success is and always will be LEADERSHIP. No amount of money or political correctness can match the results of having the best Leader in place.
The United States has had many distinguished Leaders but presently, we are facing a Leadership deficit. If America is to forge a future worthy of our past, we need to find and elect real leaders.
Presently, our President is the diametric opposite of what Leadership should be. He promised " hope and change" and only delivered failure and a " Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. His complete failure to lead has been documented and is the reason why our country is more divisively split now than ever before.
Mitt Romney is in need of a charisma upgrade but offers a more measured approach along with well documented management skill set. He isn't Jefferson or Washington, but he is a much better manager than the lack-wit who has mucked up our country over the last 3 1/2 years.
NBC and Tom Brokaw will feature a documentary that gives us a lesson in what true leadership was back when the world faced the threat of World War II. From 1938 - 1941, England stood alone against Nazi Germany.
Sir Winston Churchill was the key leader England needed. He had failed previously but learned key lessons from each experience and was able to rally his countrymen to stand against the onslaught of the Battle of Britain.
" Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.."
Churchill's eloquent and tough-as-nails leadership held his country together. No American Leader since President John F. Kennedy's Cuban Missile Crisis has faced such a serious challenge. The majority of the nation's citizens in 1962 were concerned but didn't really understand how close the world came to annihilation until years later.
9/11 was a serious crisis and the country rallied behind President Bush, but Kennedy had to stare down the Russians who were threatening Nuclear War.
Americans got to see 9/11 as it happened and rallied behind our President but were able to count on a standing military who responded to the attacks. In World War 2, our nation and England had been on a peacetime status with diminished military forces when World War 2 happened.
Watch the special and take a lesson from History - Leadership makes the difference.
Leadership Under Fire
By SOHRAB AHMARI - Wall Street Journal
Their Finest Hour
Saturday, Aug. 11 at 8 p.m. on NBC
The word "hero" is thrown around lightly and frequently during Olympic season. But as Tom Brokaw reminds us in "Their Finest Hour," physical endurance and courage alone do not make heroes.
This remarkable documentary, set to air during NBC's regular Olympic programming, chronicles the heroism of Britain in the first two years of World War II, when, as Mr. Brokaw says, "England stood alone, when England was all that was left between liberty and tyranny." "Their Finest Hour" does not disclose any new historical facts. But by making extensive use of newly unearthed, color archival footage, plus the testimonies of British veterans, nurses and survivors, Mr. Brokaw pays tribute to Britain's "poetry of defiance" in the face of Nazi terror.
We meet a pilot who, at age 19, helped fend off the mighty German Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain—the 1940 campaign by the Third Reich to break the Royal Air Force. "I never considered defeat," the pilot, now 93, tells Mr. Brokaw. "I don't think any of us ever did." A nurse recalls "the quiet courage of the men" and how that courage gave heart to the women.
Then came the Luftwaffe's merciless bombing of London and other cities. This was "a deliberate attempt by Hitler to terrorize London into defeat," the historian Andrew Roberts explains. All told the Nazi bombing of London left 40,000 dead, thousands more wounded and some two million homeless. But, Mr. Roberts says, Hitler "misunderstood the nature of the British people." St. Paul's Cathedral remained miraculously intact, and the newspaper headlines—"Is That the Best You Can Do, Adolf?"—testified to Britain's indomitable spirit.
The greatest symbol of that spirit was, of course, Prime Minister Winston Churchill—that "hard-drinking firebrand of vast experience and suspect judgment," as Mr. Brokaw puts it. (Though Mr. Brokaw doesn't pause to elaborate on that terse "suspect judgment" charge.) Churchill's mission was to ensure Britain would survive the Nazi onslaught long enough for the U.S. to enter the fray. "We are fighting by ourselves alone," he famously told his compatriots. "But we are not fighting for ourselves alone."
The wait was long and painful and the sleeping giant slow to awake. Militating against a U.S. entry into the war were isolationists led by the likes of Charles Lindbergh and his America First movement. "Let Europe fight its own battle," we hear one of Lindbergh's followers sneer. "They mean nothing to us." The rhetoric sounds eerily familiar to that deployed by contemporary proponents of isolationism of both the left-wing and right-wing varieties.
