Much has been said and written lately about why the Russian invasion of Ukraine has gone so badly for the invading Russian’s. The famous quote, originally ascribed to American General, Omar Bradley, that “Amateurs talk about strategy, but Professionals talk about logistics” has been used as a yardstick for the apparent failure of Russian Units to move swiftly to and through their early war objectives.
There has also been much discussion of the quality and motivation of Russian troops as compared to their Ukrainian counterparts, and certainly, given the Ukrainians are fighting for the survival of their country and to protect their families, so their motivation can reasonably be expected to be stronger than their opponents.
With all this pondering on the why’s and wherefores of the conflict, it may be useful to think of the situations of the protagonists as a management problem.
In order to make the analysis sensible it is necessary to be clear about the objective of each side and what that looks like for them. It can reasonably be assumed that each side wants to emerge from the conflict victorious.
For the Russians, victory is a moving target. Initially, victory was the occupation of Ukraine and the installation of a regime sympathetic to Moscow. Two months down the line this is clearly no longer the objective. Now the Russians seem to be defining victory as the consolidation of the Donbas as an independent region and possibly the creation of a land corridor in the Southeast of Ukraine, along the coast of the Sea of Azov and connecting the Donbas with Crimea.
For Ukraine, the objective is nothing less than national survival as an independent nation with the vast majority, if not all, of the landmass of Ukraine intact and under their sovereign control.
So, although there are different definitions, each side is set upon victory as their objective, and while the outcome of the war at the time of writing (in mid-April 2022) is unclear, management lessons that can be drawn from the conflict thus far are compelling.
Based on what has been written in the media and expanded upon by commentators and military experts alike, the comparison of the Ukrainian and Russian approaches to managing the war can be considered under the following headings: Management Philosophy, Top Management Style, Middle Management Function and the Organisational Approach.
Management Philosophy:
From the reporting it seems clear that Ukraine and Russia are approaching the war from two very different perspectives.
Ukraine appears to be adopting what can best be described as an Agile Management Philosophy. They clearly cannot match the opposition in terms of capacity and resources and as such they must apply their own resources where they can have the greatest effect. They have shown that by remaining flexible and dealing with circumstances as they are, they can push resources where they are needed most and, in that way, confront the opposition most effectively while at the same time tying down as few resources as possible where the need is less urgent.
Russia on the other hand has adopted an approach based on deeply entrenched doctrine (which has admittedly worked in the past in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and Syria) based on rigid bureaucracy and decision making at only the very top echelons of Management. The operational execution on the ground seems to have been based on assumptions that have not always held true and there seems to have been very little scope for deviation from the pre-approved plan, regardless of the situation confronting them on the frontlines.
The Management lesson here is that flexibility and agility are a key success factor. Being able to adapt to circumstances as they are, rather than trying to adapt circumstances to your perspective, is a much more likely route to success. Also, delegating responsibility and decision making to the appropriate level means that solutions are tailored to local circumstances while remaining within the overall strategic framework or vision.
Top Management Style:
Ukraine, and President Zelensky in particular, seem to have taken the approach of providing a vision of national survival to his military. He has articulated the strategy and approach as being one of survival and that any legal action that contributes to the achievement of that objective is encouraged. From the highest levels to the lowliest recruit, everyone understands what is required and actively seeks opportunities to give expression to the strategic vision. The input of management (Zelensky) is to provide guidance and context to actions and to be less concerned with the details of execution.
Russia by contrast seems to have stuck with an approach that has worked in the past. The Kremlin and President Putin have defined a strategy based on the application of massive and overwhelming force with the objective of the subjugation of Ukraine and the replacement of the democratically elected government with one more open to the perspective of Moscow. Putin has dictated the war from the very top and has sought to tightly control every aspect of the operation, not least of which is the control over information about the war. It seems apparent that at the operational level there is very little understanding on the part of the troops about why they are there and what the overall objective is. Where the objective was explained it appears that what they were told to expect (to be received as liberating heroes) and what actually greeted them (forceful and unrelenting opposition) were diametrically opposed realities.
