David Greggs
I recently visited a major amusement park with my daughter and received a lesson in efficiency while we waited in line for a ride on a hot day. The park was not very crowded, so we had the place to ourselves for the most part. We made our way through the mostly empty, long queue and finally reached the boarding area. As we headed down the last few stairs, we could see the plastic log ready to take us down a watery drop and relieve some of the summer heat.
The plastic log was there, it was empty, it was ready for us, and we were ready to get in. But, we were stopped in our tracks. Two things stood in our way: First, a small chain with a simple snap hook latch. Second, a distracted teenage employee.
We obediently stopped at the chain. While we could have easily opened the makeshift gate, it would not have been appropriate given how seriously theme parks take safety and adherence to barriers. In general, this is a wise standard. But the log sat empty, and we waited. The teenager was staring off into the distance. Eventually, he came to, opened the chain for us, and off we went. However, it was during this short interval that I was struck by a few things which I believe are relevant to our military profession.
How often do we perpetuate a process or system that slows us down without adding value?
At the amusement park, their loading system included a simple chain barrier. However, it required the employee to move a few steps back and forth every time the ride was loaded with a new set of passengers. On a busy day this would be dozens of repetitions every hour, adding up to a great deal of time and unnecessary movement. Guests in line must wait even longer. Overall, this is a process that decreases efficiency.
We don’t want our work processes—be they staff, administrative, or operational—to interfere with or slow down the mission. But sometimes this happens. Perhaps some process or extra step was added in the name of reducing risk or ensuring a particular standard, but we haven’t evaluated that risk or requirement in too long. Or perhaps, it was the style of some previous commander and now we do that step just because it is how we have always done it.
This could manifest in a number of ways. Perhaps it looks like adding extra steps to a leave request, adding one more slide to Command and Staff, or getting one more person to approve a brief before it moves forward. What I see too often on military meme pages is supervisors checking supervisors who check other supervisors.
Some questions to think about:
- Where are operations slowed down or interrupted in their flow?
- What systems are in place that slow us down and do not add substantial benefit?
- What requirements am I in charge of that are purely administrative? How can I make the system faster?
These issues are most obvious in administrative settings. Consider how many times a document must be signed or “recommended approval” before the final approving authority. Which of those people may not actually need to see the document? Who, or what section, is not catching additional errors? If nothing is getting fixed, why is there a check? Operationally, we would never consider a Call for Fire getting vetted through a system like the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A). We should not accept less excellence from ourselves or our organizations just because we are not actively engaged in combat. If we become accustomed to accepting less than excellence in an office, we may be more likely to accept it when it really matters.
You get what the Army gives you.
Our visit to the amusement park was interrupted not only by the chain, but also by the distracted teenager. The fact is, over our several hours in the park, we encountered many similarly distracted teen employees. It seemed to be the culture at this theme park. While I lamented the fact that we were not at Disney World with their highly trained “cast members,” it provided a lesson. This park relies on the local teenage population to serve as its workforce, so the bulk of employees are not the most highly educated or exceptionally motivated group of people.
I was reminded of a wise saying my Platoon Sergeant told me when I was a young Lieutenant: “You get what the Army gives you.” Our workforce in the military comes from all over America. In our units, we don’t control who we get. Undoubtedly, we’re getting a wide range of people. Some will stand out and excel from day one, showing clear signs of leadership potential. Others will distractedly do their job and that is all.
The lesson is this. Our processes need to work for the team we have. We get the Soldiers the Army gives us. We can adjust the process based on who is on our team but we don’t control who we get in our companies, battalions, brigades, etc. We do control the systems and processes that we set up for our people to work in and through. Our processes should enable our people to succeed and do their job well. When the team changes, it may be time to reevaluate the processes. Perhaps you can adjust a system or process if you have a high-performing individual. Conversely, maybe you need to change something or even add a step if you are dealing with a challenging situation. Just remember, be ready to reevaluate when the team changes.
Some questions to think about:
- Where do I have a high performer working in a closed process? How can I unleash the high performer?
- Am I seeing consistent issues where I can modify a process as part of training an individual?
High-performing team members, especially if they are more junior, may feel that they are restricted by the system. When a particular Soldier consistently performs a given task to standard, consider no longer checking on them every single time. As a young lieutenant, I learned to spot-check in my Pre-Combat Checks and Inspections. That is, don’t take the time to check everything all the time. Use time gained to develop the other individuals who need it.
Conversely, when errors are consistently found, consider iterating (checking) earlier in the process. The process of grading academic writing comes to mind. The professor checks the thesis, outline, and one section of a student’s paper at a time. They do not wait until the whole paper has been drafted. That sets up the student for failure and the professor for frustration. Ultimately, trust that your team wants to do a good job. Quick checks along the way can maintain excellence and motivation.
Concluding the Concept: Use Processes to Add Value and Speed Up Results:
Our processes need to work for our organization to maximize efficiency, with each step adding value along the way. Adjust the process around the people you train and leverage what they are good at. It is not worth lamenting over who we have because we get what the Army gives us. If we are not finding errors, consistently adding something of value, or speeding up results, we should consider how our processes may need to change.
Major David Greggs is an active duty Cyber Warfare Officer currently serving as a Team Leader in the U.S. Army Cyber Protection Brigade. Previously, MAJ Greggs has served as an Operational Planner, Company Commander, and Battalion S2.
