Introduction
Leadership in projects has been a subject of increasing attention over the past few decades. Modern organizations often develop project teams tasked with accomplishing specific tasks. Similar to organizations, project members require proper guidance to be successful.
According to Pilkiene et al. (2018, p. 913), traditional perspectives on leadership entail leaders exercising power over their members in a vertical manner. Recently, concepts such as distributed and balanced leadership have emerged to describe situations where leaders emerge from within teams based on the specific situation. The book Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World by Stanley McChrystal and others offer critical insights into effective project management.
The lessons may be from a military perspective, considering that the book discusses several military operations and their challenges and successes. In many cases, operations began as simple tasks and then evolved into complex undertakings (McChrystal et al., 2015, p. 53). This paper will summarize five recommendations relevant to project leadership: resiliency, successful teams, decentralized decision-making, adaptation in place of efficiency, and transparency and sharing.
Building Resilience
Resilience is a term often associated with recovering from or easily adjusting to change or misfortune. In the modern world, business environments are often deemed to be dynamic and volatile, which can cause disruptions to business operations. Resilience is the feature that supports these firms in times of such disruptions. According to McChrystal et al. (2015, p 76), resilience in complex environments spells success where even the most brilliantly engineered fixed solutions are either counterproductive or insufficient. From a military perspective, resilience is critical in the sense that nature operations could easily morph into more complex and complicated undertakings.
The definition of resilience used by McChrystal et al. (2015, p 76) is the one used by Scientists David Salt and Brian Walker. These scientists define resilience as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and maintain its basic structure and function. McChrystal et al. (2015, p 76) express that disturbances are inevitable in a complex world, which necessitates organizations to develop the capacity to absorb them. Rather than changing in response to disruptions, resilience is deemed an effective strategy for success through turmoil.
The concept of resilience, as discussed in the book, explores how countries and organizations have demonstrated a need to face-to-face uncertainties. McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 78) describe resilient thinking as a burgeoning field that addresses new ways to deal with the emerging challenges of complexity. The paradigm of resilience compelled managers to acknowledge the reality of inevitable, unpredictable threats. In this case, the response needed is not erecting specialized and strong defenses. On the contrary, they have to build systems designed to roll with the punches and, if possible, benefit from them.
Additionally, McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 78) argue that resilient thinkers tend to hold the position that most of the systems around us have been fragilized due to the urge to specialize, achieve efficiencies, and the demand for unnatural predictability. Therefore, business managers or leaders must acknowledge that disruptions are the norm, and success can be more effectively built on the ability to remain resilient in the face of unpredictability.
Recent literature supports the concept of resilience in projects, even though it is relatively new in this field. Such an argument is held by Rahi (2019, p. 69), who states that resilience may be novel, but it is a promising concept in project management studies. Additionally, resilient thinking is perceived to have critical benefits for helping projects maintain their performance through systemic, flexible, and context-specific approaches when faced with disruptions. This article concurs with McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 76) on the notion that resilience is equivalent to success under conditions of unpredictability.
The only new perspective adopted is the appreciation of the novelty of the idea in project leadership, but the same argument is made by Rahi (2019, p. 69) regarding resilience and success. Another scholarly article argues that resilience presents an interdisciplinary crossroad between proactive preparation for uncertainty and emergent and temporary solutions (Naderpajouh et al., 2020, p. 1). In this case, resilience in projects is considered a paradigm shift that requires extensive study to demonstrate its applicability in addressing project uncertainties.
Fostering Successful Teams
Teamwork is not a novel concept, as it has been extensively studied in contexts such as organizational behavior and leadership. The book by McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 125) provides numerous examples of how teams have been crucial to success. Many examples have been derived from the sixties and seventies, for instance, Mission Critical Teams, where interactivity is a key requirement. McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 125) state that teams tend to work well due to their small sizes since people know each other and work together for prolonged periods. At the same time, the size has often been a major limitation for team experiments.
In other words, what makes teams great can also work against them by preventing them from becoming a cohesive whole. In this case, the authors acknowledge that teams must be smaller for them to achieve high performance and success. In essence, large organizations can comprise loosely attached or disconnected individuals, where inadequate collaboration and interaction can derail success. Building successful teams means determining the right size, among other success factors.
