Warfighting Book Club – Week Four

Week Four is the final week in the Warfighting Book Club, relating the Marine Corps doctrinal publication Warfighting to business agility.

This is probably my favorite chapter in the book. Several of the sections (Philosophy of Command, Commander’s Intent, Surfaces and Gaps) would be worth an entire week’s discussion on their own.

For facilitators, adding a week for an organization-specific wrap-up would be a great idea. In that week, focus on what was learned from the book and how it could be applied. Keep in mind that application could be short-term or long-term—and making time for both in a wrap-up discussion is important. Short-term changes are easy to identify and make. Long-term changes give a direction to help with sustaining change once the initial excitement wears off.

If you are interested in help facilitating, or help in identifying useful changes for your organization, drop me a line!

Warfighting Week Four Leader’s Notes and Questions

[Page numbers and quotes are taken from Warfighting, MCDP 1, 2019 Edition]

• Sections:  The Challenge – Maneuver Warfare – Orienting on the Enemy – Philosophy of Command – Shaping the Action – Decisionmaking – Mission Tactics – Commander’s Intent – Main Effort – Surfaces and Gaps – Combined Arms – Conclusion
• Questions:
  • How might you rephrase the introductory paragraph for a development project?
  • “The Challenge” for us is developing a concept of knowledge work development projects consistent with our understanding of the nature and theory of work and the realities of the modern workplace.  But the conditions are pretty similar to warfighting in a lot of ways, except we don’t get shot at.  But we want to “win quickly…with minimal casualties and limited external support.”
  • Our purpose isn’t exactly “systemic disruption”, but it’s related.  We’re not trying to tear apart an enemy.  But in our workplace version of maneuver warfare, we are trying to achieve our goals with less cost.  Just like maneuver warfare, this requires:
    • Speed
    • Focus
    • Surprise – equivalent being “inside” the enemy–thoroughly understanding it/them.
  • Let’s start by revisiting a question we asked earlier.  We need to completely understand “the enemy”.  Who or what is “the enemy”?    enemy = problem to solve? enemy = customer?
    • In Marketing, when we talk about getting inside the enemy’s through processes, it’s probably the customer
    • In development projects, when we talk about the enemy, it’s probably the problem to solve
  • Last sentence on 4-7 is important  (and people with those traits will chafe in a just-follow-orders world).  What happens if in our projects we are not thinking “above our own level”, or “acti[ng] in consonance with the requirements of the larger situation”?
  • Philosophy of Command – compare / contrast to philosophy of command for our projects?
    • “A centralized system theoretically needs only one competent person, the senior commander, who is the sole authority.”
      • Are our projects centralized or decentralized?
      • Is there a “sole authority” on our projects?
      • Are the answers to those questions consistent?
  • “As part of our philosophy of command, we must recognize that war is inherently disorderly, uncertain, dynamic, and dominated by friction.”  Is that necessarily true of “knowledge work”?  Why or why not?
    • And what happens if you don’t acknowledge that?
  • In “Shaping the Action” it says “the higher our echelon of command, the greater is our sphere of influence and the further ahead in time and space we must seek to shape the action.”  How far ahead in time and space do you need to look in your work?
  • Can someone summarize what “mission tactics” means? [Assigning a subordinate mission / part of a project without specifying how it must be accomplished; this gives freedom (and accountability!) to the subordinate to accomplish the sub-mission; it’s a “contract” and a means of developing subordinates.]
    • How does “mission tactics” fit with the “sphere of influence” discussed in “Shaping the Action”?
  • “Commander’s Intent” is one of the key concepts in the entire book.  What is “Commander’s Intent”?
  • How often do you provide “commander’s intent” when assigning work?  How do you verify that intent was received?  How often do you “understand the intent of the commander at least two levels up”?
  • “Main Effort” is a good section for comparing/contrasting to team structures.
    • What is the “main effort” of the project you’re on now?  How can you best support the main effort?