Faulty Assumptions: Lessons Learned from Company Command
by Major Ryan Shannon
Marines are great at simplifying complex concepts into easy-to-remember quips and phrases. Beginning Company Command, I was guided by various sayings which I thought captured “Marine Corps wisdom.” I found many to be wrong. Reflecting a year after Company Command, here are some things I found to be incorrect and some lessons I learned.
“Good Squads make good platoons”
Individual or squad level excellence won’t balance out ineptitude at the Platoon or Company level. Commanders need reps and sets in tactics, planning, and leading operations. Everyone needs to refresh basic skills and ensure personal gear is squared away. This only happens if leadership participates in training throughout the whole training continuum, including individual skills.
Participation means actually joining the training, not being safety structure or an “evaluator.” Supervision is important, but be wary of subordinate leaders who never put themselves “in the arena.” Anyone who believes they “outrank” basic fieldcraft, weapons manipulation, or the need to practice should have their attitude aggressively corrected. It’s not acceptable for leaders to wait until a potential combat situation is imminent to zero their weapon or co-witness their laser. Basic skills packages are great times for leaders to shake out gear, zero weapons, ensure comm is set up appropriately.
Participation also means truly engaging with platoon and company unit level training and accepting the frustrations that accompany that training. Company leaders will make mistakes in front of the Marines. Platoon and Company level training will not be efficient at the squad and below level. Battalion leadership will get excited and come to the field so they can “critique.” The Battalion XO will be mad Marines are on the range and not at the maintenance meeting. However, even if there are bumps on the way, during deployment the company that trained as a company will be better then the company that just squad live-fire over and over.
Enforcing participation early on will allow for more effective unit training later. Nothing kills the momentum of an EOTG training package like the whole company waiting at the line of departure for an hour while a Platoon Commander figures out where an antenna should go on their flack, or the Company Gunny figures out how to get accountability in a tactical manner for the first time.
For unit leader skills, try aggressive schedules of TDGs or kreigsspiels. Wargaming and PME shouldn’t be something to “fit in.” If it is made a priority during the workup, leaders will develops skills that will pay off later or in real combat.
Making mistakes is ok, even encouraged by MCDP-1. What’s not ok is when leadership is inexperienced or incompetent because it didn’t practice. No Marine should be put into a position where success is achieved in spite of leadership rather than because of it.
“You have the team you got”
The biggest impact you can have on unit effectiveness is getting the right people in the right place. All time spent getting your T/O right is time well spent. You also may have more influence on this than you think.
Sometimes it feels like it takes an act of God to fire or move someone. In reality, it usually only takes a conversation with your boss and proof of written counseling, especially if you can find a win-win situation for a personnel swap. The earlier in the unit lifecycle you get the best fit, the greater overall potential your unit will have. Being ruthless in evaluating and moving personalities will pay off in the unit cohesion and overall proficiency in the long run. Personality induced fissures or individual disagreements will only get more severe when the unit is under stress. Getting the team right is so important that it is worth considering deploying below T/O or with gaps in order to deploy with individuals who all WANT to be there and fit into the unit culture.
That said, personnel shifts late in the unit lifecycle may being more disruptive then helpful, and sometimes your boss says no. If you can’t swap/fire someone, you can still mold and actively develop Marines through counseling. Counseling is one of the best tools a leader has IF it is done right.
Ever been frustrated by the boss who refuses to give real feedback because he/she “talks to you every day” and expects that to be enough? To be effective, counseling must be formal, written, and detailed. The most critical audience are those most uncomfortable to counsel, like your first sergeant or executive officer. Getting observations and opinions in the open is key to creating a dialogue with your subordinates. Even if you expect it to be ineffective, or if you discover your observations are misunderstandings, counseling clearly articulates your expectations and perception to subordinates. You may be surprised at the influence you have to develop your team.
“This generation of _______ (NCO/SNCOs/Lts/whatever) sucks”
Before dismissing a whole class of people as worthless, consider rigorously assessing how well that group has been set up for success. Individuals vary, but groups generally perform how they have been set up. Often, the problem isn’t people, but how information flows, tasking is structured, and time.