Today the athletes gathered in London and most of their spectators around the world take the special relationship between the U.S. and Britain for granted. The discomfiting question raised by Mr. Brokaw's documentary is: Will future generations of Britons and Americans appreciate the high price paid to forge it? There are no easy answers. Either way, this film might just be NBC's finest hour of Olympic programming
The United States has had many distinguished Leaders but presently, we are facing a Leadership deficit. If America is to forge a future worthy of our past, we need to find and elect real leaders.
Presently, our President is the diametric opposite of what Leadership should be. He promised " hope and change" and only delivered failure and a " Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. His complete failure to lead has been documented and is the reason why our country is more divisively split now than ever before.
Mitt Romney is in need of a charisma upgrade but offers a more measured approach along with well documented management skill set. He isn't Jefferson or Washington, but he is a much better manager than the lack-wit who has mucked up our country over the last 3 1/2 years.
NBC and Tom Brokaw will feature a documentary that gives us a lesson in what true leadership was back when the world faced the threat of World War II. From 1938 - 1941, England stood alone against Nazi Germany.
Sir Winston Churchill was the key leader England needed. He had failed previously but learned key lessons from each experience and was able to rally his countrymen to stand against the onslaught of the Battle of Britain.
" Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.."
Churchill's eloquent and tough-as-nails leadership held his country together. No American Leader since President John F. Kennedy's Cuban Missile Crisis has faced such a serious challenge. The majority of the nation's citizens in 1962 were concerned but didn't really understand how close the world came to annihilation until years later.
9/11 was a serious crisis and the country rallied behind President Bush, but Kennedy had to stare down the Russians who were threatening Nuclear War.
Americans got to see 9/11 as it happened and rallied behind our President but were able to count on a standing military who responded to the attacks. In World War 2, our nation and England had been on a peacetime status with diminished military forces when World War 2 happened.
Watch the special and take a lesson from History - Leadership makes the difference.
Leadership Under Fire
By SOHRAB AHMARI - Wall Street Journal
Their Finest Hour
Saturday, Aug. 11 at 8 p.m. on NBC
The word "hero" is thrown around lightly and frequently during Olympic season. But as Tom Brokaw reminds us in "Their Finest Hour," physical endurance and courage alone do not make heroes.
This remarkable documentary, set to air during NBC's regular Olympic programming, chronicles the heroism of Britain in the first two years of World War II, when, as Mr. Brokaw says, "England stood alone, when England was all that was left between liberty and tyranny." "Their Finest Hour" does not disclose any new historical facts. But by making extensive use of newly unearthed, color archival footage, plus the testimonies of British veterans, nurses and survivors, Mr. Brokaw pays tribute to Britain's "poetry of defiance" in the face of Nazi terror.
We meet a pilot who, at age 19, helped fend off the mighty German Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain—the 1940 campaign by the Third Reich to break the Royal Air Force. "I never considered defeat," the pilot, now 93, tells Mr. Brokaw. "I don't think any of us ever did." A nurse recalls "the quiet courage of the men" and how that courage gave heart to the women.
Then came the Luftwaffe's merciless bombing of London and other cities. This was "a deliberate attempt by Hitler to terrorize London into defeat," the historian Andrew Roberts explains. All told the Nazi bombing of London left 40,000 dead, thousands more wounded and some two million homeless. But, Mr. Roberts says, Hitler "misunderstood the nature of the British people." St. Paul's Cathedral remained miraculously intact, and the newspaper headlines—"Is That the Best You Can Do, Adolf?"—testified to Britain's indomitable spirit.
The greatest symbol of that spirit was, of course, Prime Minister Winston Churchill—that "hard-drinking firebrand of vast experience and suspect judgment," as Mr. Brokaw puts it. (Though Mr. Brokaw doesn't pause to elaborate on that terse "suspect judgment" charge.) Churchill's mission was to ensure Britain would survive the Nazi onslaught long enough for the U.S. to enter the fray. "We are fighting by ourselves alone," he famously told his compatriots. "But we are not fighting for ourselves alone."
