Joint Leadership Teams: OODA

As defined in the previous post, a joint leadership team (JLT) forms when an organization decides "…to delegate jointly to more than one person primary responsibility for a business unit, task force, or project." Arrangements of this form can work well in some contexts. But one contextual attribute that flashes a red warning signal for JLTs is volatility. That is, when rapid response to a changing environment is required, Joint Leadership Teams are at a clear disadvantage. One powerful tool for understanding the sources of this disadvantage is a model of decision-making called OODA.

A brief introduction to OODA

OODA was originally developed as a model of aerial combat by Colonel John Boyd, who served in both the US Army Air Corps and later in the US Air Force as a fighter pilot and military strategist. He became a visionary leader in developing military strategy and doctrine from the Korean conflict through the first Gulf War.

Very briefly, according to the OODA model, decision-making in volatile environments is an iterative process. The decision-maker cycles repeatedly through four stages, beginning with "Observe." That is, we observe what we can about the environment. Next, we "Orient." We make meaning of what we observed. Next, we "Decide." We develop a set of options and decide what to do. Next, we "Act." We execute the option we decided to use. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. Then it starts all over again. For a more detailed explanation, see "OODA at Work," Point Lookout for April 6, 2011.

The key to success in combat, according to the OODA model, is to cycle through your OODA loop more rapidly than your opponent can cycle through theirs. If you can do that, you can seize and maintain the initiative, and thereby shape the outcome. And it works. It works really, really well.

And the model applies outside the realm of combat. It applies even when the source of contextual volatility is due to the acts of a team of cyber-criminals (think: Yahoo data breach 2013), or a market competitor offering a disruptive new product (think: Blackberry vs. iPhone).

But the OODA model applies even when the source of contextual volatility is non-sentient, as in natural and human-made catastrophes. For example, it applies in a storm (think: Hurricane Katrina 2005), or a nuclear reactor meltdown (think: Chernobyl 1986). In these cases, success depends on the incident command team cycling through its OODA loop more rapidly than the characteristic time constants of the incident they're responding to.

The individual leader's process according to OODA

So let's first examine how an individual leader of a business unit could apply the OODA model. After we understand that, we'll explore what OODA can tell us about JLT processes.

Observe: Collect data by means of the senses

The leader The key to success, according to the OODA
model, is to cycle through your OODA loop
more rapidly than you opponent
can cycle through theirssenses the environment using whatever means and sensors are available. Sources include reports from subordinates, dashboards, information from the leader's personal network or other intelligence sources — anything that might help. Speed, accuracy and focus are essential.

Orient: Analyze and synthesize the data to form a current mental perspective

Orientation is the synthesis of images, views, and impressions of the relevant parts of the world, influenced by experience, tradition, and the evolving situation.

Decide: Determine a course of action

Given an understanding of the environment, the leader creates a set of possible responses and selects one.

Act: Implement decisions

The final step of the loop is executing the selected option. It might not produce what the leader expected, but whatever happens, the leader returns to the Observe step and the cycle repeats.

That's the OODA loop for an individual leader. It probably doesn't fit every decision-making experience you can recall, in part because it can be interrupted by events. Also, unless you try to follow the OODA model intentionally, in a disciplined manner, you end up doing something else. For example, some decision-makers defer the "D" step so long that the environment closes out all options but one. Or because of budget cuts, they can no longer execute the "A" step they chose. Applying OODA in the organizational context — or any context really — does require intention and discipline.

The Joint Leadership Team's process according to OODA

Let's turn now to what OODA tells us about the decision-making process of a Joint Leadership Team.

Observe: Collect data by means of the senses

Unlike individuals, the JLT has multiple observers — each member of the JLT is an observer. But the observers don't all look at the same things, and they don't make all their observations simultaneously. The result is that each member of the JLT has a unique view of the environment.

This difference in observations has effects that can ripple through the following stages of the OODA loop, providing fuel for debate at every stage. To limit these effects, the JLT must take steps to reconcile their different observations.

One other difference is that in JLTs, the members observe each other. Seeing how other members of the JLT observe and respond to their observations affects the members of the JLT.

Orient: Analyze and synthesize the data to form a current mental perspective

The Orient stage offers another set of differences between individual leaders and JLTs. Each member of the JLT makes meaning of what they observe in their own unique way, based on their own knowledge, preferences, and experiences. For this reason, a JLT can simultaneously hold several different views of the situation. That condition is much less likely for an individual leader.

Moreover, the meaning the members make of what they observe is affected by the meaning they make of their observations of each other. So, for example, if one member attaches importance to an environmental factor, that can cause other members to adjust their assessments of the significance of that factor. This means that whenever members of the team meet or communicate with each other, there is a possibility that their perspectives of the situation can change, even though no new information has arrived from the environment.

