Posted on May 17, 2015
GEN (R) McChrystal's full of good ideas: should DoD and the USG pay attention?
8.71K
30
17
9
9
0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/05/15/gen-stanley-mcchrystal-on-shaking-up-the-military/
GEN (R) McChrystal seemingly has an exhaustible list of "good" ideas, from national service to lateral entry into the military.
I actually like some of his ideas: national service, for one, has a multitude of benefits, especially the paid, voluntary version he espouses. But others, such as lateral entry into the DoD as general officers for CEOs, seem, bluntly, crazy. There's already a mechanism for lateral entry into DoD as a civilian, say, onto OSD civilian staff as one of the several dozen senior DoD civilians.
Thoughts?
GEN (R) McChrystal seemingly has an exhaustible list of "good" ideas, from national service to lateral entry into the military.
I actually like some of his ideas: national service, for one, has a multitude of benefits, especially the paid, voluntary version he espouses. But others, such as lateral entry into the DoD as general officers for CEOs, seem, bluntly, crazy. There's already a mechanism for lateral entry into DoD as a civilian, say, onto OSD civilian staff as one of the several dozen senior DoD civilians.
Thoughts?
DoD
Leadership
Reform
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
Thanks for posting. He had some great insight. I'm hoping General McChrystal will come back in a couple of weeks to RallyPoint to answer more member questions, so you may get a chance to follow up with him on it.
His idea of a senior lateral transfer into the military (civilian into a senior military rank) is obviously highly unorthodox, but it's based on his combination of deep military experience now coupled with civilian experience. When I was on active duty, I would also say it was crazy. However, it takes one with both military and civilian experience to really have the full perspective of whether this idea has any legs to it at all. People who have only served in the military, due to no fault of their own, cannot have this broader perspective. I would therefore suggest for one to be more open to the dialogue on it, and to try to better understand why he would make such a recommendation before outright rejecting it.
Some of the best leaders in the civilian world also are quite young. We have elected a lot of Presidents to lead the free world in their 40s, but one cannot lead the Army until they are in their 50s. Some of the world's most successful CEOs are in their 30s, but if they were in the military then many of them would be doing relatively low level staff work. The military paradigm is not structured to handle these kinds of situations. As General McChrystal said, "The military does very well taking average people and making them very good leaders." -- I think implied in that is that the military doesn't do as good of a job of taking great people and making them into incredible leaders. Perhaps that is not something the military should be in the business of, but I think he does have a valid point. If the military absolutely wanted the best people in the world in its leadership positions, then some non-traditional ideas are fair to put on the table for discussion.
His idea of a senior lateral transfer into the military (civilian into a senior military rank) is obviously highly unorthodox, but it's based on his combination of deep military experience now coupled with civilian experience. When I was on active duty, I would also say it was crazy. However, it takes one with both military and civilian experience to really have the full perspective of whether this idea has any legs to it at all. People who have only served in the military, due to no fault of their own, cannot have this broader perspective. I would therefore suggest for one to be more open to the dialogue on it, and to try to better understand why he would make such a recommendation before outright rejecting it.
Some of the best leaders in the civilian world also are quite young. We have elected a lot of Presidents to lead the free world in their 40s, but one cannot lead the Army until they are in their 50s. Some of the world's most successful CEOs are in their 30s, but if they were in the military then many of them would be doing relatively low level staff work. The military paradigm is not structured to handle these kinds of situations. As General McChrystal said, "The military does very well taking average people and making them very good leaders." -- I think implied in that is that the military doesn't do as good of a job of taking great people and making them into incredible leaders. Perhaps that is not something the military should be in the business of, but I think he does have a valid point. If the military absolutely wanted the best people in the world in its leadership positions, then some non-traditional ideas are fair to put on the table for discussion.
(6)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
This reminds me of a quote attributed to Steve Jobs: “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”
I’m not opposed to lateral transfers into the military, outright. I’ve seen this work first hand, with a great doctor who was direct commissioned in as a major. Maybe the GO/FO level is the right place to look at this; after all, those with stars are “generals,” meaning generalists, so one might expect that success in one area in the civilian world could lead to success in the military. Perhaps a concept like a limited duty officer that the Navy uses--lots of room for GO/FO to lead on staffs, perhaps.
It is a neat idea, but not one without challenges. I think the biggest of these challenges would be the risk of politicization of the upper ranks of the military. Clearly, Congress would have a role in confirming GO/FO direct commissioned from the military, and someone would need to appoint these folks--probably the President? Given this, this lateral transfer concept might lead to a large purge of GOs/FOs every election (say, sort of like what happens with politically-appointed ambassadors). I wonder, given how his career ended, if GEN(R) McChrystal hasn’t thought through some of these implications.
On your point that one doesn’t lead the Army until they are 50s, the new SMA is 42 and doing a great job as part of the Army leadership team.
On that point, maybe we should also consider lateral transfers in for all ranks and positions--take a 42-year old civilian with no military experience and make them the SMA or a senior NCO; take a 31-year old civilian (say, Mark Zuckerburg) and in three months make them a Soldier, give them an infantry company command or make them a battalion XO, and ship them off to combat. I know this is taking the point to the extreme, but if the concept is viable or worth discussing for GO/FO, surely other levels of the military could benefit from this, as well.