The wait was long and painful and the sleeping giant slow to awake. Militating against a U.S. entry into the war were isolationists led by the likes of Charles Lindbergh and his America First movement. "Let Europe fight its own battle," we hear one of Lindbergh's followers sneer. "They mean nothing to us." The rhetoric sounds eerily familiar to that deployed by contemporary proponents of isolationism of both the left-wing and right-wing varieties.
Today the athletes gathered in London and most of their spectators around the world take the special relationship between the U.S. and Britain for granted. The discomfiting question raised by Mr. Brokaw's documentary is: Will future generations of Britons and Americans appreciate the high price paid to forge it? There are no easy answers. Either way, this film might just be NBC's finest hour of Olympic programming
Friday, May 4, 2012
A Lesson from retired General Stanley McChrystal on Design, Teamwork and Leadership
I came across an issue of Fast Company Magazine back when I was traveling for business and was intrigued with some of the best business writing I had ever seen. These guys were writing on aspects of business that Forbes and others missed. They changed the game of what business analysis/writing was and it made things better.
The enclosed video is from their website and features retired General Stanley McChrystal who led the Joint Special Operations Command. He laid the groundwork for all the tactics we use in Iraq/Afghanistan and was instrumental in the War on Terror. He got sacked because of the Rolling Stone article that gave a rather unflattering view of POTUS and how McChrystal felt about the administration.
The enclosed is a great mini-leadership lesson. I would follow General McChrystal into battle as he is the real deal. Obama is not and the difference in who is a real leader and who is not is plain to see for anyone. Guys like McChrystal earned everything he has because he worked hard and sacrificed. That is why his leadership lessons are the best you can get. The Vactioner-In-Chief, not at all. Take a listen, it is well worth your time.
The enclosed video is from their website and features retired General Stanley McChrystal who led the Joint Special Operations Command. He laid the groundwork for all the tactics we use in Iraq/Afghanistan and was instrumental in the War on Terror. He got sacked because of the Rolling Stone article that gave a rather unflattering view of POTUS and how McChrystal felt about the administration.
The enclosed is a great mini-leadership lesson. I would follow General McChrystal into battle as he is the real deal. Obama is not and the difference in who is a real leader and who is not is plain to see for anyone. Guys like McChrystal earned everything he has because he worked hard and sacrificed. That is why his leadership lessons are the best you can get. The Vactioner-In-Chief, not at all. Take a listen, it is well worth your time.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
50 Years ago today - JFK demonstrates Presidential Leadership unlike our present day President who hasn't got a clue
Presidential Leadership - Then & Now
50 years ago today we had a real leader in the White House. The American public were getting whacked by steel executives driving the price for steel up and it effected all Americans.
Today, Oil goes up due to speculation and greed, and all we get from the President is " Not my job.." and excuses.
News yesterday - "The Energy Information Administration says gasoline will cost an average of $3.95 per gallon from April through September, an increase of 6.3 percent from the same period last year. The peak monthly average should be $4.01 in May.
The government says there's a small chance the price for a gallon could climb as high as $4.50 in June."
Take a listen to how a REAL leader dealt with the issues that hurt Americans economically 50 years ago today. THIS is the type of leader we need here & now but is no where in sight for our country.
And that is a crisis. ( Play the audio, really - you will enjoy listening to what REAL LEADERSHIP sounds like - Trust me.)
Statement of the President of the United States
John F. Kennedy
The Steel Crisis
April 11, 1962
" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.
If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.
It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.
The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."
The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.
In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.
The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.
Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.
Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer. "
50 years ago today we had a real leader in the White House. The American public were getting whacked by steel executives driving the price for steel up and it effected all Americans.
Today, Oil goes up due to speculation and greed, and all we get from the President is " Not my job.." and excuses.
News yesterday - "The Energy Information Administration says gasoline will cost an average of $3.95 per gallon from April through September, an increase of 6.3 percent from the same period last year. The peak monthly average should be $4.01 in May.