Decide: Determine a course of action

Even though both the individual leader and the JLT must choose one option from among many possible courses of action, only the JLT can find itself engaged in vigorous debate. And only the JLT can find itself drawn into destructive conflict.

Debates take time. And destructive conflict can cause permanent harm to relationships. The JLT is exposed to these risks; the individual is not.

Act: Implement decisions

In the Act stage of the OODA model, the JLT has a clear advantage. Because it has multiple members, the JLT is better able to monitor the execution of its decision. In some cases, this advantage can be significant. But an individual leader can address this problem by delegating the monitoring task to enough capable parties.

Last words

Many of these differences between the individual leader and the JLT tend to cause the JLT to be less responsive than the individual leader with regard to changes in the environment. I'll examine the consequences of this and other differences next time.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info

For more about Col. John Boyd, read the biography, Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, by Robert Coram. Order from Amazon.com. Col. Boyd's contributions to planning the first Gulf War are especially fascinating.

More about OODA

What Is Workplace Bullying?  [March 3, 2010]

We're gradually becoming aware that workplace bullying is a significant deviant pattern in workplace relationships. To deal effectively with it, we must know how to recognize it. Here's a start.

Biological Mimicry and Workplace Bullying  [March 31, 2010]

When targets of bullies decide to stand up to their bullies, to end the harassment, they frequently act before they're really ready. Here's a metaphor that explains the value of waiting for the right time to act.

OODA at Work  [April 6, 2011]

OODA is a model of decision making that's especially useful in rapidly evolving environments, such as combat, marketing, politics, and emergency management. Here's a brief overview.

How Workplace Bullies Use OODA: I  [April 13, 2011]

Workplace bullies who succeed in carrying on their activities over a long period of time rely on more than mere intimidation to escape prosecution. They proactively shape their environments to make them safe for bullying. The OODA model gives us insights into how they accomplish this.

How Workplace Bullies Use OODA: II  [April 20, 2011]

Workplace bullies who succeed in carrying on their activities over a long period of time are intuitive users of Boyd's OODA model. Here's Part II of an exploration of how bullies use the model.

How Targets of Bullies Can Use OODA: I  [April 27, 2011]

Most targets of bullies just want the bullying to stop, but most bullies don't stop unless they fear for their own welfare if they continue the bullying. To end the bullying, targets must turn the tables.

How Targets of Bullies Can Use OODA: II  [May 4, 2011]

To make the bullying stop, many targets of bullies try to defend themselves. But defense alone is not sufficient — someone must ``Em''make``/Em'' the bully stop. That's why counterattack is much more likely to work.

Rapid-Fire Attacks  [August 1, 2012]

Someone asks you a question. Within seconds of starting to reply, you're hit with another question, or a rejection of your reply. Abusively. The pattern repeats. And repeats again. And again. You're being attacked. What can you do?

Projects as Proxy Targets: I  [December 18, 2013]

Some projects have detractors so determined to prevent project success that there's very little they won't do to create conditions for failure. Here's Part I of a catalog of tactics they use.

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 Project Management:

Shining Some Light on "Going Dark"

If you're a project manager, and a team member "goes dark" — disappears or refuses to report how things are going — project risks escalate dramatically. Getting current status becomes a top priority problem. What can you do?

My Right Foot

There's nothing like an injury or illness to teach you some life lessons. Here are some things I learned recently when I temporarily lost some of my independence.

Managing Non-Content Risks: I

When project teams and their sponsors manage risk, they usually focus on those risks most closely associated with the tasks — content risks. Meanwhile, other risks — non-content risks — get less attention. Among these are risks related to the processes and politics by which the organization gets things done.

Ego Depletion and Priority Setting

Setting priorities for tasks is tricky when we find the tasks unappealing, because we have limited energy for self-control. Here are some strategies for limiting these effects on priority setting.

Risk Creep: II

When risk events occur, and they're of a kind we never considered before, it's possible that we've somehow invited those risks without realizing we have. This is one way for risk to creep into our efforts. Here's Part II of an exploration of risk creep.

See also Project Management and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 4: White-Collar Contractor Sabotage

Modern firms in competitive, dynamic markets draw on many types of employer/employee relationships, including contractors. By providing privileges and perks preferentially among these different types, they risk creating a caldron of resentments that can reduce organizational effectiveness. Available here and by RSS on June 4.

And on June 11: More Things I've Learned Along the Way: VI

When I gain an important insight, or when I learn a lesson, I make a note. Example: If you're interested in changing how a social construct operates, knowing how it came to be the way it is can be much less useful than knowing what keeps it the way it is. Available here and by RSS on June 11.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenubcqSvusyBsQaEDwner@ChacfhuriyFKgDguTpuYoCanyon.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