Current Management Topics

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished


Click and type in a question or comment

It is said that 'no good deed goes unpunished.' Most of us hope that our encounter with this adage causes no permanent career consequences.

Some recover and receive corporate forgiveness for a transgression. Unfortunately for others, the 'good deed' ends a career. A difficult boss, competing peers, or circumstances beyond one’s control can play havoc with a good intent. For 56 year-old US Army Major General John Millikin, payback came in March 1945, just weeks before the end of WWII in Europe. His decision to send his III Corps across the Rhine River and enter Germany's heartland at the town of Remagen reflects vision, initiative and leadership---three army values. In Millikin’s case, however, the decision led to his relief from duty and relegation to the ranks of the unknown US generals of WWII.

Millikin graduated from West Point, served in WWI and followed a typical career path in the pre-WWII army. He received several promotions after the US entered the war, and led III Corps (about 80,000 soldiers) in a counterattack against the south shoulder of the Ardennes "Bulge" in early 1945. Perhaps his success wasn’t all it seemed, since his boss at the time, George Patton, thought Millikin was "'very amateurish...I don't like him and never have.'" Some of this is attributable to pre-war internal army politics.

The III Corps transferred in February 1945 to the First Army, under Courtney H. Hodges, who was unforgiving of any hint of real or perceived inefficiency. Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower, meanwhile, set the strategy for the final stages of the European campaign: a drive by the British-led 21st Army Group across the Rhine into Germany's Ruhr industrial area. The US-led 12th Army Group would support. American planners knew that terrain and logistical considerations favored the British zone of attack.

Hodges and Millikin on 4 March discussed the possibility of crossing the Rhine at Remagen, but understandably assumed the Germans would not let the Ludendorff railroad bridge fall into American hands. They did not know that the German leaders on the ground faced a complicated command setup and overlapping responsibilities. They were waiting until the last minute to destroy the bridge.

Yet Millikin’s mission was to attack south and link up with Patton’s Third Army near Remagen, not cross the river. Still, III Corps troops were in position to take advantage of an opportunity at the town and the Frist Army G3 (operations officer) on 6 March told Millikin to do so. The same day, Millikin told John Leonard, commander of the subordinate 9th Armored Division, to comply with the standing orders but to take the bridge at Remagen if possible. He told Leonard that he would go down in "glory" if he did so.

The drama mounted by the hour. Leonard’s subordinate, William Hoge, interpreted rather liberally the mission to move south, and on the morning of 7 March sent an armored task force to Remagen. He thought it was “the opportunity of a lifetime.” At mid-morning, US air reconnaissance reported the Ludendorff bridge was intact. About noon, GIs led by a lieutenant of German descent reached the high ground above the town and verified the air report. The electrifying news went up the chain.

Hoge arrived to take direct command. The Germans tried but failed to blow the bridge. As it literally settled down on its pilings, the riflemen ran across under fire. One man told his sergeant, "'I don't want to go, but I will.'"

Leonard understood the consequences of deviating from the plan and wondered if he’d “caused a lot of trouble." Millikin got the news around 4 PM on 7 March and Hodges was aware soon afterwards. He ordered Millikin to exploit the crossing. When Hodges's boss, Omar Bradley, commanding general of the 12th Army Group, received the news in the late evening, he told Eisenhower’s chief of staff, "there goes your ballgame....'" Eisenhower to his credit ordered limited exploitation of the opportunity.

But trouble was already in motion. The Germans reacted quickly, cordoning off the bridgehead, placing the crossing under artillery fire and eventually using combat swimmers and rockets against it. Millikin's staff, meanwhile, had to manage redirection into the bridgehead of tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands of vehicles from every type of unit in the corps including infantry, artillery, tank, transportation, supply, medical, maintenance, anti-aircraft and communications. Attack and supply routes had been oriented south toward Third Army, not to the east and the Rhine. The roads broke down under the punishment. Units crossed the river as they became available, not necessarily as they were needed. Tactical bridges were imperative because of the damage to the Ludendorff bridge but engineer traffic added to the congestion.

Courtney Hodges was not as mild-mannered as he looked, and he quickly became frustrated with Millikin’s handling of the battle despite the strings imposed by Eisenhower’s headquarters. Hodges was particularly upset by the lack of timely and accurate information from the river’s east bank. Units also often reported incorrect locations or misstated the direction of their attacks. The First Army staff was openly critical of Millikin. Hodges on 11 March visited the east bank and came away wanting the troops to push north; however, he evidently waited four days before letting Millikin know it. Millikin oriented his units east and southeastward, no doubt thinking this would help draw German reserves from the planned main attack in the north. He did not know that Hodges was already considering firing him.