The government says there's a small chance the price for a gallon could climb as high as $4.50 in June."
Take a listen to how a REAL leader dealt with the issues that hurt Americans economically 50 years ago today. THIS is the type of leader we need here & now but is no where in sight for our country.
And that is a crisis. ( Play the audio, really - you will enjoy listening to what REAL LEADERSHIP sounds like - Trust me.)
Statement of the President of the United States
John F. Kennedy
The Steel Crisis
April 11, 1962
" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.
If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.
It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.
The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."
The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.
In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.
The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.
Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.
Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer. "
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
LEADERSHIP means making unpopular choices as it is the RIGHT thing to do..“ ‘What’s the right number of troops in Afghanistan?" is the wrong question.
Last November, I wrote about how I agreed with Gen. Petraeus' vision of needing to " GO HEAVY" as this was what was needed in AFGHN....Break the back of the Taliban and deprive them of the ability to control vast areas of the country here..http://usnavyjeep.blogspot.com/2010/11/confirmation-of-that-go-heavy-approach.html
Well now that we are in all but July of 2011, the fool in the White House has to get serious about figuring out which is more important - The mission to eliminate the Taliban from AFGHN (allowing Afghanistan to be free) or trying to make sure he offers up an AFGHN strategy that doesn't elminate his base from re-electing him in 2012.
For those who understand what " Leadership " means, it means making unpopular choices (even ones that can have negative personal consequnces) because it is the RIGHT thing to do.....In "BARRY-FROM-CHICAGO's" world, it is looking over the polling and figuring out which decision will make sure he gets re-elected.
A freshman PoliSci major can see the manner in which the White House operates - None of what they do is about what is BEST for the Country, only what is best for the feckless idiot who has been in charge for the past 2 1/2 years.
His distain for the military was on full display until he got elected and since then he has been "going through the motions" as it is politically necessary.
So we face the crossroads - Do what is best for the Nation, Afghanistan and follow-through on the mission, freeing Afghanistan while eliminating the Taliban as they threaten the West as a whole OR do what ensures he can get more of his supporters to vote for him & try to reassure his re-election in 2012 ???
Again, the first year Poli-Sci major could predict the course the feckless politician will follow (as my Dad would say, "He's a shallow as p*ss on a flat rock"....More to follow as we watch the outcome on Wednesday evening.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Three options weighed by the White House
Anna Mulrine Staff writer The Christian Science Monitor Jun 21, 2011
President Obama’s Wednesday speech on his promised July drawdown of the 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan is drafted. But on circulating copies, there are still blank spaces where the final troop figures will go. Whether that’s because the White House is still in the midst of internal debate – or whether it’s a fear of leaks – remains the subject of speculation, but guessing precisely what those figures will be was insider Washington’s favorite parlor game Tuesday.
Here are some possible scenarios – small, medium, and large troop withdrawals – being weighed by the White House for the near and long-term, along with their risks and rewards.
Small
This is certainly the Pentagon’s preference. It would involve continuing to keep fairly robust levels of American forces in Afghanistan through 2014, likely as many as 60,000 soldiers, according to a plan that Seth Jones, an analyst for the RAND Corporation and until earlier this year an adviser to special operations forces in Afghanistan, submitted in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.
In the near term, it would involve keeping the bulk of the 30,000 US surge forces in the country, too – as 2011 draws to a close, only 5,000 to 10,000 surge troops would withdraw, according to plans favored by the Pentagon.
A reduction of up to 10,000 troops by the end of 2011 – most of them support and logistics specialists from the largest US bases – would not create a great risk for the US military’s mission in Afghanistan, says Jones, who adds that troop levels could perhaps be reduced by 10,000 to 20,000 more by the end of 2012.
“What the military wants is any withdrawal this year to take place after the fighting season is completed, which generally runs through the summer, and the withdrawal to be noncombat troops, so they have as many combat troops as possible to wage the fighting season this year and next year,” says Richard Fontaine, senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some defense analysts say, however, that a small withdrawal is not consistent with achieving the goal of a sustainable homegrown counterinsurgency effort. The problem, says Jones, is that keeping close to current US troop levels in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future would “not adequately prepare Afghan forces to fight the insurgency and secure their country.”
