Team of teams pdf

Want more? Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! By Dan Snelson The 21st century is a time unlike any other. Modern technology allows instant global communication for everyone, making the world no longer just highly complicated, but increasingly complex. It is this complexity, argues General Stanley McChrystal in his 2015 book
Team of Teams, that makes it vital that we take a fresh look at how we think about leadership, management, and teamwork. At the centre of Team of Teams is the distinction between complicated systems and complex systems. This difference might seem trivial, but it is in fact an incredibly important shift, requiring us to look again at how we lead.
A car engine is complicated. It has a large number of working parts. However, their interactions are predictable: rotating the crankshaft will always cause the pistons to move. A complex system can also have many working parts. The difference is that the interaction of these parts is highly unpredictable. This increase in unpredictability changes the
way leaders must lead. McChrystal provides us an example of this. You have probably never heard of Mohamed Bouazizi. A disaffected Tunisian street vendor, on 17 December 2010 he set himself on fire in protest against the Tunisian government. Within hours, accelerated by modern communications technology, protests erupted across the
country. What followed became known as the Arab Spring. The effects of Mohamed’s death could not have been predicted. Furthermore, it is unlikely that 50 years ago his death would have had the same impact. But today, enabled by unprecedented levels of connectivity, the actions of one person can have rapid, far-reaching and hard-hitting
consequences. This is complexity. And complexity breeds uncertainty In Team of Teams McChrystal leads the reader through his solution to the problem.

From his perspective, in order to deal with ever increasing uncertainty large organisations must become: Agile – Able to move quickly and with ease. Adaptable – Able to be modified easily to suit new conditions. Resilient – Able to withstand and recover from difficult events. These are all qualities typical of small teams, not of large organisations.
Worse still, they are characteristics that large organisations struggle to scale up. Yet McChrystal offers a set of solutions. Having adapted American Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to effectively take on Al-Qaida in Iraq, McChrystal passionately believes such ‘small team’ qualities can be achieved at scale. The ways he suggests doing so
are simple to understand.

We all know to delegate, and most of us are confident that we do it well. But how far do we delegate? Do we still require our troops to gain our ‘go-ahead’ before they execute their plan? Do we still like to ‘rubber stamp’ things for fear that their mistakes that will reflect badly on ourselves? McChrystal writes that he often found himself giving the
green light for plans that those below him knew far more about, making them far better placed to make those decisions. His involvement in those decisions added lag, and reduced agility. The common argument for having this input from above is that the complex interplay between different teams that is inherent in a large organisation requires top-
down oversight and broad understanding.
After all, this ensures everyone is pulling in the right direction and prevents costly mistakes made by juniors. However, McChrystal suggests another way: shared consciousness. Ensuring that intent is well understood, and that everyone has a good grasp of the overall picture can prevent these costly mistakes and improve decision making. Of course,
shared consciousness is not easy to achieve. McChrystal describes having to actively fight for it. However, by abandoning an attitude of ‘need-to-know’ and implementing open command group meetings that anyone in the organisation could sit in on, he showed that it can be achieved. Gone are the days of working in isolation. Our teams regularly
have to work with groups that can differ from our own. Groups that, due to rivalries and differences in culture, we may find difficult to work with.

We often come across these issues when working with different cap-badges, let alone with international allies. This is often because liaison is treated as a chore, or a task to give to those who ‘won’t be missed’. McChrystal suggests assigning liaison tasks to your best and brightest instead. He recommends a ‘litmus test’ when selecting someone for
such a role. 1. Will their loss from your team pain you? 2. Will you recognise their voice when they call you at three in the morning? If the answer to both questions is yes, then they are the one for the job. Coalition working is not going to go away, and there are good reasons to embrace it. We often have much to learn from our partners. Like an
ecosystem, diversity typically breeds resilience. By bringing others into the fold, strengths and weaknesses can be balanced out; new lessons learnt; experience and intelligence better shared.