The title of the book is Team of Teams, which implies a situation where smaller teams operate within larger ones. McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 128) explain that on a team of teams, each person does not need to have relationships with all other individuals. On the contrary, the interactions between the component groups must resemble those of individuals within a given team. This is a new approach to team management, particularly in an organizational setting where smaller squads can be formed to focus on specific tasks within a larger project or department.
However, the main idea derived from the book regarding project leadership is the formation of successful teams, which is a critical driver of success. Smaller groups within a project enable individuals to work together over time, get to know each other more intimately, and build seamless relationships that facilitate effective performance. Similarly, project groups can be constituted using the idea of a team of teams, in which case the project members form a larger group while smaller teams are built among the members based on predetermined criteria.
The main idea regarding tams is that their success lies in their composition. Several scholarly articles make the same argument, where the main point is that building successful teams requires taking into account their components. According to Bell et al. (2018), certain combinations of people in groups tend to work together more effectively than others. These researchers also note that a wide body of literature suggests that team configurations, comprising member attributes, fundamentally influence teamwork. The project teams comprise members who are expected to work together on tasks, which means that their relationships are a key factor in their success.
Project leadership must create projects based on the compatibility of team members, as incompatibilities hinder communication and other aspects of teamwork. For example, groups with members of low cognitive ability may not be able to effectively develop accurate collective knowledge as well as high cognitive ability crews can. Therefore, the goals and objectives of the projects, along with the specific tasks, should guide the development of project teams.
Transparency and Sharing
Many of the observations in the book focus on what makes teams successful. Another aspect discussed by McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 140) is transparency and sharing, which are built on the idea of trust. The book authors express that functioning safely in an interdependent environment is possible only when every team adopts a holistic understanding of all moving parts. The capability to freely share information can facilitate performance.
In many cases, high levels of specialization tend to create abundant knowledge, but the breadth needed to comprehend a situation may be lacking. In essence, McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 140) criticize military operations, as most of them operate on a need-to-know basis, which means that squads are given limited information. Even if security concerns necessitate such an approach, the absence of sharing means that the knowledge is largely useless if the members cannot access or deploy it to perform the tasks allocated to them. Knowledge and information are essential in decision-making, as informed decisions lead to better outcomes. In the military, operations typically involve the execution of orders rather than making decisions.
Ideas of cognitive oneness and systems thinking have also been discussed in the book to illustrate the need for transparency and information sharing. McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 150) describe cognitive oneness as the emergent intelligence that can only be achieved through the sharing of information. Systems thinking is the capability to understand the bigger picture, which requires team members to combine different types of data from multiple sources. Overall, transparency and sharing help achieve what can be described as a shared consciousness, which is necessary for coordinated operations (McChrystal et al., 2015, p. 198).
Overall, the main idea is that sharing in a group helps bring all people to the same conscious and cognitive level, allowing all team members to collaborate effectively in coordinated activities. Teamwork entails combining individuals to achieve set deliverables within a given task. In this case, information sharing is not merely between members but also from leadership to members.
Project management literature also supports the idea of transparency and sharing as key determinants of project success. According to Tomomitsu, Carvalho, and Moraes (2018, p. 355), knowledge sharing is one of the most valuable activities since it encourages project members to maintain social capital, promote innovation, and sustain high performance. As mentioned earlier, knowledge and information are used in decision-making and are necessary for individuals to understand the bigger picture.
In essence, project members may have different expertise, knowledge, and skills, which means that their combined efforts produce better results than the sum of the individual outputs. In literature, knowledge is considered an asset that needs to be managed efficiently and effectively since it can move an organization. In project leadership, transparency and sharing could mean the difference between the success and failure of the project.
Decentralized Decision-Making
Another recommendation for project leadership learned from the book is decentralized decision-making. McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 18) explain an incident during a flight when he and his team had to unlearn much of what they knew about how war and the world worked. They were forced to tear down the familiar organizational structures, remodel them along different lines, and swap sturdy architecture for organic fluidity. Most importantly, tearing down the structures means that transparency and information sharing were accompanied by decentralized decision-making authority, which the authors call empowered execution.
