Month: February 2017

We are now several weeks into the new administration and the frenetic pace of executive orders, protests, legal rulings and multiple Presidential meetings with business leaders seems only to be picking up pace.  The National Security Advisor resigned on February 13^th following revelations of his mischaracterization (i.e., lying) regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador.  It’s inarguably a busy time with a decidedly pugilistic feel to it.  The administration is sparring with a host of antagonists and there is a “martial” feel to these first few weeks.

 This situation is not all bad.  Many changes are necessary in our international posture and domestic policies.  If boundaries are not pushed, assumptions challenged, and behaviors modified, stasis will continue to define us.  That is not why Trump was elected.  He must be a change agent…and in change there is uncertainty, volatility, and chaos.  In light of the administration’s rhythm of engagement, I thought it might be a good opportunity to step back and view these critical first few weeks, and, what I certainly a blueprint for the next few years, through a leadership lens.

 This administration is about creating jobs and shoring up our economy in a manner that benefits “America first.”  Without question, there is a strong, sharp-edged, in-your-face feel to this administration.  Accurate or not, both the administration and the media, in these first few weeks, have decided to compete.  We should not be surprised by this characterization of the relationship since many of President Trump’s cabinet leaders and members of his inner circle are business and former military leaders who are trained in the art and science of creating and calming chaos.

 It is quite common to view military leadership through a much broader lens and ascribe its characteristics and principles to business.  It seems to fit.

 The “missions” of business are not dissimilar from the military…defining the purpose, describing the necessary tasks, designing the organization, building the team, and achieving open and precise communications.  The risks are similar as well.  Sadly, but inevitably, soldiers may die in combat and their units may suffer loss; nothing in life is more tragic or permanent.  A business may fail and drag its employees down with it.  Certainly, this does not place anyone at physical risk, but a negative outcome in business is personally damaging and the effects long-lasting.  Families are displaced and careers are ruined.

 The art of war has been practiced and studied for millennia.  Not unlike other theoretical fields of study or practical professions, the art of war is rooted in a doctrine and a set of principles.

 The Principles of War, codified by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian who fought in the Imperial Russian Army in the early 19^th century against Napoleon, guides our study of warfare and military leadership in war today.  By comparison, Peter Drucker, the brilliant and prolific author (over 25 books) who studied and established the guiding principles of business, shares many of Clausewitz’s views.

 What Clausewitz did for the study of war, Drucker did for the study of business.  Military and business leadership arguably are two sides of the same coin.

 There are nine Principles of War.  They are: objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise, and simplicity.

 I think it’s helpful to provide a brief description of each.

 Objective: This is the ultimate purpose of war, to destroy the enemy’s ability and will to fight, by directing every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable end.

 Offensive: Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.  Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results.

 Mass: By synchronizing the effects of overwhelming combat power, rather than concentrating forces, at the decisive place and time, a numerically inferior force can achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.

 Economy of Force: This is the opposite of mass.  Economy of force is the realization that one must employ all combat power in the most effective and judicious way possible.  Every part of the force must have purpose.

 Maneuver: Maneuver is the deliberate movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain an advantage.  It is used to exploit your successes and to preserve your freedom of action.  Maneuver is a demonstration of initiative.

 Unity of Command: For every objective, you must seek unity of command and unity of effort.  Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander.

 Security: You should never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage.  Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.  Security results from knowledge of your enemy and solid planning.

 Surprise: You must strike the enemy at a time, place, and manner for which he is unprepared.  Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power and momentum.

 Simplicity: Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure their understanding.  Everything in was is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult.  Other factors being equal, straightforwardness is to be preferred.

By cross-walking each principle of war to business, it’s not surprising to see the similarities overlap.

 Objective: No business has ever emerged from infancy of a notion to realization of growth without a clear and decisive statement of purpose.  An example: Amazon’s vision is to be “earth’s most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online.”

 Offensive: This demands disruption.  You should be first to market by establishing the bar.  Of course, you’d prefer to have market share and defend against newcomers that try to break in with possibly nothing more than a knock off.  If you want to own the high ground, take it.  You should want to be there first.

 Mass of Economy and Force: These two principles keep us in balance.  You must focus on what supports and advances the core delivery and get behind that effort with every resource.  Simultaneously, you must be mindful of exposure that this priority effort requires.  Where are you most weak when strong elsewhere?  Answer that question to identify and mitigate risk.