To do this you need your best people to build cross-cultural links. You may be reading this and thinking none of it is new.
Delegation, situational awareness and cooperation are not new concepts. What differs in McChrystal’s approach in Team of Teams is that these aspects of leadership are prioritised above perhaps more sacred concepts. In fact, McChrystal’s contention that ‘…the difference between command and control on the one hand, and adapt and collaborate
on the other, [can be] the difference between success and failure…’ is quoted and reference in the UK MOD’s Joint Concept Note 2/17: The Future of Command and Control. Delegation is prioritised over tight command and control because the costs of a delayed reaction are now simply too great. Situational awareness is prioritised over information
security because intelligence that is two days old is often useless to soldiers on the ground. Today, the 60% solution now often trumps the 90% solution tomorrow. You may also be reading this and thinking: ‘These concepts are all very well, applied to a very highly trained and selective organisation like JSOC. My troops, as much as they are
professional, well trained and competent, are not special forces operators’. This is likely true, but a solution is offered by McChrystal, in perhaps his most important insight of the whole book. Through our experience, upbringing and training, we have built up a certain idea of what a leader should be. In general this person is forthright, commanding
and central to the team’s success. They lead the way and victory depends on their decisions. McChrystal suggests that the time may well have come for a new model of leader: the gardener.

The gardener cultivates, nurtures, and develops. The garden does not require the gardener’s constant presence, but becomes robust, resilient and radiant thanks to the environment that they create. It is an idea that he develops in his most recent book, Leaders: Myths and Reality. If our soldiers are not yet at the stage where they can be making
important decisions without higher input, then ask why not. What can we do to get them there? With time, effort and energy invested in cultivating, we can develop them into teams that require far less direction from ourselves. Perhaps that’s what we’re subconsciously afraid of? In conclusion, Team of Teams presents many interesting and
challenging ideas in addition to the ones distilled above. By using a selection of case studies from history, McChrystal builds a case for a more nurturing style of leadership. For the junior officer or NCO looking to expand their repertoire of leadership styles, this is essential reading. For the more senior leaders out there, I suspect many of the lessons
taught in this book may be ones you have already learnt for yourselves. Even so, McCrystal’s account of leading JSOC in Afghanistan makes for a great read in and of itself. And who knows, there might still be a nugget or two in there for the more experienced and battle-weary amongst us as well. If you want to know more about McCrystal’s other
leadership book, then read our review of Leaders: Myth and Reality. Is everything we always thought about leadership wrong?
Donate to The Army Leader Subscribe to The Army Leader 1 The 2023 Women’s World Cup, which kicked off in Australia and New Zealand last week, is the largest ever with 32 teams playing 64 games over a month.
It also could turn out to be the most competitive Women’s World Cup ever, with England, the reigning European champion; Germany, a two-time world champion; Canada, the Olympic champion; and the Netherlands, a World Cup finalist four years ago, among a half-dozen teams poised to knock off the U.S., which is going for an unprecedented third
straight title. “It’s our responsibility to find the next step, to find the next 1% to push the team forward and keep this team up front,” U.S. manager Vlatko Andonovski said before the start of the tournament. Here’s a look at each of the teams in the biggest and deepest women’s soccer tournament in history. 2 Norway’s Ada Hegerberg takes a shot
during a Women Euro 2022 match against Austria. 3 Australia’s Sam Kerr controls the ball during a match against Brazil in October 2021. 4 Spain’s Jennifer Hermoso, second left, celebrates with teammates after scoring during a match against South Africa in the 2019 Women’s World Cup.
5 Germany’s Svenja Huth, left, challenges England’s Lucy Bronze for the ball during the Women’s Euro 2022 final. 6 The buzz: All four games in this group have ended 1-0 with unbeaten England winning two of them. With at least a draw against China, the Lionesses are through to the next round.
China kept its hopes of advancing alive when it beat Haiti on a late penalty kick by Racing Louisville’s Wang Shuang. The goal was just China’s second in World Cup play since 2015. Given the goal differential, the first tiebreaker in group play, it must beat England by at least three scores to advance although it could also move on with a victory if
Denmark fails to win its final game with Haiti. A tie would be enough for China if Denmark loses. 7 The buzz: Denmark can go through with a win or a draw depending on the result of the England-China game. If China wins, Denmark must win by a larger margin. If China draws, Denmark must win or draw its own game while scoring more goals than