Is the platoon sergeant who hasn’t produced a roster ineffective, or was he stuck in company meetings all day and couldn’t get five minutes to task out his squad leaders? Are Marines deliberately gaffing off medical readiness, or does 1stSgt think passing word means forwarding the Bn level hitlist to LCpls who
don’t have NIPR accounts? Do the NCOs fail to prepare, or is the schedule so erratic that they are forced to be reactive instead of proactive?
Consider organizing routine TEEP briefs for your Marines. Perhaps Marines are unprepared simply because they don’t know when things are happening. Try a weekly “honesty trace” of the training schedule to determine if it is derailed or not. Ruthlessly eliminate things that waste time or are inefficient. A good 10-minute daily stand up and well put-together schedule that effectively combines administration and training is likely all you need. Decide who is going to be sacrificed to the “time bandits” (sorry XO) but otherwise minimize the people attending higher headquarters meetings. Ensure those attending meetings process, repackage, and disseminate information in ways convenient to the Marine responsible for action... not the Marine disseminating the information.
Creating space and structure for your subordinates to spend more time preparing, training, or just conducting required admin tasks will pay off in increased productivity. You also may find that when setup for success, your subordinates won’t only meet but exceed expectations.
“Boots are dumb”
Rank structure and expertise do not always equate. Sometimes the junior Marine WILL know better. Instead of viewing this as disruptive, consider harnessing it as an opportunity to empower subordinates and create buy-in. Provided you do it in a manner that maintains professionalism, you could find benefits from establishing a culture where rank, authority, and knowledge doesn’t always have to be linked.
This dynamic often exists when you work with specialized attachments, such as radio reconnaissance or explosive ordinance disposal. Many of these units contain individuals with high levels of technical knowledge, responsibility, and independence... but relatively low rank. Emphasizing and respecting their subject matter expertise over their rank is an easy way to quickly build rapport, effectiveness, and trust. This dynamic can also exist in your company, especially if your mission set requires a specialized insertion skill like fast roping. What happens when there is disagreement between a HRST Master Corporal and the non-HRST Master Company Gunny about rigging a system? Are there ways to resolve conflicts that don’t jeopardize the chain of command while still giving subject matter experts authority? One method is to deal with mismatched hierarchies of rank and expertise by establishing company norms or programs that formalize responsibilities and clarify when subject matter expertise trumps rank. “Making it official” defines the SME’s scope of authority and creates structure that can compliment the chain-of-command without matching it. It creates buy-in, because including people in planning and training accelerates institutional learning. Also, a senior MAI, JTAC, or medical trainer who “owns” a “company program” probably can create a better individual training event than a swamped XO who is creating multiple things simultaneously.
Leaders often use knowledge to bolster their legitimacy. Let your leaders know it’s not a threat to their authority if they are not the subject matter expert on everything, and to leverage those who are. If it’s done right, it will make the company more professional, not less.
“Be last to sleep and first to wake.”
Your contribution to your company is your ability to command, your ability to command is tied to your cognitive state. If you haven’t eaten, slept, or taken care of yourself, you run the risk of being a liability to your unit. Rendering yourself a casualty due to exhaustion from self-imposed work is unacceptable. As a company commander, you are going to be in situations where your impact is directly proportional to your clarity of thought. Others in your company may be able to mechanically carry out duties when stressed, “internal,” or numb, but you will always have to be able to recognize patterns, formulate plans, and make decisions. Unfortunately, the situation where you need to be the sharpest happens during the times it is the most difficult to take care of yourself. Also, the time you have to take care of yourself may be when others are working the hardest, like after you have issued a company order. Taking care of yourself must be done in a way that takes into consideration others’ perceptions.
We say we will ruthlessly execute the best thing for our mission and the unit. Be prepared that this might mean doing something to make yourself more comfortable rather than less. It may mean delegating tasks or supervision of tasks to get some sleep. It may mean being honest with your Marines that you are also a human and can’t pull multiple all-nighters. It might also mean finding the balance between literally being the last person care for themselves and acting according to the spirit of shared hardship and accountability... while still stopping to take a meal.
“Don’t make comfort-based decisions.”
