Why This Book: It was selected as our All American Leadership reading group and follows our earlier discussion of Team of Teams, written by Stanley McChyrstal, co-written by Chris Fussell.  

Summary in 3 Sentences: As Fussell explains in the introduction, One Mission is a sequel to Team of Teams,  borne of the feedback the McChrystal Group had gotten from many who had bought into the Team of Teams vision,  but wanted more practical guidance on how to actualize that vision.  In One Mission, Fussell takes the vision from Team of Teams and breaks it down into its parts and explains how they fit together. He provides guidance on various building blocks to a Team of Teams, and after each chapter provides a case study of how an organization in the private sector struggled with and overcame the challenges that were presented in implementing the guidance of that particular chapter.

My Impressions:  (note page numbers refer to the 2017 hard cover edition) This is a thoughtful book and is a worthy sequel to Team of Teams.  Fussell briefly reviews the vision from Team of Teams which grew out of the success General McChrystal had in transforming a traditional top-down organizational model that was in a react mode to the initiatives of its enemy in Iraq, into a unified and agile organization that was able to go on the offensive and keep its enemy off balance and on the defensive.   In One Mission, Fussell provides specific suggestions about how to break down stove-pipes and bureaucratic intertia to create a large organization working together and able to respond quickly to new challenges in general harmony to fulfill “one mission.”    In both Team of Teams and One Mission there are many vignettes to make his points from his and McChrystal’s experience with “the Task Force” in Iraq, but at the end of each chapter he offers case studies that provide insight into how these ideas have been applied in the civilian sector.  The book and the case studies make the point that creating a team of teams from a group of separate organizations each with their own histories, cultures and tribal agendas takes time, persistence and commitment to achieve.

He begins by explaining the difference between bureaucratic organizations and what he calls “networked” organizations,” and that each have their strengths and weaknesses. To respond to a rapidly changing environment, but also to be able to make and carry out long term plans and strategy, an organization needs to have qualities of both.  This he calls “the hybrid model.”

THE HYBRID MODEL:   He builds upon McChrystal’s explanation of how bureaucratic organizations evolved, and notes how they were perfect for their time and place.  They work extremely well in what he calls “complicated” environments, where cause and effect can clearly be seen.  But they are not agile enough to respond well to “complex” environments, in which “parts interact in new and unique ways, which defy preset definitions.”  p34 He notes that systems designed for complicated, but predictable environments, don’t do well in a complex environment.

The systems and processes of bureaucratic organizations provide many advantages of predictability, but have to break from their patterns to respond to crisis.  When the organization focuses it’s energy on the crisis and deals with it, afterward. it must return to it’s business-as-usual patterns, as it waits for the next crisis.  Many organizations struggle to maintain predictability, stability, and continuity in processes, while they are finding themselves almost constantly in crisis mode.

He contrasts bureaucratic and predictable decision making with networked decision making, which has few rules except those that govern trust and relationship building. But he notes that networks lack central planning and long term follow-through, and are driven purely by a common narrative that holds the network together.  They function best in response to immediate problems and crises, and without the continuity of bureaucracies and their centralized control, do not do well in long term planning.   Such non-bureaucratic networked structures have proven poor at organizing large enterprises for the long term.

In One Mission, Fussell refers to bureaucracies as solid-line organizations, referring  to the standard block-line chart of responsibility and authority.  He refers to networks as dotted-line relationships, that cut across the solid-line structures. They are social structures that are highly disorganized and difficult to focus or control.

In environments that require both long term planning AND a robust crisis response capability, he advocates a hybrid model which affords the advantages of each.  “The hybrid structure harnessed the speed and information-sharing capabilities offered by the informal relationships foundation in networks while retaining the efficiency, reliability, and predictability of a bureaucracy.” p45   But the hybrid model needs an aligning narrative.

