With regard to talent management, it was already beginning to teach a different kind of lesson-a cautionary tale. Ironically, by the time Drucker was writing, the army had lost the practice of swift relief that Marshall had enforced so vigorously.
Marshall, he wrote, “insisted that a general officer be immediately relieved if found less than outstanding.” The first example Drucker cited of such wise practice came not from the business world of the 1960s but from the army of the 1940s. He knows that he is inadequate whether he admits it to himself or not. Above all, it is senseless cruelty to the man himself.
It is grossly unfair to his subordinates who are deprived by their superior’s inadequacy of opportunities for achievement and recognition. It is grossly unfair to the whole organization. To let such a man stay on corrupts the others. Take, for example, this advice from his 1967 book The Effective Executive: It is the duty of the executive to remove ruthlessly anyone-and especially any manager-who consistently fails to perform with high distinction. That master of management teaching Peter Drucker often turned to the military of his adopted nation for inspiration, especially on matters of leadership. If you’re looking for management lessons from outside the halls of corporations, you could do worse than to study the United States Army. This brief but powerful history of the army since World War II holds stark lessons for business leaders. troops fought their battles magnificently, their generals often seemed ill equipped for the tasks at hand-especially the difficult but essential job of turning victories on the ground into strategic progress. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Ricks writes, though U.S. This both undercut combat effectiveness and denied small-unit leaders the opportunity to grow by making decisions under extreme pressure. In Vietnam commanders turned to micromanagement, hovering overhead in helicopters to direct (and interfere with) squad leaders and platoon leaders on the ground. If inadequate leaders are allowed to remain in command of an enterprise, their superiors must look for other ways to accomplish its goals.
In Vietnam, he writes, the honesty and accountability of Marshall’s system were replaced by deceit and command indiscipline. Marshall, an unlikely figure of quiet resolve who became a classic transformational leader, and the disastrous generals of the Vietnam era. “To study the change in the army across the two decades between World War II and Vietnam,” Ricks writes, “is to learn how a culture of high standards and accountability can deteriorate.” In this essay, adapted from his new book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, Ricks illuminates the contrast between General George C. When leaders don’t fire underperforming executives, they send a bad message to the whole organization.
0 kommentar(er)