China. If China loses to unbeaten England, Denmark can advance with a draw. Which brings us to Haiti, perhaps the toughest-luck team in the World Cup. Haiti has lost twice by 1-0 scores, with both goals coming on penalty kicks, yet it still has a narrow path through to the knockout rounds: beat Denmark and hope England beats China. That would
give Haiti, China and Denmark three points each, but Haiti would advance on the goal-differential tiebreaker. 8 U.S. teammates Sophia Smith, left, Kristie Mewis and Trinity Rodman celebrate after a goal against Wales on July 9. 9 The buzz: To make things simple, just consider this a must-win for the U.S., which can win the group, advance as the
second-place team or be eliminated altogether depending on the results. With the U.S. and the Netherlands entering the final game of the group stage tied atop the table with four points each, the math can get complicated: The Americans advance with a win or a draw, and because they come in with a two-goal lead in differential, the U.S. wins the
group if it holds any part of that advantage. If the U.S. draws and the Dutch beat Vietnam, the Netherlands wins the group. If both the U.S. and the Netherlands win, but the Dutch margin of victory is three or more goals greater the Americans’ margin, the Netherlands wins the group. And there’s also this: a Portugal victory and the U.S. is out. 10 The
buzz: Trailing the U.S. by two scores in goal differential, the first tiebreaker, the Dutch need to run up the score if they want to win the group. A draw will send them on as the second-place team, regardless of what happens in the U.S.-Portugal match, while a loss opens the door for the Netherlands to be eliminated if Portugal wins or draws against
the U.S. Vietnam is the only team in the group that will enter the final group-stage match with no chance of advancing but it has a chance to decide everything with its first World Cup victory.
11 Germany’s Lina Magull, left, is challenged by France’s Wendie Renard during a Women’s Euro 2022 semifinal match.
12 The buzz: Jamaica has scored just one goal in the tournament but because the Reggae Girlz haven’t conceded any, they go into the final day of group play unbeaten and with a chance to advance for the first time. That’s a big difference from four years ago when Jamaica was outscored 12-1 in three losses. The math is simple: beat or draw Brazil
and they go through, lose and they go home. But doing that won’t be easy since Brazil is ranked eighth in the world and has one of the deepest rosters in this World Cup.
Marta, a six-time world player and the year and widely considered the best women’s player in history, didn’t get a touch in the loss to France, coming off the bench in the 85th minute. She’ll likely play a bigger role in this game. 13 The buzz: Winless Panama is out and unbeaten France needs just a draw to advance. But beyond that it gets
complicated, and France could find itself joining Panama at the airport if it stumbles. A loss to Panama and a draw between Jamaica and Brazil in the other group game would give Jamaica the group and Brazil the runner-up spot on goal differential, eliminating the French. If France and Jamaica both lose, Brazil wins the group and second place again
will be decided on goal differential. France and Jamaica enter the final day even at plus-1, meaning whichever team has the lesser margin of defeat goes on. 14 Sweden’s Stina Blackstenius, right, controls the ball in front of Portugal’s Diana Gomes during a Women’s Euro 2022 group match. 15 The buzz: Sweden is already through to the next round,
but Argentina has everything to play for and no room for error. A victory — which would be Argentina’s first in World Cup play — combined with a draw in the other group game between Italy and South Africa and the South Americans go on to the round of 16 for the first time with the goal-differential tie-breaker. Anything short of a win and
Argentina is out.
Sweden, meanwhile, couldn’t lose the group even if it tied. Italy is the only team that can catch it in points and Sweden has a 10-goal edge in differential.
This will be Sweden’s eighth trip to the elimination rounds in nine World Cups and it will likely face either the U.S. or the Netherlands in the round of 16. 16 The buzz: For the Italians it’s win and they’re in. They can also advance with a draw, but they would need some help from Sweden in the other group-play game because a draw there would allow
Argentina to pass Italy and claim second in the table on goal differential. South Africa, which gave up goals in the 79th minute or later of its first two games, costing it four points, can also advance with a win and the goal-differential tiebreaker, provided Argentina does not beat Sweden by a larger margin than the Africans beats Italy. South Africa,
playing in this tournament for the second time, has never won a World Cup game nor advanced to the elimination rounds. 17 Germany’s Alexandra Popp, second right, celebrates with teammates after scoring against France in the Women’s Euro 2022 semifinals.