American troop presence in the country, too, appears to have diminishing returns, Jones points out: Though it’s still above 50 percent, Afghan support for the US military has declined every year since 2005.
Medium
In the near term, it would involve keeping the bulk of the 30,000 US surge forces in the country, too – as 2011 draws to a close, only 5,000 to 10,000 surge troops would withdraw, according to plans favored by the Pentagon.
A reduction of up to 10,000 troops by the end of 2011 – most of them support and logistics specialists from the largest US bases – would not create a great risk for the US military’s mission in Afghanistan, says Jones, who adds that troop levels could perhaps be reduced by 10,000 to 20,000 more by the end of 2012.
“What the military wants is any withdrawal this year to take place after the fighting season is completed, which generally runs through the summer, and the withdrawal to be noncombat troops, so they have as many combat troops as possible to wage the fighting season this year and next year,” says Richard Fontaine, senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some defense analysts say, however, that a small withdrawal is not consistent with achieving the goal of a sustainable homegrown counterinsurgency effort. The problem, says Jones, is that keeping close to current US troop levels in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future would “not adequately prepare Afghan forces to fight the insurgency and secure their country.”
American troop presence in the country, too, appears to have diminishing returns, Jones points out: Though it’s still above 50 percent, Afghan support for the US military has declined every year since 2005.
Medium
This approach would limit US goals in Afghanistan, focusing on assisting Afghan national security forces and targeting terrorist leaders – a plan Jones calls an “Afghan-led counterinsurgency.” Such a plan “would largely terminate US combat operations in 2014, except for targeting terrorist leaders,” he says.
This might mean pulling out 20,000 troops by the end of 2011, 40,000 more by the end of 2012, and reducing forces to roughly 30,000 by 2014, says Jones. The key would be bolstering Afghan national security forces as well as the Afghan Local Police (ALP), a goal enthusiastically supported by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Afghanistan. So far, the ALP have undercut Taliban control in key areas of the South, Jones says, and helped to connect local villages to the Afghan government. But local security forces “do not offset the risks incurred by premature withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan,” says Frederick Kagan, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, who has advised the US military and was an architect of the surge in Iraq. What’s more, Dr. Kagan and others add that a premature withdrawal of combat forces would undermine what until now has been a promising local security effort.
“Local security forces operate in remote areas that have either been cleared or that were not enemy safe havens to begin with,” says Dr. Kagan, who supports a small troop drawdown. “They cannot by themselves clear enemy-held areas, nor can they withstand concerted enemy attacks.”
That’s because local security forces number only about 6,000, he says. “Remember that there were over 100,000 Sons of Iraq. Increasing their numbers depends on having requisite numbers of partners and mentors.” Removing conventional forces, he adds, “will encourage more Afghans to sit on the fence, and can undermine the entire local security effort.”
Large
This might mean pulling out 20,000 troops by the end of 2011, 40,000 more by the end of 2012, and reducing forces to roughly 30,000 by 2014, says Jones. The key would be bolstering Afghan national security forces as well as the Afghan Local Police (ALP), a goal enthusiastically supported by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Afghanistan. So far, the ALP have undercut Taliban control in key areas of the South, Jones says, and helped to connect local villages to the Afghan government. But local security forces “do not offset the risks incurred by premature withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan,” says Frederick Kagan, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, who has advised the US military and was an architect of the surge in Iraq. What’s more, Dr. Kagan and others add that a premature withdrawal of combat forces would undermine what until now has been a promising local security effort.
“Local security forces operate in remote areas that have either been cleared or that were not enemy safe havens to begin with,” says Dr. Kagan, who supports a small troop drawdown. “They cannot by themselves clear enemy-held areas, nor can they withstand concerted enemy attacks.”
That’s because local security forces number only about 6,000, he says. “Remember that there were over 100,000 Sons of Iraq. Increasing their numbers depends on having requisite numbers of partners and mentors.” Removing conventional forces, he adds, “will encourage more Afghans to sit on the fence, and can undermine the entire local security effort.”