Hodges and Bradley discussed the matter, but it was Hodges’s decision in the end. When he broke the news to Millikin on 17 March, Millikin told him that the Ludendorff bridge had finally collapsed into the Rhine, killing twenty-eight GIs and injuring another 93.

The III Corps staff believed that Hodges’s staff had been ‘keeping book’ on its performance, and wanted an excuse to recommend Millikin’s relief. Millikin and his staff acknowledged shortcomings in managing the complex operation but they blamed the relief on the fact that the decision to cross the Rhine had upset Allied plans. Hodges permitted the crossing but Eisenhower approved only limited expansion of the bridgehead and did not allow commitment of strong reserves. Some also believed Hodges and his staff took credit for the decision to capture the bridge but did not hesitate to let the blame roll downhill when operations bogged down and they learned that Eisenhower’s headquarters was unhappy with the crossing. Add to the mix the fact that a fellow corps commander openly stated that he would have done better than John Millikin.

Remagen was a poor site for a river crossing operation, but what was Millikin to do when presented with such an opportunity? Both sides were unprepared but time favored the Germans. John Millikin knew what he was getting into, and he had to contend with a difficult boss, peer competition, and internal politics. The tactical situation was uncertain and there were physical limitations beyond his control. Yet he could not in good conscience ignore the opportunity. Sometimes there is no good choice. Only a choice. And the consequences.

August 2017

New Coke and Tank Destroyers


What do the US Army’s development of a new weapon in WWII and the 1980’s New Coke experiment have in common?

Read on….

We translate information about the competition into actionable business intelligence (BI). Information is not intelligence and the latter requires thoughtful human – not machine - interpretation to be of real value. Reacting to a threat posed by a technology or market development depends on what I call critical think-through – with emphasis on the ‘through’ part. It’s a matter of productive response despite an organization’s biases and culture. Even urgency, which is often self-imposed, is no excuse for failing to undertake thoughtful, critical analysis of a predicament. Don’t rush to judgment. Be efficient, but don’t dash headlong into a tricky matter.

There are no exact historical analogies across time, but the constant of human nature enables us to use past examples to identify some potential concerns with how we might interpret market information.

Screaming media headlines early in WWII covering Germany’s employment of an integrated ground and air combined arms team led senior US Army generals to urgently search for an answer to a disruptive technological threat. The Americans decided that the situation needed a specialized response because prevailing doctrine did not see the tank as an anti-tank weapon in itself. Most thought its role was to penetrate front lines and strike rear areas: save the anti-tank fighting for another weapon.

Germany’s effectiveness against flawed Allied doctrine in 1940 did little to clarify the situation. The American reflex was to develop a specialized organization based on centralized control of large pools of lightly-armored wheeled, and later, tank-like vehicles, that would kill enemy tanks. They also did not grasp that the headline-grabbing panzer forces amounted to only about 10% of the entire German army. It was a horse-drawn force. The US Army’s corporate bias toward the ‘proper’ role of the tank and assumptions about the hitting power of the German army led them astray. Desperation to develop and bring ‘to market’ a new ‘product line’ diverted scarce resources from basic rearmament programs and led to deployment of a weapon to counter a threat that did not really exist. This reaction made some sense in an organization without a centralized system for R&D or for developing combat doctrine. It was how the army did business at the time. Tank destroyer soldiers served the nation with distinction – but usually not performing a mission for which they’d been trained.

Let’s move ahead 40 years. By the 1980s Coke executives were engaged in a war with Pepsi. Its sweeter formula was gaining market share and disrupting Coke’s hold on the cola battleground. Coke’s own studies appeared to corroborate the results of the nationwide “Pepsi Challenge.” Pepsi was growing in sales and evidently appealing to changing public demand. The ‘Pepsi Challenge’ ‘sip tests’ were problematic in that the public tasted only a small sample of the two beverages. They did not take several of the blue cans home for extended test. Coke also had wider availability, was priced competitively, and was the major staple soft drink of the south.

To help clarify the nature of the threat, Coke launched nationwide focus groups, surveys and taste tests with an experimental sweet formula. Coke executives also placed weight on the sip test results despite their questionable methodology. Some researchers also believe Coke mistakenly ignored intangibles like packaging and branding image – that red can meant something to a lot of people, perhaps even influencing their perception of the taste of the drink. The company altered its ‘original’ formula to make it taste a bit more like Pepsi. Its approach was in line with prevailing best practices (doctrine) in conducting taste-based marketing research despite the importance of branding, packaging and image to consumer preference.

