Should We Do This?

When Former U.S. Secretary of State and retired four-star General Colin Powell died on October 18, multiple obituaries and retrospectives of his storied career reminded us all of his contributions to decision-making about the use of military force. The Powell Doctrine (a name devised by the U.S. news media) provides eight questions that must be answered in the affirmative as prerequisites for deploying military forces.

The Powell Doctrine is certainly a useful guide but it is not one that many people will ever need. Still, I looked into it and found that it was based, in part, on another work known as Weinberger's Six Tests (also known as the Weinberger Doctrine). [Weinberger 1984] This framework is due to former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who devised it while he was secretary. Gen. Powell was, at the time, Weinberger's senior military advisor. Weinberger's Six Tests address aspects of the same question addressed by the Powell Doctrine: Under what conditions should the United States commit military forces?

One One of the more difficult decisions
organizations must make is
how to answer the question,
"Should we do this?"of the more difficult decisions organizations must make is how to answer the question, "Should we do this?" That is a decision about whether and when to undertake a costly new initiative. Examining both the Powell Doctrine and Weinberger's Six Tests, I found that only minor adjustments were needed to make them applicable to important organizational decisions. I've made those adjustments to Weinberger's Six Tests, and the result is below.

Before you read them, select a project or organizational initiative that you know well. As you read each test, ask the question, "Would that project or initiative have passed this test?"

1. The initiative is vital to our interests or the interests of our strategic partners

The organization should not commit resources to any initiative unless it is deemed vital to organizational interests or to the interests of our strategic partners. That emphatically does not mean that we should declare beforehand that a particular market is outside our strategic perimeter.

2. Our commitment of resources is wholehearted, with a clear intention to succeed

Second, if we decide it's necessary to commit resources to a given initiative, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of succeeding. If we are unwilling to commit the resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. Of course if the particular situation requires only limited resources to achieve our objectives, then we should not hesitate to commit resources scaled accordingly.

3. Clear definition of market and capability objectives

Third, if we do decide to commit resources to an initiative, we should have clearly defined market and capability objectives. And we should know precisely how our resources can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should make available the resources needed to do just that. As Clausewitz wrote, "no one starts a war or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it." [Howard 1984]

Business may be different today than business or war were in Clausewitz's time, but the need for well-defined objectives and a consistent strategy is still essential. If we determine that a initiative has become necessary for our vital organizational interests, then we must commit resources capable to do the job and not assign a mission to a team or organization that is configured only for lesser missions.

4. Continual reassessment of adequacy and suitability of committed resources

The relationship between our objectives and the resources we have committed according to their size, composition and disposition must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of an engagement. When they do change, then so must our requirements. We must continuously keep as a beacon light before us the basic questions: "Is this initiative in our organizational interest?" "Does our organizational interest require us to carry out this task in this way?" If the answers are "yes," then we must continue to strive for success. If the answers are "no," then we should terminate the effort and re-allocate the resources to a more appropriate effort.

5. Reasonable assurance of stakeholder support

Before the organization commits resources to any initiative, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of our stakeholders, including our customers, our employees, our suppliers, and our investors. This support cannot be achieved unless we are candid in making clear the opportunities and threats we face; the support cannot be sustained without continuing and close consultation. We cannot contend with our customers, suppliers, and investors while asking our employees to achieve a success that is out of reach.

6. The Last Resort test

The commitment of our resources should be a last resort, undertaken only when other means of achieving our objectives are unavailable.

Secretary Powell added two more tests, one of which is most relevant to business decisions. I've modified it for business:

7. A reliable and safe exit is available

We agree on what success looks like. We agree on what "good progress" looks like. We have a reliable means of detecting failure. We have a plan for preventing entanglement in the just-a-bit-more syndrome.

How did your initiative score? How many tests did it fail? One? Two? Secretaries Powell and Weinberger would regard even one failed test as problematic.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Films Not About Project Teams: I

Here's part one of a list of films and videos about project teams that weren't necessarily meant to be about project teams. Most are available to borrow from the public library, and all are great fun.

Films Not About Project Teams: II

Here's Part II of a list of films and videos about project teams that weren't necessarily meant to be about project teams. Most are available to borrow from the public library, and all are great fun.

The Focusing Illusion in Organizations

The judgments we make at work, like the judgments we make elsewhere in life, are subject to human fallibility in the form of cognitive biases. One of these is the Focusing Illusion. Here are some examples to watch for.

Guidelines for Sharing "Resources"

Often, team members belong to several different teams. The leaders of teams whose members have divided responsibilities must sometimes contend with each other for the efforts and energies of the people they share. Here are some suggestions for sharing people effectively.

Creating Toxic Conflict: II

Some supervisors seem to behave as if part of their job description is creating toxic conflict among their subordinates. It isn't really, of course, but here's a collection of methods bad managers use that make trouble.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info