ALIGNING NARRATIVE:  He pointed to how initially in the Task Force in Iraq, and in most large organizations, each unit – each “tribe” – had its own narrative, its own story about who they were and why they were there.  And these stories often were self-serving and not in alignment.  Though there was a top-down driven story, it was often only given lip-service within the sub-units of the larger organizations, each of which operated primarily based on their own cultures and stories. This whole section of the book is about why it is essential to break down the tribal narratives and create a single, aligning narrative that unites all the tribes, while still respecting the integrity of the tribes themselves.  And he makes abundantly clear, this can be difficult.

The aligning narrative was largely about HOW a team-of-teams operates in order to succeed.  “Credibility” within the larger organization was the coin of the realm, the common currency, and it was based on proven competence, integrity, and relationships.  It is in this section of the book that he gives us his simple formula:

Credibility = Proven Competence + Integrity + Relationships

Competence and integrity are standard organizational values; the role of “relationships” in building and sustaining credibility is stressed much more in networked organizations than in bureaucratic organizations.

The aligning narrative had to tie the various tribes within the organization together, and put the larger organization and it’s “one mission” ahead of the various and often conflicting tribal narratives.  The aligning narrative needs to focus on the team as one team, with one mission.

To build this aligning narrative the leadership needed to broadcast it daily, live this narrative, and reinforce it all the time.  Tribal competition was not tolerated.  There was only ONE mission, and the aligning narrative reinforced that. The new narrative  “…told to us every day, cast each of us as an actor in an entirely new story.  We started to feel what was possible, and the best among us were showing a willingness to forgo concepts of ‘tribe’ in order to become part of this new culture.” p.60

INTERCONNECTIONS: Fussell begins this chapter by talking about “culture carriers who connected the organization and shaped our dotted-line connectivity.”  p 76  He talked about key influences in the dotted-line organization, and referred to them as “boundary spanners”  who by virtue of their credibility, personal stature, and personalities were able to create and maintain new dotted line connections across silos.

Key influencers shape the attitudes and decisions of an organization and are frequently not high in the solid line hierarchy.  These are people who for whatever reason have achieved a level of credibility within various parts of the organization which outweighs their positional authority.  Knowing who they are and winning their support is key to creating a strong aligning narrative. “You can’t expect a solidi-line superior to force meaningful interpersonal relationships between individuals.” p82

“The only barrier to an influencer seeking to establish boundary-spanning relationships is a traditional org-chart structure that prevents them from meeting and connecting with other teams….A leader’s job, rather than appointing boundary spanners, is to create an environment where any individual in the organization can ‘connect the dots,’ and choose to become a boundary spanner themselves. ” p82

This creates an environment of “social contagion” and social learning of best practices and desired behaviors, modeled not just by the organizations leaders, but also by these boundary-spanning key influencers.

He points out the tension between cross-functional collaboration and the focused “deep work” that is possible in a smaller team.  Physically co-locating smaller teams is a good way to permit deep work and healthy collaboration – as long as there is a strong aligning narrative, being supported by key influencers.

Fussell explains how McChrystal used the daily O&I – Operations and Intel brief as a key tool in creating an aligning narrative and interconnections.  But what distinguished the O&I from a traditional broadly disbursed Video Teleconference was the discussion of actions.  It was a “…technologically enabled, contextualization-centered forum designed for teams to discuss the independent action they’d taken since the last forum. It represented an opportunity to exchange newly discovered and often imperfectly formed insights with the larger group.” p 90   Much of the detail was saved for “the meeting after the meeting, where as you’ve likely experienced, things actually get done.”  p 90

The O&I enabled “…firsthand, person-to-person information distribution or contextualization from any node in the organization to every other one, instantly.”   This information-sharing created new dotted-line connections that “no solid-line planner could have anticipated the need for, (and which) might lead to a tactical team’s exponentially”  greater success at their mission. p93

With a well-oiled dotted-line relationship “structure” and an accepted and constantly reinforced aligning narrative, an organization can get to a point of shared consciousness,  a concept which McChyrstal introduced in Team of Teams. Shared consciousness is “a state of emergent,  adaptive organizational intelligence brought about through transparency and information sharing….The goal was to reach this state at the end of every forum.” p108

OPERATING RHYTHM:   In this chapter Fussell makes the point that the hybrid model demands an agile operating rhythm – which can handle being disrupted and adjusted to meet the pace of change in the environment in which the organization is operating..  Many leaders and their organizations become addicted to the predictable patterns of activities and decision making that are easy to fall into. At that point, the organization is vulnerable.

