Skip to main content

"What Ever Happened to Accountability?" by Thomas E. Ricks-HBR

If you’re looking for management lessons from outside the halls of corporations, you could do worse than to study the United States Army. That master of management teaching Peter Drucker often turned to the military of his adopted nation for inspiration, especially on matters of leadership. 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. To let such a man stay on corrupts the others. It is grossly 
unfair to the whole organization.

It is grossly unfair to his subordinates who are deprived by their superior’s inadequacy of opportunities for achievement and recognition. 
Above all, it is senseless cruelty to the man himself. He knows that he is inadequate whether he admits it to himself or not.

When standards are not rigorously upheld and inadequate performance is allowed to endure in leadership ranks, the effect is not only to rob an enterprise of some of its potential. It is to lose the standards themselves and let the most important capabilities of leadership succumb to atrophy. 

In the spring of 1939, even before becoming chief of staff, George C. Marshall had devised a plan to 
remove scores of  officers he considered deadwood.

He stands as an extreme example of leading not by being charming or charismatic but by setting standards.

As transformational leaders tend to do, Marshall began by focusing on people. He truly was ruthless 
in getting the right people in the right jobs—and the wrong people out of them. When Brigadier General Charles Bundel insisted that the army’s training manuals could not all be updated in three or four months and instead would require 18, Marshall twice asked him to reconsider that statement. 
“It can’t be done,” Bundel repeated. 
“I’m sorry, then you are relieved,” Marshall replied. 

In the spring of 1939, even before becoming chief of staff, Marshall had devised a plan to remove 
scores of officers he considered deadwood. By his estimate, he eliminated some 600 officers before 

the United States entered the war, in December 1941.

Marshall listed the qualities of successful leaders, in the following order:
1. “good common sense”
2. “have studied your profession”
3. “physically strong”
4. “cheerful and optimistic”
5. “display marked energy”
6. “extreme loyalty”
7. “determined

Marshall emphasized character over intellect in his list. he did so consciously, tailoring his template 
to fit the particular circumstances of the united states.

When the process by which leaders earn and keep their positions loses its integrity, the loss extends far beyond poor outcomes achieved locally.

Reference and download-*XgOGK9j4tZZHMIn9u5XflZOy5zjX6zw*TRD1ivyf41bosjB4RZm9FDe0nipcflBTbqBJkerFp8aywRUdQ__/ArmyAccountability.PDF


Popular posts from this blog

What is The Hay Group Total Reward Framework

The Hay Group Total Reward Framework A new way of understanding reward Reward strategies must be anchored in business reality to be effective. Which means linking it to your business strategy – and the needs of your employees as well as your organisation. Our Total Reward Framework helps you optimise reward, no matter how challenging the conditions. The issue Remuneration tends to be one of the worst-managed parts of an organisation’s cost structure. But with 10-70 per cent of total costs wrapped up in it, reward cannot be ignored, particularly in a downturn. To be effective, reward programmes must reflect the needs of the business, now and in the future. Only if they are tied closely to company strategy, business performance and the needs of employees can reward programmes deliver the ROI that is needed in tough times[MK1] . The Hay Group Total Reward Framework takes strategy as a starting point – and it focuses on total reward: every financial measure together with no

Aon Hewitt Total Rewards Framework

Aon Hewitt Total Rewards Framework The Aon Hewitt model and approach believes in considering Total Rewards as a business tool and very much linked to overall business objectives! Reward as understood is a very complex mechanism and some efforts of correcting the base pay and titling in a hurry by many MNCs in India have done a bigger crime by trying to correct it by market adjustments without looking at the talent map, complexity and expectations out of role and mapping it against the benchmark. Titles in India are a big misnomer and hardly any survey on compensation ever probes and captures and calibrates the tangible outcome based bench marking! If we dive deep, we will find that the key factors of Education, Experience and Quality of Education, Quality and relevance of experience and education are not calculated granular! A diploma holder technical manager gets the salary benchmarked for the top T-school manager with top quality experience in a challenging and break-through

Why is ‘Total Rewards’ key to talent management?

Why is ‘Total Rewards’ key to talent management?  Total Rewards (TR) is talent life-cycle management tool that holistically embeds into the whole business plan.  TR can add feather to the modern day HR if they can handle it well to give company the long term competitive edge Unfortunately TR is not a broad-brush tool and so it requires an insightful ‘HR Leader’ with strong sense and capability of strategic alignment, analytic thinking and rightful implementation strengths . WHY TOTAL REWARDS? You must show employees “what’s in it for me.” This means tying together the benefit of the job, the culture, their colleagues, and the company’s mission and its values, as well as total rewards. But total rewards are the most immediate and visible element to employees. SOURCE: Bremen, John and Sejen, Laura. Advancing Total Rewards & the Employee Value Proposition. WorldatWork. 2012. COMPENSATION: IT’S KIND OF A BIG DEAL Compensation can be the single biggest cost