Team of Teams

Rating

Team of Teams

In 2003 General Stanley McChrystal assumed command of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Iraq. He and his staff were able to plan, execute, and debrief targeted raids conducted at greatly increased speed. But still they were losing the war. They faced al-Qaeda, an enemy who was spontaneous, decentralized, and agile, made up of terrorist cells that could plan and execute attacks without recourse to a chain of command. JSOC was often caught unaware by the latest attack and constantly a step behind. They needed to do something different and be more like their enemy: a networked, adaptable force. Small teams such as Navy SEALs operated in this adaptable manner by avoiding Command & Control hierarchy slowing everything down. The proven approach was extended to replace the entire command by a set of connected teams, a team of teams.


The change was founded on understanding the difference between Order and Complex systems. War is a complex environment. Progress is made by experimenting and seeing what works, then amplifying the good and disrupting the bad. As McChrystal said: 'Little of our transformation was planned. Few of the plans that we did develop unfolded as envisioned. Instead, we evolved in rapid iterations, changing—assessing—changing again'.

The book outlines 5 principles that guided their transformation:

* Have a common purpose.
* Foster shared consciousness.
* Empowered execution.
* Build trust.
* Leader as gardener.

Source: General Stanley McChrystal, Tantum Collins, David Silverman, and Chris Fussell, Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World, May 2015.
⇨ Please comment if you have further info or ideas re this approach.

		Comments by date▼ Comments by rating Rating
		2 Jaap de Jonge Editor, Netherlands
	Organizational Agility for Large Organizations The case and concept of the US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan described in "Team of Teams" can be seen as early proof that organizational agility can work for (very) large organizations as well - when they're facing complex and/or chaotic circumstances. See also: Network Organization and the Rendanheyi Model of Haier.

		1 Paramathmuni srinivas Kumar India
	The Spirit Behind Team of Teams Nice article... The team of teams approach could also be adopted for making cities we live as happier places. Having common purpose, fostering shared consciousness, empowered execution, building trust are good to have features in any framework. But how to implement them on the ground is the question... I feel it's the belief system that will be crucial in any framework... The spirit behind the shared values is the pivot based on which the team of teams is functioning its different operations...

		1 Leigh Cowan CEO, Australia
	Team of Teams Needs Concise and Profound MEVPIV Team of Teams calls for "a common purpose", "shared consciousness" "trust"... and is evidence as to the necessity of creating, and being true to, a concise and profound MEVPIV©, properly communicated and genuine to the organisation. A MEVPIV provides the main six pillars of strategic excellence: MISSION - What your organisation wants to do, for who, where and to what extent. ETHOS - The ethical axis on which your organisation prides itself. VISION - Where the organisation sees itself in 3, 5, 10 & 25 years. PURPOSE - Why the organisation exists. INTENT/IDENTITY - The heart & soul of your organisation. VALUES - What is important about how your organisation conducts itself.

		1 Eddie Amanam Consultant, Nigeria
	Principles Behind Team of Teams McChrystal's principles have been assisting organizations for centuries. In a larger context most principles have been unifying countries as well. When countries develop and sing national anthems they are creating a common purpose and sharing same consciousness. When those anthems are sung at sports events you see the purposefulness and consciousness. Anthems' wordings empowered sport teams to execute their purpose, sport team members build trust on each that they have that consciousness to attain the purpose. Team of Teams is everything we do in effective management.

		2 Michael Norris Director, United States
	Elimination of Communication Silos Equals Success Two of the greatest benefits of the Team of Teams concept were 1. getting a line of communications and 2. the elimination of duplication of efforts. Protective bureaucracies are well-established in the military, public safety, businesses, educational institutions, and churches. As such, they are very protective of their turf and will not relinquish or cede control (or at least their overwhelming influence) even if it benefits the overall mission success. Having then special operators living side-by-side in a respectful manner but not communicating about their missions ended up in near miss operations. Duplication of efforts, almost resulting in blue on blue incidents, prompted McChrystal to demand the elimination of compartmented, single service operations without communicating operational intent or even cooperative mission planning with all branches. Additionally, eliminating the need for approval high up the chain of command for tactical changes and tactical needs made the force more agile and able to begin out-maneuvering the enemy. Prior to this all mission changes had to be approved up the chain of command taking an inordinate amount of time to adjust and adapt. All of the organizations I mentioned above better learn McChrystal's lessons in the book or face extinction after being out-maneuvered by their competition or society as a whole.

		0 Maurice Hogarth Consultant, United Kingdom
	The Teams of 3M Is there a similarity here to the organisational structure of 3Ms? I remember seeing an (apparently almost impossible to draw network) organisation chart of for 3M many years ago. It consisted of inter-netting teams and individuals working to individual purpose within the overall corporate framework and standards.