Like some army leaders in the early 1940’s, Coke executives relied on underdeveloped information to identify a potential solution. They committed resources, time and money to bring ‘New Coke’ to market in the spring of 1985. Faced with a stunningly negative reaction the company soon reintroduced the original formula. The overall balance of taste, packaging and perception returned to normal.

US Army leaders were products of a culture that emphasized development of corporate-wide doctrine without a centralized approach to implementing materiel solutions. But corporate practices (doctrine) are not dogma. In the case of the tank destroyer, the army deployed a new weapon based in part on interpretation of media reports and failures in the performance of Allied armies. Diverting scarce materiel, manpower and training resources to tank destroyers took attention from improving US tanks. Coke executives likely assumed that the doctrine behind their method for market research was correct and that whatever information it provided would be ‘right.’ Experts later concluded in part that thorough taste tests might have better identified the reasons behind public reaction to the two formulas. The ‘sip test’ benefited only Pepsi. Executives did not appear to consider the importance of branding to overall consumer perception of taste. While both the army and Coke situations were complex, if there is a lesson from history it may be this: does your organization really think through its reaction to an apparently urgent situation, or does it stop as soon it gets the answer it wants?

Look Back to Look Ahead


Click and type in a question or comment

This area will contain messages posted by your fans. Delete these sentences after you have read them.

All the technology, information and intelligence in the world cannot prevent a faulty decision based on human error, bias and ego. Organizations spend a lot of time and money -sometimes with questionable results- trying to reduce uncertainty in decision making or to help inexperienced managers lead others. Predictive/​business intelligence tools help, but there are no reliable models for dealing with human nature. Reducing doubt extends to selection of talent. The long-term effectiveness of trendy ‘team building’ retreats is doubtful. Leaders cannot turn over to an HR department or executive coach their own responsibility for identifying potential, or worse, for fixing a mistake in their own judgment about a subordinate’s potential. Short, pithy little books along the lines of “Leadership Secrets of General [fill in the blank]” lack context and are not a how-to guide on making tough decisions in ambiguous situations complicated by instant international communications and cultural differences.

Managers achieve goals through people. However much we prefer things to be different, we must deal with the intangibles of human behavior. It is impossible to eliminate uncertainty and volatility in business. But there is a no-cost tool that can help inform decision making – it is a thoughtful reading of history. I’m not advocating that everyone should get a B.A. Rather I’m suggesting that leaders really can learn from the past and apply this to the way they think about their operating environment (which is an inescapable result of the past and its personalities). They can learn the importance of a skeptical approach to courses of action; the need to identify bias in thought; the vital importance of accuracy and attention to detail in reporting; managing personalities; processes for separation of hard data and evidence from supposition. It is less about what happened than it is about identifying how and why.

In May 2017, I commented on Linked-In about a practical way to apply history – the corporate staff ride where executives go to sites of importance to study and reflect on the actual ground the decisions that set events into motion. Personal study is an alternative. When looking at the past, I suggest that managers ask what successful historical figures did differently than the ‘competition.’ How did those in the past either build, or ruin, cohesive management teams during times of great stress on systems? How did they enable their subordinates to spot trends? How did they cope with ambiguity? What processes were in place to develop and make actionable information available to the “CEO?” What trigger points alerted past leaders to change their organizational positioning in relation to the competition? We might also consider what some scholars have identified as a ‘tyranny of success.’ High-performing firms can lose their edge when factors such as vision or positioning that led to success in the first place become a threat in themselves.

One can find in the record of military innovation what might occur when an organization develops new ‘products’ without a strategy for using them effectively, as did several nations in their approach to mobile warfare prior to WWII. Looking at reaction to a crisis is more than learning how to react to a stunning surprise on the battlefield. It is also a matter of identifying why the crisis happened in the first place and looking at what people did to mitigate the situation. Crises are usually the product of a chain of events, not a single error or misstep. Leaders need to develop the ability to see past the immediate, and question themselves.

People don’t really change. Fear, discomfort, envy, greed and jealousy will always be on the executive’s plate. So should esprit, character and personal accountability for performance. Stress is ever-present and anxiety about results is a product of life. Others have endured the same grind in the past - they made sacrifices, and some have had the clarity of mind to take their organization to new levels of achievement. Application of history is another tool available to a manager out to enhance performance and gain competitive advantage.


The Executive's Reframing Process


Click and type in a question or comment


Boston Consulting Group's March 2017 "Perspectives" newsletter described an 'Integrated Strategy Machine' that blends human and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities into an organization that can develop and execute a business strategy.

BCG notes that AI isn't yet capable of replacing a human manager's creativity or intelligence. Its use as a strategy tool is generally limited to pattern recognition, predictive analysis and situational signal detection.