 Maneuver: If you’re stagnant in business, you’re irrelevant, at risk, and ultimately dead.  Stay focused on the core of your business and invest (maneuver) in new markets and additional revenue channels.  Think disruption but don’t grab at every shiny object.  Have a plan to get to where you are not.

 Unity of Command: There’s always someone who’s in charge.  However, in companies with a matrix design of teaming to attack opportunities, leadership often is never declared or, more importantly, resourced.  Set your teams up for success and clearly establish the authority and responsibility lines at the beginning.  Remove any doubt about who’s in charge.

 Security and Surprise: Protect your organization from competitors and yourself.  If you can accomplish that, you’ll never be completely surprised.  The best security is a greater understanding of the market environment and competitors.  Mostly, competitors (your enemy) are outside your organization; however, increasingly and troubling, your worst enemy may be “inside the wire” in the form of an insider threat.  Have a program to monitor the environment and yourself.  If you know yourself, and you know the environment, you’ll win.  At the end of the day, it is about winning.

 Simplicity: We know the KISS rule: keep it simple, stupid.  Possibly a less insulting description is to use Occam’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, economy, and succinctness.  Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Of course!  We should never deviate from this rule.  As Steve Jobs said, “That’s been one of my mantras – focus and simplicity.  Simple can be harder than complex.  You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.  But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

The basics of leadership are to influence a team to get the job done by providing purpose, direction, and motivation.  It’s fair to say that when the principles of war are applied to business and our Presidential administration, successful outcomes are more likely.

 Additionally, an organization will evolve that knows its people and promotes their welfare, develops leadership, demand openness in communications, trains its members, and grows as a team.  There can be no better outcome.  I’d say Clausewitz and Drucker would agree, as would our President.  Let’s hope that everyone else on either side do as well.

The administration of President Trump is picking up speed in its First 100 Days and, as advertised, campaigned, and promised, a lot is happening by way of executive order and legislative policy  priority. The top priority issues are not a surprise: create an energy plan, focus on foreign policy, create job growth, strengthen our military, support law enforcement, and establish trade deals favorable to America.

In the past ten days, the White House has issued executive orders in each of these areas to create the necessary momentum to affect the change the President has said he needs in order to “make America great again.” Campaign promises and election results should be adhered to I think we would all agree to that. The American people elected a candidate who indicated that he’d alter the course of our country domestically and internationally. It’s a tall order, but it’s how he was elected and we should not be surprised by his swift and decisive actions.

Not surprisingly, America has spoken as there are unintended consequences to each. Not only are American citizens nervous and, in some cases, boisterous about these executive declarations, there are reactions that we must be prepared for internationally. Inconceivable as it may seem, consider the following: Could we have another ground war in Europe?

Since the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we’ve prepared for the eventuality of ground combat in Europe. Why shouldn’t we? In the arc of less than 30 years, Germany’s adventurism, exploitation, and butchery of its neighbors were the norm. Europe planned for the best and was unprepared for the worst. Two generations of European youth suffered unimaginable horrors and lost faith in their neighbor’s intentions.

After World War II, NATO provided for the common defense of Europe. This effort was led by American values, goodwill, and extreme military capacity to counter the Soviet threat of military and economic intrusion and coercion. It worked. For the next 67 years following the end of World War II, Europe had been at peace. The Balkan crisis of the mid 90’s revealed the worst case of European recidivism, but total collapse of a united Europe was averted.

What’s next for Europe? International attention, resources, and commitment for the past 20 years have been laser focused on challenges of radical Islamic terrorism. It’s a scourge that has its roots in the Middle East but affects all geographies with its ideology of barbarism and loose interpretation of the Koran to suit extremist views. It’s cynical yet effective.

While the world has paid almost exclusive attention to attacking radical Islam, trying to deal with the aftershocks of missed opportunities and an inability to abort or limit its reach, cracks in our common defense have surfaced.

An open and free Europe Union (EU) is rightfully challenged. BREXIT, the United Kingdom’s populist decision to exit the EU, was the first step of many that will follow. What has been an open Europe defined by a common history and currency is now at risk. Gates have replaced bridges. Refugees wait for months or longer for admission to the EU. Camps in northern Greece grow in
size and squalor. Syria’s largest export is its people.

The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa has propelled refugee migration levels to numbers not seen since the end of World War II. Not unlike the period following World War II, tolerance and understanding for the human condition of the displaced and disadvantaged are in short supply. Europe is a mess; BREXIT was the logical result of an island nation tired of dealing with the in-exactitude of policies not aligned with their national best interest.

