BY THOMAS E. POULIN
Succession planning calls for organizational leaders to look beyond their own tenures to the organization’s long-term survivability. To some, this means “fast tracking”i.e., identifying future leaders early, providing them with enriching professional experiences, and giving them sufficient experiential breadth and depth to meet future challenges. Although there may be many anecdotes to support it as a successful approach, it might not be the one you should take.
General Eric Shinseki, chief of staff of the United States Army from 1999 to 2003, once wrote that the Army knew who its leaders would be over the upcoming decadesit just did not know their names yet. They could be found among the second lieutenants, first lieutenants, and majors currently serving. Shinseki wrote that although the Army could attempt to identify them, over the intervening decades, those identified could fade from sight through retirement, new careers, differing priorities, death, or other unexpected circumstances.
Consequently, Shinseki explained that the only approach he could reasonably take was to ensure that as many junior officers as possible received repeated opportunities to obtain new experiences and face new challenges. Since the Army promoted solely from within, it was imperative that it become a premier learning organization. The Army had to ensure that officers were continually challenged and prepared to meet strategic challenges, not just tactical ones. Not doing so, Shinseki said, harmed not only the individual officer but also the organization as a whole.
In some ways, the fire service faces greater challenges. Although it typically promotes solely from within as well, individual departments are far smaller than the active duty forces of the Army, which greatly limits the selection pool. Too often, it might be easier to place individuals in positions to which they are particularly attuned to enhance the probability of success. In many instances, this is the obvious approach. It supports the overall effectiveness of the organization and serves to make that individual officer better prepared to face new challenges. The dark side to such an approach is that, if used in an unbalanced manner, it can potentially exclude other officers from an opportunity to excel.
John Paul Getty, the American industrialist who became one of the nation’s first billionaires, was once asked his secret to success. Reportedly, he replied, “Rise early. Work hard. Strike oil.” Clearly, he knew that success was tied to hard work and diligent attention to duties and responsibilities, which we also associate with leadership. Intriguingly, the latter portion of his response suggests he knew well that success often is attributable to luck or at least to a confluence of many factorsessentially, the right person in the right place at the right time. To illustrate this, consider the histories of Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant.
ROBERT E. LEE
Robert E. Lee was the scion of one of the oldest families in Virginia. The family was wealthy and landed. His ancestors included Sir Thomas More, King Robert II of Scotland, and “Light Horse Harry” Lee, one of the most celebrated generals of the Revolution and the one-time governor of Virginia. While at West Point, he was the first cadet ever to be promoted to sergeant as a freshman. As a student at the U.S. Military Academy, he excelled in his studies, ranking academically at the top of his class in artillery and tactics. In 1829, he was one of only five cadets graduating who had earned no demerits during their tenure.
Entering the regular Army, Lee was assigned to the Corps of Engineers, the most prestigious of the branches. His service over the next few decades included command of many large-scale engineering projects, distinguished service during the Mexican-American War, and an assignment as the superintendent of West Point.
When the Civil War began, Colonel Lee was offered command the armies of both the North and the South. Although Lee had served the United States for more than three decades, his sense of duty to Virginia led him to resign from the U.S. Army and take up a Confederate commission. Although considered to be one of the greatest military leaders in United States history, four years later he surrendered his forces to General Grant.
ULYSSES S. GRANT
Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in a log cabin in Ohio, the son of a tanner. The family was poor and of little note in the community. He entered West Point at the age of 17. His congressman, not knowing Grant but knowing his mother’s maiden name was Simpson, made his recommendation for Ulysses S. Grant. Since the school would not accept a student without the proper recommendation, Grant was forced to change his name to enter the academy. During his time at West Point, Grant was, at best, a middling student, known mostly for his outstanding horse taming and riding abilities.
He graduated in the middle of his class and was assigned to the Quartermaster Corps, considered a position of little prestige. Except for some notable service during the Mexican-American War, his military career was lackluster, marked often by failure and disrepute. He resigned from the Army in disgrace, penniless, returning to his wife’s home in St. Louis. Until the Civil War started, Grant moved from job to job, unsuccessful at all ventures.
When the war began, he tried several times to get back into the Army or a state militia unit but was unsuccessful, serving instead for a time as a clerk to the Illinois adjutant general. Earlier, he had helped to train the militia unit from Galena, Illinois, which finally brought him to the attention of political leaders. In June 1861, he was made a militia colonel. Less than three months later, in recognition of his abilities, he was promoted to brigadier general. As a brigadier, he captured the reportedly unassailable forts of Henry and Donelson. During the latter engagement, he accepted the surrender of more prisoners after a single battle on the North American continent since the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. He captured Vicksburg, the “Gibraltar of the Confederacy,” after which he was promoted to major general. In 1864, after the battles of Lookout Mountain, Chattanooga, and Missionary Ridge, Grant was named lieutenant general, the first to achieve that rank since George Washington.
In 1865, Grant was made General of the Armies, the first American to hold a four-star rank. Though he was a virtual nonentity in early 1861, by 1865 Grant was the victorious commander of the world’s largest army.
THE FAILURES CAN WIN
This is not about the relative leadership abilities of Lee or Grant. Both were great leaders, demonstrated by the plaudits from their superiors and peers, and perhaps more notably by the devotion and respect of their soldiers. Both were great managers, generally using their available resources effectively and efficiently, optimizing their abilities to achieve goals. At times, they were both successful and unsuccessful in battle, yet both doggedly fought on in pursuit of their greater aims.
What is noteworthy is, by most measures, although Lee was clearly a leader, Grant was not expected to be successful. By most measures, he had failed in his career and was doomed to continued failure. Yet, in a period of less than three years, he rose from penniless obscurity to be the first American to achieve the same rank as George Washington, turning the tide for the Union forces after a lengthy period of inaction or failure.
Lee was the epitome of the leader of the future. Throughout his career, he received plum assignments at which he excelled. Grant was anything but the leader of the future, thought of more frequently for his sad fate. Yet, in the end, the failure was the victor and the leader was left to fade away. In the end, in this instance, succession planning had failed. In fact, in direct conflict with the general precepts of succession planning, the failure won.
What lessons should the fire service learn from this? There is nothing here to suggest that potential leaders should not be identified early, with their careers nurtured so long as the greater benefits to the organization are kept foremost in mind and there is nothing to suggest unsuitable favoritism in personnel decision making. There are people with, for lack of a better term, “leadership qualities,” who will likely serve important roles in the future. Unquestionably, they should be prepared to meet such challenges. The lesson should be not who are your Lees, as they often begin to stand out early, but who are your Grants? Who will surprise you with his ability to meet an apparently impossible challenge? Who, contrary to common sense and past performance, will be the right person in the right place at the right time? And, more importantly than identifying them, will you be willing to give them the opportunity to succeed? If you are the chief, the choice, the challenge, and the risk are yours.
Reference
Shinseki, E.K. “Leaders of the Future: Growing One-eyed Kings.” In F. Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith (Eds.) The Leader of the Future: Visions, Strategies and Practices for the New Era. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006), 121-129.
THOMAS E. POULIN, Ph.D., CFO, EFO, is an adjunct instructor in the master of public administration programs of Nova Southeastern University and Old Dominion University and the Executive Fire Officer program at the National Fire Academy. He is a battalion chief in a metropolitan department in Virginia and has served in the fire service since 1977.