Yet before becoming enamored with the latest shiny object, we should realize that the fundamental planning tasks remain (so far) an inescapable human responsibility. In the BCG model, CEOs, not machines, define objectives, shape input into the AI tools, and direct execution of the strategy while reframing the problem(s) that drive the strategy.

I think this is absolutely central to the mental agility and flexibility essential to organizational survival. Reframing a problem or one’s estimate of the situation is also a step in military planning processes. The concept isn't new. Codification of US military strategic planning processes that include 'reframing' began over 80 years ago. Roughly translated into contemporary terms, the CEO considers reframing a problem or hypothesis if the existing strategy fails to meet the criteria for success, or if aspects of the business environment change significantly. The CEO should then consider reorienting the planning effort if needed.

CEOs must make time to think and reflect despite the incessant demands on their time. They must use data and business intelligence, but also rely in experience and their gut to maintain situational understanding and visualization of the operating environment. They must also be wiling to walk away from even the most cherished beliefs about their operation. They and their planning staffs must be self-aware of bias in thinking and be able to determine the 'branches and sequels' uncovered by strategy execution. The CEO must set a climate allowing debate despite the arrogance and egos that will enter the process.

Reframing is a cyclic - not a 'one off' exercise because mere modification of an existing plan may not be enough if the organization faces a disruptive competitor.

If higher level military planning can be faulted for a lockstep pace, businesses should not wear inability to plan as a badge of honor. AI isn't yet at the place where the executive can avoid responsibility for an outcome and blame failure on a machine.

The Corporate Staff Ride


Click and type in a question or comment

The compressed nature of today’s decision making cycles requires self-aware executives to quickly comprehend and synthesize conflicting information, determine its worth and take action without knowing all the information they would prefer to know. Traditional executive development programs, however, often inadequately address application of critical thinking and self-awareness skills. Facilitators might not have management experience and instead depend on academic preparation alone for case studies or program content. Such programs may not force introspection and fall short if they cover only external assessments and personality testing.

Corporations spend a lot of money trying to reduce uncertainty in an environment driven by ambiguity and chaos. Rather continue depending on a ‘type’ solution for reducing operational fog, why not apply the U.S. Army’s ‘staff ride’ concept to a corporate setting? The corporate staff ride (CSR) does not try to directly apply a general’s decisions in battle to a business setting. Programs that claim to do so fail both history and their clients. The CSR uses a physical or physical/mixed reality setting on the actual historic landscape to help senior executives learn in their own language through their own experiences how to identify and influence patterns of behavior, action and reaction. The focus is on how and why decisions were made – not on the decisions themselves.

Leaders can then apply “learning history” processes to collect and distribute after action experiences as a tool for improving performance and changing behavior. For example, how did past military leaders recognize a technology or ‘market trend?’ What processes were in place to make information available to the “CEO”? What trigger points alerted historical leaders to change their organizational positioning to address external disruptive forces? What was the succession plan? How did they use data and intelligence? What caused organizations to lose their edge and fail?

One can find in the record of military innovation what might occur when an army develops excellent ‘products’ without a strategy for using them effectively. Compare French and German armored vehicle developments before WWII. What about goals? Why did the U.S. Army fight for months in the Hürtgen Forest in Germany during 1944-45 without focusing on the only objectives worth the potential cost? Executives interested in long term value should look at how past leaders either built, or ruined, teams during times of great stress on systems. Ask “what can I do to position my organization for success?” Fieldwork in a CSR environment is one way to start. Contact me at millereg2@gmail.com to learn more.

Can we use history to teach values-based business and public sector leadership?


Click and type in a question or comment

Contact Ed Miller at: millereg2@gmail.com

Today's business and public sector leaders can learn from the past, and there is a link between the study of history and improved critical thinking skills, crisis decision making, and values-based operations.

Military leaders are taught to focus first on people. Most graduate schools, when they teach a separate leadership (vs. management) track, still focus on resources before the human element. Yet the human factor drives all others, and the manager/​leader who ignores this unalterable fact does so at great risk. Business school case studies, for example, are really historical 'lessons learned' exercises. Still, they do not get the person on the ground for an experiential discussion.

The best public and private sector organizations focus on building staff and client trust. They must have stable, emotionally mature leaders/​executives. Yet there is often no real learning laboratory for them. As a result, practical experience is often comes at the risk of customers, shareholders and employees.

The Corporate Staff Ride (CSR) is an on the scene critical analysis of applied management concepts. CSRs provide a unique experiential learning environment. There is no substitute for putting people on an actual piece of terrain, confronting them with a historical situation analogous to a business event, then stimulate them to reach conclusions or derive lessons from the experience that they can apply in the corporate setting.