Eliminating the hierarchies made the group more efficient. The group learned how to apply the lessons from the small teams to a larger organization comprising thousands of individuals spread across continents. This recommendation is arguably unlike the military, where hierarchies and orders replace democracy and delegation of authority. Regardless, decentralizing decision-making authority was a fruitful experiment that yielded success for the team and made it possible to apply the same principles to a larger establishment.
Current leadership literature supports ideas of decentralization, but with more emphasis on striking a balance between centralization and decentralization. In leadership projects, decentralization of decisions has been recommended where quick responses to changing circumstances are required (Drouin et al., 2018, p. 984). For example, a project where technologies used change rapidly may require members to make independent decisions instead of following the hierarchy and seeking the leader’s approval. In some cases, the team could make the decisions as a group without engaging the project leader.
As opposed to McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 18), the main idea behind decentralization is quick responses and not success. However, how project teams respond to environmental changes may determine success, which means quick decision-making facilitates project success. Centralization may be necessary for certain decisions, especially those involving security or other sensitive areas. Regardless, project leadership should consider the benefits of decentralized decision-making authority and apply it where necessary.
Adaptability Over Efficiency
Adaptability in project management is a concept used to imply a project’s ability to cope with unpredictable changes in the work environment. According to McChrystal et al. (2015, p. 19), most organizations pursue efficiency, which is described as getting the most with the least investment of money, time, and energy. While this is a laudable goal, the book’s authors argue that there is a likelihood that organizations are pursuing efficiency while they should be seeking adaptability. The authors argue that adaptability should be the primary competency instead of efficiency since the environment constantly changes.
The illustrations used for this point involve how Al-Qaeda responded to the arrests of its leaders. The group managed to resurge in all cases due to a lack of standard modus operandi and standard hierarchy. Such a group did not bother with their efficiency, unlike the military, where hierarchies and resource utilization are critical. The military was often forced to disrupt paradigms to effectively deal with the threat, which further illustrates the need for prioritizing adaptability.
Project leadership also appreciates the need for adaptability as manifested by the multiple attempts to define the concept of adaptable projects. According to McLoughlin and Priyadarshini (2021, p. 2), adaptability in project management entails a readiness to cope with the task of preparing and partaking in project roles and the unpredictable adjustments caused by environmental changes. Several other definitions have been presented, but the basic tenet is that work or project environment conditions will keep changing, and the project team should be ready to cope with them. Scholars also recommend that project managers be trained more on adaptability since it is becoming a critical element in determining the success or failure of a project. The book’s recommendation on prioritizing adaptability over efficiency is supported in academic literature.
Conclusion
The book Team of Teams may have been written with the military in mind. However, its lessons can be applied in contemporary organizations, especially in project leadership. This paper has summarized five significant recommendations or observations applicable to project management. In all five examples, supporting academic literature has been identified and used to illustrate how project leaders can deploy the main lessons.
The five recommendations are building resilience, fostering successful teams, transparency and sharing, decentralized decision-making authority, and adaptability. Across these recommendations, the military context has been criticized, even though indirectly, since it presents a situation where teams do not have the essential elements to make them successful. In a few instances, such as decentralization, teams in the military have worked well, which should be expected in project leadership.
Reference List
Bell, S., et al. (2018) ‘Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork’, American Psychologist, 73(4), pp. 349-362.
Drouin, N. et al. (2018) Balancing vertical and horizontal leadership in projects: empirical studies from Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(4), pp. 986-1006.
McChrystal, S. et al. (2015) Team of teams: new rules of engagement for a complex world. New York: Penguin.
McLoughlin, E. and Priyadarshini, A. (2021) ‘Adaptability in the workplace: investigating the adaptive performance job requirements for a project manager’, Project Leadership and Society, 2, pp. 1-8.
Naderpajouh, N. et al. (2020) ‘Resilience and projects: an interdisciplinary crossroad’, Project Leadership and Society, 1, pp. 1-8.
Pilkiene, M. et al. (2018) ‘The governance of horizontal leadership in projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 36(7), pp. 913-924.
Rahi, K. (2019) ‘Project resilience: a conceptual framework’, International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 7(1), pp. 69-83.
Tomomitsu, H., Carvalho, M. and Moraes, R. (2018) ‘The evolution of the relationship between project management and knowledge management: a bibliometric study’, Management Product, 25(2), pp. 354-369.