The Management lesson is that being Chief Executive means having the confidence to put your ego to one side and allow those responsible for operational execution to do what they are paid to do. A great CEO/President provides the guidance through clear and honest communication, the vision of what success looks like, and the tools for the job to be done, and then leaves the delivery of results to those, to whom the function has been delegated. An insecure and egotistical CEO/President will dictate every move and interfere in every decision regardless of the realties on the ground. The former is a recipe for success and the latter for disaster especially if that CEO is not open, honest and clear about the realities of the situation.
Middle Management Function:
For the purposes of this discussion “Middle Management” is considered as the Junior Commissioned Officers (Lieutenants/Captains) and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (Sergeants) on each side.
Ukraine has relied heavily on these middle managers to make key tactical decisions. Most military observers agree that delegating tactical command and control to these managers has been to Ukraine’s success in the war thus far. They are senior enough and experienced enough to understand the strategic picture and have a clear grasp of the importance of success, not to mention the price of failure. They have also been empowered with the authority to assess their tactical situations and to respond as they consider most appropriate to achieve the overall strategic vision. This approach requires top management to release their grip on day-to-day operations and to trust that those they have hired and trained to lead the workforce will do the right thing to achieve success. This is a key success factor in an agile approach and requires a strength of character and high level of trust on the part of Top Management.
Russia’s approach is much more traditional. Top management dictates from on high the day-to-day actions and activities and requires that practically every decision be cleared at the highest levels. Commentators agree that the Russian military’s “middle management” is almost completely impotent and unable to affect any direct action on their immediate challenges. This has led to significant breakdowns of equipment and capacity and had a debilitating effect on morale.
The Management lesson is that if middle management is prevented by rigid and overly controlling top management from doing the job for which they were hired the organisation is severely hobbled in terms of its capacity to execute the overall strategy effectively. However, given the authority and freedom to do so, middle management can be the key driver for success by articulating the strategy and vision for the staff and confronting daily operational challenges with their talent and experience to deliver successful outcomes.
Organisational Approach:
Ukraine as a country/organisation has a very clear vision of what is at stake and what must be achieved. The strategy and vision have been articulated from the very top and every level down to troops in the field understand clearly what needs to be done. Every citizen (or employee if you will) is dedicated to the overall goal and is doing their best to achieve that. Clearly, mistakes will be made and there will be setbacks, however, the stakes are so high that these cannot be dwelled upon for too long. Rather, it seems, that everyone assesses the situation, adapts their actions, and overcomes the obstacles with a view to achieving the ultimate goal of victory.
Russia has based its approach on a significantly flawed assessment of the situation, driven primarily by the perspective of the CEO (Putin) and without consideration of the realities on the ground. The Russian troops were given a flawed view of what to expect at the start of the operation and have not had the middle management capacity to alter their course of action when that expectation was discovered to be incorrect. Rather it seems that rather than adapt to the situation, the Russians have opted to continue rigidly onwards, more afraid of making a mistake than of changing their plans to the reality of their circumstances.
The Management lesson is that inflexible organisations where a culture of fear prevents staff from adapting to the circumstances, for fear of the rebuke from top management, are organisations where failure (or at least poor performance) is likely to be the default situation. By empowering staff and accepting that mistakes will be made, and by turning such mistakes into learning opportunities, an organisation is able to adapt and overcome adversity to deliver successful outcomes.
A final thought - it is not clear what the outcome of the Russo/Ukrainian war of 2022 will be. However, whatever the outcome, it is clear that a smaller (arguably weaker) and less well-resourced organisation has outsmarted and out-performed an adversary that everyone expected would crush them in a matter of days.
The key success factors for Ukraine have been a strong, self-confident and visionary CEO and top management that have articulated a compelling strategy, provided the very best resources it has available and then empowered middle management and staff to get on with the business of getting the job done. It has taken bravery and trust on the part of senior management and dedication, hard work and indeed sacrifice by middle management and staff.
With the flexibility and freedom to adapt their actions as needed they have delivered a success thus far that has exceeded every expectation, not least of all that of their opposition, the Russians.
Comments