Training doesn’t have to be feel horrible to be valid. Depending on your goals, training might actually be MORE effective if the Marines are comfortable. This can be particularly true when planned training has very specific goals that require high levels of engagement by the training audience. Decreasing extraneous cognitive load (i.e. distractions) increases the mental bandwidth Marines have to learn. Going to field training doesn’t have to mean getting on a seven-ton and racking out on the ground. Particularly during basic skills packages, if you can let Marines drive a POV to the range, leave to get food, or go home to sleep, you are going to have higher retention of the skills you are trying to instill. Sleep is linked to human performance. Also, people who had the opportunity to shower can focus on their task rather than their nasty heat rash. Marksmanship, flat bay ranges, HRST operations, and medical training are good examples of training that is more effective if people aren’t miserable.
On the other hand, when it is time to be hard, be very hard. Discomfort and deprivation are critical to creating warriors... but they should be done deliberately when they enhance training. Consider having a “human factors” field exercise where you purposely deprive people of things so Marines can learn how they react under the stress caused by austere conditions. Alternatively, aggressively pursue training at Mountain Warfare Training Center. In short, when it benefits your goals, pursue comfort. Save the sleep deprivation, cold exposure, and lack of food during sustained operations at the unit level when your unit has matured some. Be hard when it adds value, but don’t be hard just to be hard.
“We can do it better than the schoolhouse”
Consider aggressively leveraging outside experts instead of viewing them as competition. In fact, utilizing outside experts might be the easiest way for you to achieve the best unit possible. Consider using courses taught by outside experts to train your Marines and your time to sustain or synthesize skills.
Do you think you can create a better product then IOC and would prefer to have Lts straight from TBS? If not, why do some people think they can do it better than Advance Machine Gunner Course?
Schoolhouses, contracted training packages, and Marines assigned to mobile training teams are likely able to develop higher quality training than a unit can, because their whole focus is teaching that skillset.
Schoolhouses are the institution’s standard bearer for a skillset. They also provide certifications recognized across the Marine Corps (or DOD). Consider having an aggressive individual schools phase or using outside experts to lay as the foundation you build on. You are responsible for the training of your Marines. But that doesn’t mean you have to be the one who develops all the training.
“We are not higher’s training aid.”
Everyone needs to train. This includes Battalion, Regimental, and Division commanders/staff. Being the best subordinate unit possible during an exercise is the best way to help those commanders and staffs to learn.
It’s not fun to dig into the defense and hold security on the open desert for three days during ITX, but a few days of frustration is better than being led into a real war by a commander/staff who have never had a rep or set. Just ask any Russian conscript. No CPEX or simulation can create the realism and friction inherent to live forces. As they learn, staffs and commanders will make mistakes. Mistakes are part of the natural learning process. In fact, they might make significant mistakes. Why? Because they get even less opportunities to train at their level then you do. A Regimental Commander might get one opportunity at ITX to truly “do regimental commander things” during their whole time in command. Helping higher get better means understanding and being at peace with the fact “higher” is made up of humans who are going to make mistakes. Unfortunately, those mistakes may be painful at your level. Understandable errors by higher HQ might manifest itself by your company having to attack into what is clearly the teeth of the enemy defense, digging into the defense in “the worst” spot, or sitting in a 7-ton for 12 hours waiting to go somewhere. Be ready to explain to your Marines that this is necessary for higher headquarters to become more effective. It also isn’t unrealistic to what would happen in a real war. Helping higher get better means understanding what incredibly fast-paced, efficient, and valuable training to higher’s level may feel slow, frustrating, or even non-sensical at your level.
Maybe your company being slaughtered due to poor staff work at 29 Palms or Realistic Urban Training Exercise is what it takes to teach a staff a lesson which will prevent them from getting a unit slaughtered in real combat. Instead of trying to duck out of the larger exercise to cram whitespace training in, consider just being a good training aid. “Training up” the chain-of-command could have significant benefits later on.
“The guys know we’re just screwing around.”
No one wants to be mocked. Allowing an environment where people cut or tease each other will backfire. Disparagement should rarely or never be a tool to build camaraderie, to hold others accountable, or motivate.
A unit with high trust is one that is effective, and the foundation of trust is mutual respect. Teasing is a slippery slope which can lead to the erosion of trust. Teasing leads to mockery which leads to disrespect which leads to contempt. It allows cliques to form which threaten cohesion. If someone is incompetent or simply can’t fit in, do not allow them to be marginalized. Help them improve... or fire them and get them out of your company.
