1. Being managed at work:
Between 2005 and 2007 I was working in Navy HQ in the Land and Littoral Manoeuvre capability area and I was responsible for a number of capability areas incl parachuting, urgent operational requirements and force development of the Royal Marine Commando Unit structure. I was given responsibility for leading a project to determine whether the current structure, in terms of size, organisation and equipment, was correct. I was initially given a set of parameters and assumptions to work to and then the remainder of the project was mine to plan and conduct. The project involved a £200k piece of operational analysis and numerous military judgement panels and took about 12 months to complete. The project concluded and made as number of recommendations although unfortunately the fundamental changes recommended have not been conducted. So it could be considered as having failed.
Positive features:
- I was given a large degree of latitude in running the project.
- I was given great support from interested stakeholders outside my immediate organisation.
- I gained a lot personally from the project in terms of experience.
- even though the recommendations have yet to be conducted the report is recognised as a valid study which is likely to be drawn upon for future work.
Negative features:
- the recommendations of the report have not been taken forward.
- there was a failure by the project team and sponsor to garner the correct level of stakeholder support from the key decision makers who would authorise the changes.
- at the time there was no strategic driver for change. There was a body of opinion that the RM should wait for the next SDSR (although no one at the time expected such a challenging fiscal climate)
- the impact of operations in Afghanistan was underestimated and this dented the desire to make changes
2. Managing at work:
I am now working at Navy HQ again although this time I am in a different capability area and I am working at a higher grade. I am part of a 10 strong team and I have 2 others who work for directly for me. Overall the whole team is responsible for the policy and day to day running of the Maritime Reserve, whIch consists of the Royal Navy Reserve and the Royal Marine Reserve. My team is primarily responsible for the RMR however I also work across the whole policy area of the MR. There are 2 major drivers of change which we are having to react to: adaptation to SDSR 10 which means substantial cost saving and reductions in personnel; the Future Reserves 2020 Study which was commissioned by the Prime Minister. As such, the quantity and pace of work is considerable at present. This means that I must empower my subordinates and trust that the decisions they make are in line with the higher level intent. We are also soft gapped in some areas of the staff which means that my team is taking on extra responsibility. I must remain aware of the risks of this and I must ensure that my team does not try to take on too much. It also means that we must ruthlessly prioritise tasks and accept that not everything can or must be done. Key to success is communication and trust between all of us in the team.
My current role is very different than my last job where I was a Rifle Company Commander in Sangin, Afghanistan where I was responsible for over 250 people and I was asked to make life and death decisions under great time pressure and with limited information. Conversely the decisions I make now are not of that order however they are likely to result in a reduction in the number of job positions which could result in people losing their job.
Positive Features:
- I have the opportunity to give my team greater freedom of action as I am having to operate “up and out” whilst they continue to deliver the day to day management of the RMR.
- a clear division of responsibility and a shared sense of direction as enabled us to deliver considerable change in how the RMR is managed and operated. We are considerably further advanced than the RNR. However, much greater change is still to come.
- we have developed a clear plan to influence our key stakeholders to ensure that the changes that we are going to have to make are understood and accepted (this is a key lesson I learnt from the previous time I worked in Navy HQ)
Negative Features:
- risk is being taken on day to day activities. The consequences of mistakes can have financial and reputational impacts. However, it is impossible to eliminate risk entirely.
- the nature of the restructuring we are likely to have to undertake will result in a more efficient and effective organisation but the changes will not be welcomed by everyone.
3. Being managed in a social setting:
I have been married since December 2004 and although we do cooperate on many things we have tended to adopt certain roles where one or the other of us naturally takes the lead depending upon what we are doing. However, Tanya and I have quite different personalities and hence management styles. Luckily, both of us have in the last few years undertaken a Miers Briggs personality test (Tanya completed one on a career transition workshop during the time she left the Army and I completed one whilst I was at Advanced Command and Staff Course). It became clear that I have an ENTJ personality whilst Tanya has an ISTJ Personality. This means that she is much more precise and focused on the detail of tasks whereas I prefer to consider the bigger picture and I am less interested in the details. These differences often manifest themselves when I am asked to complete a job for Tanya. I am often told “what to do and how” whereas I would prefer to be told “what to do and why” thus leaving me to determine how to complete the task. Thankfully we have both recognised that we operate differently and we both accept that there is no right way to get something done, although it is clear that there will always be a degree of tension about how we manage tasks together.
4. Managing in a social setting:
Historically I have always seemed to migrate towards leadership positions. When I was much younger I always tended to be made captain of the sports teams I was part of and I quickly progressed my way through the various leadership roles in the Scouts. This pattern continued at University where I was the Captain of the University Football Club and I was also elected to become the Athletic Union President, which was a paid role I took up upon graduation in 1994. Throughout this time I had never had a formal leadership training it was just a case of learning on the job. It was only when I joined the Military, initially the Royal Navy in January 1995 and subsequently the Royal Marines in September 1995, that I received such training. Now having been in the military for over 16 years, all of which have been in leadership positions of one type or another, it is very interesting to observe my own reactions in social settings away from other military personnel. As I described in the previous section my personality type means that I am predisposed to act first and I am very aware that there is the possibility that this could be perceived as being overbearing. Consequently, I often make a conscious decision to take a step back and modify my natural instincts at least until I better understand the group dynamics. I have also found that there is a stereotypical concept of how a military person is meant to act and the image expected is often very different from the reality in which we lead and manage, contrary to what you may think there is very little shouting!. This is completely understandable due to the fact that the majority of people tend to have little contact with the armed forces. In summary, I find the challenge of leading and following in a social envionment very interesting and it is always worth spending time analysing the situation as lessons learnt away from work and with different groups of people are extremely valuable.