At any rate, this is a good contribution to the ongoing discussions on the DoD’s issues with talent management. SECNAV Mabus is on the right track, if you’ve seen his recent comments on this topic.
I’m not opposed to lateral transfers into the military, outright. I’ve seen this work first hand, with a great doctor who was direct commissioned in as a major. Maybe the GO/FO level is the right place to look at this; after all, those with stars are “generals,” meaning generalists, so one might expect that success in one area in the civilian world could lead to success in the military. Perhaps a concept like a limited duty officer that the Navy uses--lots of room for GO/FO to lead on staffs, perhaps.
It is a neat idea, but not one without challenges. I think the biggest of these challenges would be the risk of politicization of the upper ranks of the military. Clearly, Congress would have a role in confirming GO/FO direct commissioned from the military, and someone would need to appoint these folks--probably the President? Given this, this lateral transfer concept might lead to a large purge of GOs/FOs every election (say, sort of like what happens with politically-appointed ambassadors). I wonder, given how his career ended, if GEN(R) McChrystal hasn’t thought through some of these implications.
On your point that one doesn’t lead the Army until they are 50s, the new SMA is 42 and doing a great job as part of the Army leadership team.
On that point, maybe we should also consider lateral transfers in for all ranks and positions--take a 42-year old civilian with no military experience and make them the SMA or a senior NCO; take a 31-year old civilian (say, Mark Zuckerburg) and in three months make them a Soldier, give them an infantry company command or make them a battalion XO, and ship them off to combat. I know this is taking the point to the extreme, but if the concept is viable or worth discussing for GO/FO, surely other levels of the military could benefit from this, as well.
At any rate, this is a good contribution to the ongoing discussions on the DoD’s issues with talent management. SECNAV Mabus is on the right track, if you’ve seen his recent comments on this topic.
(2)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
MAJ (Join to see) - I think it would a rather severe mis-alignmnet to take a 31 year old Mark Zuckerburg and put him in charge of an infantry company. In fact, he probably wouldn't do very well in that role at all. Mark Zuckerburg runs the 11th largest company in the United States, which is worth more than the annual budget of the Navy and the Marine Corps combined. He also already leads more software engineers today than probably exist in the entire DoD. In the McChrystal model at least, he might be ideal to lead a new Cyber Command as a 4 Star, or perhaps as its deputy as a 3 Star. How would his knowledge of the internet, leadership, engineering talent management, and technology compare to an existing GO? I'm not saying this is the appropriate path, but I just wanted to touch on what I think would be some out of the box ideas.
(2)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) I think you also have to take into account what GEN (R) McChrystal said about the essential skills of a Military Leader.
"I think nowadays the essential skills of being a military leader are not to shoot a weapon, they are not even to read a map. They're to make tough decisions in an uncertain environment and to engage with people and build relations. It's almost the same as what you'd find in senior leadership in any other realm." - GEN Stanley McChrystal
I would agree that we don't need lateral entry into tactical level leadership positions. However, it would be very useful in the many specialties within the military where the civilian sector is out pacing us at a faster rate than our bureaucratic system can run.
"I think nowadays the essential skills of being a military leader are not to shoot a weapon, they are not even to read a map. They're to make tough decisions in an uncertain environment and to engage with people and build relations. It's almost the same as what you'd find in senior leadership in any other realm." - GEN Stanley McChrystal
I would agree that we don't need lateral entry into tactical level leadership positions. However, it would be very useful in the many specialties within the military where the civilian sector is out pacing us at a faster rate than our bureaucratic system can run.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss CW4 (Join to see) Fair enough, on both of your comments. If we're talking about senior leadership in the DoD, there are more than enough civilian positions for extremely talented, young, dynamic civilian CEOs to fill in the upper echelons of DoD. Instead of, say, making Zuckerburg a 3-star or 4-star in a cyber organization, why not put him in charge of this for DoD, as the Director of Cybersecurity and Technology? Here's the bio of the civilian currently in this job: http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=392. Seems McChrystal's idea on lateral entry into senior DoD leadership positions isn't that unique, after all, and already being done. The unique recommendation McChrystal makes is to make civilians uniformed GOs/FOs--perhaps its my bias of still being on active duty, but I think this is a crazy idea.
Do either of you have comments about the potential for politicization that comes with this proposal?
Do either of you have comments about the potential for politicization that comes with this proposal?
Daniel B. Prieto III > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Biography View
Daniel B. Prieto serves as the Director of Cybersecurity and Technology, and as the Director of the Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity and Information Assurance (DIB CS/IA) Program in the Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer,
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
The General is a smart man and I enjoyed reading his thoughts. I really thought it was interesting how he said careerism is present in orgs outside of the military. That comment about the civilian ceo thinking the military was efficient also cracked me up. I guess the grass is always greener. The part about direct commissioning as a GO did seem a little far fetched. I don't think anyone should come in at the top without learning the skills of the profession (read the soldier and the state by Samuel huntington). Faster promotions, increased permeability between the guard/reserves and active duty, and assignments to other government organizations and private industry are certainly things that should be considered though (read bleeding talent by tim kane). We already have the SES and the secretaries as civilian appointments. There are approximately 140 of those positions.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Those are high profile political appointments and they pay well for being government work. That's where we should be putting our high performers from industry. No need to put stars on their shoulders for that.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google