Marines in leadership roles must be particularly careful. The hierarchy ingrained in each Marine at boot camp prevents different ranks from conducting the “give and take” that allows teasing to be equitable and good-natured. If Marines in your company feel they are held in contempt by their leaders, they will become passive, disengaged, or insubordinate. Think of all the times you held your tongue when your superior said something that made you boil and recognize that you and your company leaders now have that impact on others. A comment a leader thinks is a good-natured ribbing has the potential to cause deep, simmering resentment.
Maintaining accountability and respect between ranks can be accomplished without demeaning Marines. If you have a good environment, Marines will trust they can come to the chain of command with problems, willingly admit errors, and work to learn from mistakes... and they will not cover things up. As put in MCDP 1-3, “self-confidence is the wellspring from which flows the willingness to assume responsibility and exercise initiative.”
“Paperwork is BS”
Making sure administration is tight is one of the key ways to build rapport with your Marines. Failing to do it is one of the quickest ways to lose people. Benefits accrue and pitfalls are avoided by simply by doing the work.
Marines who have to change barracks rooms every month, can’t get anyone to help them figure out a travel claim, or have to buy items they know are sitting unrequested in the supply warehouse are going to be disgruntled. Timely approval of leave, rapidly processing awards, writing letters of continuity, resolving pay issues, etc isn’t fun. It’s not going to help a Marine learn to throw a grenade. But tight administration will create trust in the Marine that you will always do what is best to both accomplish the mission and take care of them.
Having tight administration can have benefits in other ways as well. Being savvy on DTS can open a whole new method of logistics for your company. It is absolutely possible to send a platoon to an off-site training package via commercial flight and lodge them in a hotel. Understanding how the budget cycle works can help you convince your higher headquarters that the gear you want to buy helps them obligate excess funds they are going to get slammed for in October. Marines who know and trust the training schedule will be more prepared for events. Like it or not, the ability to navigate bureaucracy and do administration is a critical part of company command.
“Orders are more a schoolhouse thing.”
We seem to do ourselves disservice at schoolhouses by turning the orders process into a tortuous multi- day event with obscenely large products. Some people’s response is to discard the orders process as unrealistic. Instead of totally ditching the orders process and products, consider adapting it ways that make sense given the situation.
The five-paragraph orders process is not restrictive, it is permissive. They are a mental format that the Marine Corps has ingrained in everyone which allows for information passage in an organized manner. Condensed orders formatted in a recognizable manner and passed via a succinct torn-out notebook page, a few radio transmissions, a map brief over the hood of a truck, or a few sentences in chat at the start of a comm window is equally as valid as the 70-page order briefed for two hours over a terrain model. What is important is that information is organized in a way subordinates can absorb it.
Communicating in a standardized manner, even if it is abridged, builds shared understanding and fosters implicit communication between leaders and subordinates. The Rapid Planning Model technique currently taught at Advanced Maneuver Warfare Course is an equally valid (perhaps even better) tool.
Organized information lets Marines focus on what is being passed rather than how/when it is being passed. Organized information also ensures leaders don’t forget anything and holds them accountable for producing due-outs to their subordinates. Particularly in tactical scenarios, failing to create WARNOs, assuming Marines understand the details, doing stream of consciousness “data dumps” won’t enable rapid or high-quality results. This puts the burden on your subordinates to “discern” what needs to happen rather than providing actionable guidance. In turn, this increases the time your subordinates need to absorb instructions and act, slowing your unit down.
Using the orders process and associated products increases effective communication and tempo. It is empowering for a subordinate to hear “your task is... in order to...” As your unit develops, SOPs will replace parts of the order, styles will emerge, and things might be tweaked. However, a foundation of organized information is essential to effective communication.
Conclusion
Leaders are made, not born. Trial, error, and experience are critical in the process of creating an effective company leader. Sometimes however, it is better to learn through what others have experienced rather than rediscover a lesson on your own. Hopefully, there are a few thoughts here that can help.
Major Ryan Shannon is currently attending NPS studying Operational Research. He previously served as a Reconnaissance and H&S Company Commander. He can be reached at ryan.shannon@nps.edu.