The Russian Federation, meanwhile, is taking a century’s-long view and behaves not dissimilarly to Czarist Russia.  Crises elsewhere distract the world’s attention while Russia marches forward to ensure its place as a world power. The Romanovs have been replaced by Vladimir Putin, but he won’t suffer a similar fate.

Most assuredly, Russia has its host of problems, including a fledgling economy, but its national prestige has never been more robust and its leader more revered. A bare-chested Putin rides a horse and it’s followed by fireworks, a national celebration, and a media campaign. Putin knows exactly who and what he’s feeding: the nationalistic pride of the Russian people and the fears of Russia’s neighbors, both near and afar (i.e., the EU).

The EU and the United States have been distracted. We’ve been fighting extreme Islamic radicals who have a singular mission to destroy western modernism. It doesn’t matter what we do; these radicals want us dead. Hence, we’ve been busy. The window of opportunity was opened. Russia walked through.

Russia annexed Crimea with ground troops and we watched. Russia attacked the Syrian resistance with fighter aircraft and we watched. Russia attacked our Presidential election via cyber-tactics and we watched. Russia says it’s acting in its own national self-interest, but Moscow’s bad behavior is reinforced by our acquiescence. Russia can and will do what it wants while will watch.

Maybe not. Russian adventurism may be stopped. The Trump administration wants to improve relations with Russia, but we cannot tolerate this behavior. President Putin does not have a preexisting relationship with President Trump, so the choreography of their diplomatic dance has not yet been set in determining acceptable standards of conduct.

Who leads and who follows? Who tests the limits of tolerable behavior? These are unknowns with these two international leaders. It’s not outside the realm of the possible to see a provocative move by Russia in the Baltics or an increase in military undertaking in Syria to spark a series of events on the ground that neither the U.S. nor Russia are in a position to modify or mitigate.

It’s not unrealistic to assume Russian intervention in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Kaliningrad is a port city in Russia, but it is cut off and geographically isolated from the rest of the federation by Lithuania and Poland. The Baltic states have the largest Russian-speaking populations of all NATO countries and share a common border with Russia. Direct land access to Kaliningrad is governed by treaty, but remains a clear and present irritant to Moscow.

We should not be surprised to see another “Crimealike” “soft invasion” by Russia in order to protect “ethnic Russians” outside the federation. Soldiers and special operators dressed in mufti one day, could suddenly appear in uniform the next once across the border into the Baltic states. That is exactly how Putin invaded Crimea three years ago.

The difference between what happened in the Ukraine and this possible scenario is stark. Unlike the Ukraine, the Baltic states are members of NATO. Article V of the NATO charter stipulates that an attack, regardless of how it’s executed, on one NATO member is an attack on all. The taking of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, is the equivalent of an attack on Munich or Tampa or Milan. NATO would immediately be involved to forcibly remove Russian troops.

I’ve been trained my entire life to rely little on hope and to plan for the worst possible outcome. This would be the worst possible outcome, but I sure would be looking for a nice inventory of hope. Russia would claim sovereign rights to protect its “citizens” on its near border. Their actions would be swift, precise, and, very possibly, virtually nonlethal.  It would be over before the first alert of an incursion or a demand to invoke Article V of the NATO charter could be executed.

So, what happens then? Article V would guide and govern NATO’s actions. The treaty’s teeth have never really been stressed; this would stress every aspect of NATO and European solidarity. Most assuredly, military action would follow. Europe would be at war again, and America would be involved deeply, inexorably, and making the necessary sacrifices that our international partners expect of American leadership.

No one wants this. All would lose…a provocative Russia, a European Union struggling with its identity, and a NATO alliance exhausted after 15 years of combat in the Middle East. It is, however, a real possibility.

Our new administration, we must assume, is no doubt engaged in the necessary planning to anticipate this possibility and is creating the engagement steps to build trust among the Russian Federation, our European allies, and ourselves. We should all ask to know what those steps are. How can we contribute to them? How can we measure their success?

Hope, most assuredly, is not a methodology to achieve success. We can hope that Russia will not use “ethnic minority” grievances in the Baltics as a pretext to an invasion, but we will plan otherwise. In this case, we will conduct exhaustive, pressure-tested planning, but hope must be present as well and in equal supply.