Large
This is the “counterterrorism” option favored by Vice President Joseph Biden and others, and would involve withdrawing all, or most, military forces from Afghanistan and relying on US Special Operations Forces and CIA units to capture or kill members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
In this case, Jones explains in this option submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,“The US footprint in Afghanistan might more closely resemble the current US footprint in Yemen: Lean and lethal.”
This would involve drawing down half of the 100,000 US troops currently in Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and nearly 30,000 more by the end of 2012, leaving some 20,000 US troops in the country by 2013. There are risks, though, that involve losing the gains that US troops have fought hard to achieve, says Mr. Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security.
“The military has fought very, very hard to make progress in the south and the east of Afghanistan – and with fewer troops you have less ground you can cover, less places you can go, less people you can fight,” he says. “But you have to balance that against all the other considerations.” These involve whether the expense in troops lives and billions of dollars, particularly in the midst of an economic crisis, is worth the price America is paying.
Such a strategy would significantly reduce the financial burden on the United States – a concern for lawmakers with a close eye on the 2012 elections.
“My personal belief is that the cost [of the war in Afghanistan] is obviously extremely high,” Fontaine says. “But if we are correct that the strategic stakes in Afghanistan are as great as we’ve been describing, then that justifies – at least in the short to medium term – some pretty substantial investments in what we’re trying to do.”
But how much impact will delaying the withdrawal for a little while really have on the ground in Afghanistan? That is the question Mr. Obama should be asking himself, says retired Col. Douglas Ollivant, senior national security fellow at the New America Foundation, and former senior counterinsurgency adviser to the US military’s Regional Command East in Afghanistan.
“ ‘What’s the right number of troops in Afghanistan?’ is the wrong question. The core question – what you want to ask – is: ‘Do we think what we’re doing is working?’ ” Beyond that, he adds, “Is the policy sustainable?”
In this case, Jones explains in this option submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,“The US footprint in Afghanistan might more closely resemble the current US footprint in Yemen: Lean and lethal.”
This would involve drawing down half of the 100,000 US troops currently in Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and nearly 30,000 more by the end of 2012, leaving some 20,000 US troops in the country by 2013. There are risks, though, that involve losing the gains that US troops have fought hard to achieve, says Mr. Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security.
“The military has fought very, very hard to make progress in the south and the east of Afghanistan – and with fewer troops you have less ground you can cover, less places you can go, less people you can fight,” he says. “But you have to balance that against all the other considerations.” These involve whether the expense in troops lives and billions of dollars, particularly in the midst of an economic crisis, is worth the price America is paying.
Such a strategy would significantly reduce the financial burden on the United States – a concern for lawmakers with a close eye on the 2012 elections.
“My personal belief is that the cost [of the war in Afghanistan] is obviously extremely high,” Fontaine says. “But if we are correct that the strategic stakes in Afghanistan are as great as we’ve been describing, then that justifies – at least in the short to medium term – some pretty substantial investments in what we’re trying to do.”
But how much impact will delaying the withdrawal for a little while really have on the ground in Afghanistan? That is the question Mr. Obama should be asking himself, says retired Col. Douglas Ollivant, senior national security fellow at the New America Foundation, and former senior counterinsurgency adviser to the US military’s Regional Command East in Afghanistan.
“ ‘What’s the right number of troops in Afghanistan?’ is the wrong question. The core question – what you want to ask – is: ‘Do we think what we’re doing is working?’ ” Beyond that, he adds, “Is the policy sustainable?”
Saturday, June 11, 2011
MICROMANAGEMENT and what the Fools in WASH DC could learn from Warren Buffett
I have written on the subject of MICROMANAGERS and the poison they are to good work groups, morale and trust - Take a peek at the 2 previous articles here:http://usnavyjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/micromanagers
Mr. Tom Ricks is a well establish commentator of note and does some good work on issues that concern us all especially politics, military issues and geopolitical relations. I have recieved personal emails from him after commenting on his Blog and that is the sign of a good writer, specifically that he pays attention to his readers.