He says leaders must ask two very basic, fundamental questions:

1.  How fast is our environment changing?

2. In its current state, how fast can our organization adapt to change?

He noted that in Iraq, his task force didn’t choose a 24 hour operating rhythm, but their enemy was operating on a 24 hour cycle – so their environment demanded it. They either adapted, or continued to lose – lives, momentum, and the war.

He points out that at different levels of the organization, decisions are made on different time lines and each level has to adapt to let the other operate as effectively as possible.  Which means pushing decisions down, and adjusting the operating rhythm to fit the needs of all levels.

“The solid line system alone can be optimized only to a certain point – a hybrid approach can offer exponentially better returns.” p140

DECISION SPACE:  This is one of the best chapters in the book.  He says, “Decision space…is the explicitly commuicated lane of decision authorities owned by critical leaders and teams within an organization.” p171.  In this chapter, Fussell talks about the process of empowerment and how to manage the risk of giving authority to those closest to the problem. He also identifies some of the challenges and opportunities associated with developing leaders who are comfortable with greater authority.

Up to this point he has outlined the need for an aligning narrative, creating a communication forum that develops interconnections and a shared consciousness, and then an appropriate operating rhythm.  But finally for an organization to respond quickly and effectively to a rapidly changing environment, those who do the work closest to the emerging challenges, must feel able, willing and empowered to make decisions that move the organization forward.

To do this they must know as specifically as possible what their “lane” is – what actions they have the autonomy to take,  what they are accountable for, and limitations or “constraints” on their authority.  He notes that it is often a new and uncomfortable experience for leaders to be empowered and expected to make decisions.  In most organizations, subordinates are required to ask permission and they become used to hiding behind the “bureaucratic excuse matrix” of superiors taking responsibility for decisions.

Newly empowered leaders risk hesitancy or deviance.  Fussell spends much of the chapter explaining these two concepts.

Hesitancy is the reluctance of newly empowered leaders to take action due to anxiety over either the potential to make an operational mistake or overstepping one’s bounds.  It is heavily informed by personal desires for safety and security.  Newly empowered are often unsure of their competence or authority.

Deviancy is what hesitant decision makers are afraid of demonstrating – stepping beyond the norms of the organization in ways that could be either positive (resulting in practical innovation or improvement) or negative (causing damage to the organization’s cause.)

The Deviancy piece is most interesting, since he says in great organizations, good and progressive leaders seek out “positive deviants” – empowered leaders who make decisions that depart from the norms of the organization “in honorable ways” while still respecting the strategic intent and aligning narrative of the organization.  Positive deviants are innovative and ready to experiment with new processes and procedures to accomplish the organization’s  goals, in ways that are better than the old tried and true.  While he warns against negative deviants, he argues that leaders need to actively encourage positive deviants and empower them to find new ways to challenge and resolve old problems.

With a strong aligning narrative, you want empowered leaders to ask: What is within the realm of the possible, given our decision making authority and the strategic direction of our organization?   You DON’T want empowered leaders to ask the standard bureaucratic question:  What am I being told to do and how am I expected to accomplish that objective?

He notes that the creation of decision space helps leaders identify and give further coaching to those who are naturally-hesitant, newly empowered leaders.   It also helps identify the positive deviants, who may need different coaching, but also may best serve the organization in positions of greater responsibility.  Fussell states, “The identification of positive deviants among our ranks was the most important result of the Task Force’s allocation of decision space.  These leaders would consistently test the  bounds of their decision space: they understood the game and were willing to follow the rules, but constantly sought better ways to play…..walking on the edges of their authority.” p.179

“Controlling decision space allows leaders to better mitigate excessive risk but also gives the best leaders in their ranks the ability to walk right up to the edge of their authority and then push for more.” p 184.

