In 218 B.C.E., Hannibal crossed the Alps and invaded the Italian peninsula. It should not have been possible to bring a large army, including cavalry and elephants, along that route during winter. When the two armies met at Cannae, Hannibal’s elephants were long dead, and he was outnumbered 5 to 3. The Roman leadership assumed their standard tactics would be sufficient. What should have been a straightforward victory became one of the most famous massacres in military history; Hannibal slaughtered virtually all of the 50,000 Romans.
Mistaken assumptions have led to both tragedy and success. Examples abound across military, political, and economic arenas. The object lesson provided highlights the danger of mistaken assumptions and the risks we take when the word “should” is taken for granted. While most will not make, or even influence, decisions that impact nations, we will impact the individuals and success of our organization in everything from morale to individual and holistic success. It is therefore incumbent upon us to make these decisions wisely and without careless guesswork.
This is not a call to erase the use of assumptions. Properly used, fact-based speculation prevents paralysis and lethargy, and a 50% solution now is infinitely better than a 100% solution too late. It is certainly a key element of the Military Decision Making Process to begin with many assumptions, while changing as many as possible into facts as the process continues. Often, leaders need to make decisions before differentiating between facts and assumptions. Such decisions are then made carefully, weighing the circumstances and likelihood of various outcomes. These are not blind gambles but rather calculated risks. Formal schoolhouses teach this formal process of dealing with risk, managing the unknown, and turning it into the known. This is how the American military can thrive in the midst of operational chaos.
While we apply a methodology of questioning the unknown to our staff work, we too often fail to apply this same mindset to leadership environments. It is not difficult to find examples; simply observe when people use the word “should” or imply it. Consider phrases such as, “that’s not the way it’s supposed to be done,” “that’s how we used to do it in my old unit,” and “they should be helping us with it,” as red flags. Certainly, in all three examples, the speaker may be correct; however, each statement is also often irrelevant. The fact of the matter is not what “should be” but what “is”. If something needs to change, by all means change it, but don’t lament about the things that are not. Finally, understand why they are what they are before implementing such change.
Often, we don’t do things as we “should” because circumstances changed. Different units are, by definition, different. Their composition, techniques, and location are not the same; therefore, some things must be different in the way they operate. Every leader must exercise caution when seeking to implement change in an unfamiliar situation. Leaders who recognize the uniqueness of their environment and personnel can work with and through existing systems, processes, and procedures to effect positive change. The leader who rigidly conforms to what they know and understand, without challenging their assumptions, is more likely to fight their subordinates and peers, damaging relationships and making future change more difficult in order to fit the proverbial square peg into the round hole.
These failed assumptions are so often born of past success, and therefore the most common people to make these mistakes are successful leaders. It is the belief that the past is the same as the present, and the trust that current circumstances are the same as former circumstances, that leads to this particular failure. This threat is born out of the same cradle as complacency and shares the same root: laziness. Specifically, it is the intellectual laziness of refusing to learn a new way of doing things.
Past success isn’t meaningless though, nor does it mean you can’t transfer lessons learned between units and duty stations. This is not about choosing to do it one way or the other; this is about understanding the environment and current circumstances and then adapting to them. New technology doesn’t spawn new tactics and doctrine, it modifies what currently exists. In our example, the Roman leadership did not challenge their assumptions and suffered greatly for it. To their credit, new generals acknowledged reality and adjusted both their strategy and tactics. Rome won.
Take care of when and how you use the word “should”. When we say “should,” we assume and ignore a risk. We acknowledge that we both don’t know and didn’t verify. It dwells on what is not, rather than what is. “Should” is intellectual laziness given voice. It is especially potent when used by those coming fresh from success, who believe they have all the right answers. If the reader is preparing to move to a new assignment or job, whether that be in or out of the military, let them be deliberate about their decisions. Beware of taking assumptions for granted, keep an open mind about the people and processes you use, and watch how you use the word “should. It’s dangerous.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!
Complete archive of The Company Leader Posts