He has written an exceptional piece on how President " Do As I Say, Not As I Do " could learn something, specifically about how to let people do their jobs instead of micromanaging them, in OBAMA's case, the military. The last President who did that was Lyndon Johnson, and due to his micromanagement of the Vietnam war, missions had to be approved at the White House before they could go forward....sound familiar??
LEADERSHIP is an art, and not all have the requisite skill set. Learning from the success of others is the best method. Hopefully, the Village-Idiot-from-Chicago is listening for once as he needs all the help he can get. Take a good look at the body langauge of the two men in the enclosed picture....
The smarter one on the left is showing the Nobel Prize winner a few things...likely he needed it more than any of us could ever imagine.
Learning from General Buffett: How not to micromanage your subordinates
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Friday, June 10, 2011 - http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/
I did this last year, but we can learn about military affairs from Warren Buffett every year. The military is not a business, and should not be run like one. But still, the defense establishment could learn a lot from a person as wise as Buffett.
If I could, I would ban all those business fad management books I see senior officers reading and instead make them study the annual reports from Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. You may not know Berkshire Hathaway, but if you buy insurance from Geico, drink Coca-Cola, eat See's Candies, read the Buffalo News, use goods transported by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, or wear Fruit of the Loom underwear, then products and services of companies owned in part or whole by Berkshire are touching your life.
For example, the U.S. military, and especially the Army, have been plagued by micromanagement since the mid-1950s, so long that no one now in the Army has much experience in any other way to run it. I see generals constantly scurrying endlessly to meetings where they often sit in the dark while subordinates read aloud to them bedtime stories (AKA Powerpoint briefings).
Well, there is another way, and it is laid out by Buffett in his annual report for 2010:
At Berkshire, managers can focus on running their businesses: They are not subjected to meetings at headquarters nor financing worries nor Wall Street harassment. They simply get a letter from me every two years…and call me when they wish. And their wishes do differ: There are managers to whom I have not talked in the last year, while there is one with whom I talk almost daily. Our trust is in people rather than process. A "hire well, manage little" code suits both them and me.
Berkshire's CEOs come in many forms. Some have MBAs; others never finished college. Some use budgets and are by-the-book types; others operate by the seat of their pants. Our team resembles a baseball squad composed of all-stars having vastly different batting styles. Changes in our line-up are seldom required.
Imagine a military run like that, that trusted people rather than process, a military where the Army chief of staff could boast that XVIII Airborne Corps is run so well that he has kept the commanding general in place for several years, and hasn't seen him in two years or even talked to him in one. But, the chief of staff would continue, he does talk to the Army commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan daily, in part because they need his help, and in part because he isn't distracted by checking on the XVIII Airborne Corps. My view: People who spend most of their days in regularly scheduled meetings too much probably are wasting their time and others'.
Also, because Buffett keeps successful people in place, staffs and subordinate managers are not constantly in turmoil and adjusting. Instead of constantly adapting to new bossses, they can focus on the tasks at hand. And the boss can leave them alone because he knows how to tell when they need help and when they don't.
At Berkshire, managers can focus on running their businesses: They are not subjected to meetings at headquarters nor financing worries nor Wall Street harassment. They simply get a letter from me every two years…and call me when they wish. And their wishes do differ: There are managers to whom I have not talked in the last year, while there is one with whom I talk almost daily. Our trust is in people rather than process. A "hire well, manage little" code suits both them and me.
Berkshire's CEOs come in many forms. Some have MBAs; others never finished college. Some use budgets and are by-the-book types; others operate by the seat of their pants. Our team resembles a baseball squad composed of all-stars having vastly different batting styles. Changes in our line-up are seldom required.
Imagine a military run like that, that trusted people rather than process, a military where the Army chief of staff could boast that XVIII Airborne Corps is run so well that he has kept the commanding general in place for several years, and hasn't seen him in two years or even talked to him in one. But, the chief of staff would continue, he does talk to the Army commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan daily, in part because they need his help, and in part because he isn't distracted by checking on the XVIII Airborne Corps. My view: People who spend most of their days in regularly scheduled meetings too much probably are wasting their time and others'.