LIAISONS:  Fussell begins this chapter with the question:  “How might external stakeholders be exposed to an organization’s aligning narrative and be brought into collaborative problem solving?”  p198  The answer – sending really talented liaisons to these important organizations.  The liaison must have a clear vision of the aligning narrative and direct access to the boss.

Based on his experience with the Task Force Fussell stresses that the importance of having really strong liaison cells in key organizations both within and without the team of teams cannot be overstated.   Liaisons help foster and maintain healthy dotted line relationships, but they don’t replace them.  Sometimes relationships between individuals not only within but between organizations can get frayed, and liaison cells embedded in the bureaucracy of another organization can help anticipate and mitigate the damage that may result from misunderstandings or personality clashes. “All it takes to create such a permanent relationship divide is a  spoiled collaboration effort, or poorly considered comments by one leader in a meeting, internal competition over resources, or the office rumor mill…culturally disparate tribes can easily be drawn into generations-long conflicts with one another based on long-past slights.” p.200

How does a leader cultivate and maintain strong relationships in such a fragile environment?  With a strong liaison who has great credibility with both the giving and receiving organization.  He notes how extremely important it is to select the right people for liaisons, and these are usually the people you are least willing to give up.  “You know it’s the right person if it hurts you to see them leave.” 213  But their influence can be critical in building synergies with other organizations.  He  gives advice in vetting and selecting the right personality types, noting that boundary spanners and influencers generally make great liaisons.

In addition to serving as liaison between a key stakeholder organization and the team of teams, another key function of liaisons is to interact with the rest of the organization’s liaisons, “constellated across other organizations.”  Such a constantly communicating network increases the influence and strength of the networked organization, supports the aligning narrative and the interconnections that foster it.

“In the Task Force, our leadership constantly reminded us that we would need to make the first move, every time, to establish trust, as there were years of negative memories to overcome.  p201 (italics in original)  One of those important first steps was sending a really great member of his team to help build trust.

CONCLUSION:  He concludes the book with some vignettes that emphasize how important it is in a team of teams environment for people to feel free to share their views.  He talks about the value of psychological safety, “a sense of confidence that the group won’t embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up” and  “the need for individuals to feel safe contributing in a  a constantly changing situation where there is an inherent risk of imperfection.”p.240  This requires leaders who are willing to accept transparency and debate. He also makes the point that “you need to build relationships before the firefight”  When the environment becomes stressed, and the stakes are high, contributors will not suddenly feel safe speaking in a transparent fashion without prior conditioning.

McChrystal fostered the openness to different views and opinions.  He described how after McChrystal had summarized how he saw an issue, he would finish with a question: “Does anyone think I’ve missed anything?”   This made the point that however McChrystal saw the situation, he realized that it was just one interpretation, and the situation was often fluid and rapidly changing.  He was always seeking to avoid group think.

Fussell concludes by arguing against the “great man” theory of leadership, and that while many have wanted to make McChyrstal a heroic great leader, responsible for all the good that happened under his leadership, Fussell noted that the heroic-leader myth ignores the truly hard work of the whole team of teams that made McChrystal’s success possible.  He pointed out that McChrystal’s leadership style was actually counter to the great leader model – in that McChrystal represented a humility-based leadership style.   “A truly humble leader will watch their (team’s) capabilities emerge, resist calls to take credit for them, and publicly acknowledge that the newfound capacity of the organization’s systems is far greater than anything one person or team could ever hope to produce.” p.248

THE CHIEF OF STAFF: Fussell adds an appendix to the book entitled “The Chief of Staff,” observing that while the importance of the Chief of Staff function is well known in the military, it is not well understood in private industry.

He provides a nice matrix of duties and responsibilities for an organization’s Chief of Staff, progressing from serving as a bridge between the CEO and the organization, to optimizing the organization’s decision making, to finally become a thought partner for the CEO.   He concludes with, “..today’s environment is simply moving too fast for any one individual to sift through the complexity alone.  Building a truly empowered team around the executive suite will prove to be an increasingly important value differentiator, in which having a  well-considered approach to developing a CoS is critical.”  p260