Also, because Buffett keeps successful people in place, staffs and subordinate managers are not constantly in turmoil and adjusting. Instead of constantly adapting to new bossses, they can focus on the tasks at hand. And the boss can leave them alone because he knows how to tell when they need help and when they don't.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
D-DAY June 6th,1944 - FDR "Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor...to set free a suffering humanity"
67 years ago, the measure of how much was at stake is evident...FDR was placing his faith and the fate of the free world in the hands of his military and that of the Allies. He knew that he needed not only their efforts, but the prayers and faith of a Nation.
This is the text of the D-Day speech he gave to the nation, which was really a call to National Prayer.
Imagine what would occur if President Obama said to his advisers, " I'm going to lead the nation in a prayer today on airwaves..." His advisers would all fall over dead. But FDR knew that he needed to LEAD. His sense of what was right and what was needed was spot on.
Listen to the words of history and gain an appreciation of why we really have no leaders today in the White House, only a under-qualified community organizer who is keeping the seat warm. He is a poser, a con-artist, a charlatan.
FDR lead the nation out of a Great Depression and through a World War. We need LEADERSHIP like this but all we have a group of self-delusional and feckless politicians fighting over the job, each and every one of them wholly unqualified to stand in the place of the greatness of the Leaders we had in our past....it is to weep.
----------------------------------------
D-Day Speech June 6th, 1944
The President of the United States
My Fellow Americans:
Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Quote of the week from US Senator John McCain on OBL
In a week filled with too much media and political hype regarding the death of OBL, here is the leadership quote that shows why Senator John McCain is the guy you would want to have in the center seat making the key decisions...." I've seen enough dead people." - Sen. John McCain, explaining why he doesn't care to see the pictures of a dead bin Laden.
ROGER THAT, SIR.
Monday, March 28, 2011
In Memoriam - Lt. Colonel Donald Harwood Lee, Jr.(Ret), 90....An American Hero
Thanks Colonel.....we deeply appreciate all that you did for us...too bad more weren't able to say so while you were here...Our WW2 Heroes are slowly leaving this world and we owe them a great debt of gratitude....Here's the info on one who gave more to his country than he ever asked from us....too bad there aren't more like him in Washington, DC as we need LEADERS like him.
"Lt. Colonel Donald Harwood Lee, Jr.(Ret), 90, of Eufaula, Okalhoma succumbed to cancer on February 20, 2011 in Edmond and is home with the Lord. Donald was born on June 27, 1920 in Ypsilanti, Michigan to Donald and Hazel Estelle Lee. He attended and graduated from Ypsilanti High School in 1938. Following college at the University of Michigan, Donald entered the United States Army Air Corps. He served in World War II and in the Korean War as a fighter pilot. For his service, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Purple Heart, among others.
Don was my father in law, he flew, P-40, P-51, his favorite the P-38, in WW2, and the F-86 in Korea. The fact that he never bragged, never asked for credit, he simply did what needed to be done. Among the awards he was given, he recieved the bronze star with clusters, meaning he basically recieved three bronze stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross was the medal he was most proud of. He was a humble man that asked nothing of anyone he wasn't willing to give of himself."
"Lt. Colonel Donald Harwood Lee, Jr.(Ret), 90, of Eufaula, Okalhoma succumbed to cancer on February 20, 2011 in Edmond and is home with the Lord. Donald was born on June 27, 1920 in Ypsilanti, Michigan to Donald and Hazel Estelle Lee. He attended and graduated from Ypsilanti High School in 1938. Following college at the University of Michigan, Donald entered the United States Army Air Corps. He served in World War II and in the Korean War as a fighter pilot. For his service, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Purple Heart, among others.
Don was my father in law, he flew, P-40, P-51, his favorite the P-38, in WW2, and the F-86 in Korea. The fact that he never bragged, never asked for credit, he simply did what needed to be done. Among the awards he was given, he recieved the bronze star with clusters, meaning he basically recieved three bronze stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross was the medal he was most proud of. He was a humble man that asked nothing of anyone he wasn't willing to give of himself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)