The Necessary Firing of General McChrystal
Big news last week that Obama fired his general in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal. I read the Rolling Stone article and couldn’t help but thinking that McChrystal was a megalomaniacal moron. From a managerial point of view, McChrystal’s comments gave Obama no choice but to dismiss him. Anything less would have been an abomination to Obama’s elected position as Commander-in-Chief (by that way, is that title even in English?) and duty to be a competent manager.
In any organization, it is critical that people argue and debate. I remember joining Microsoft and watching people engage in mental (and sometimes hostile) combat regarding product and other strategic directions. They always left the conference room as friends, but the culture at Microsoft, which spawned Expedia, which sort of spawned Avvo, mandated such a crucible to ensure the best ideas rose to the top. Even at Avvo today, I feel fortunate to have a team that cares so much about our product and vision that I practically have to pull them off of each other in strategy meetings. All of this conflict is borne of passion, and I don’t believe any company can succeed without it.
That being said, when a decision is made within Avvo and any other successful organization, that’s it. Possibly the decision is revisited if it is not achieving its objectives, but it is not revisited immediately after it is made (otherwise the decision has not been made at all). Moreover, anyone who disagrees with the decision needs to get on the bus and support the direction rather than dwell on the differences. Failure to get on the bus is arguably a firable offense, but then taking that to the media in such a crass way is akin to loading your own gun. Why? Obama could not have said it any better, “I encourage debate will not tolerate dissent.” Maybe he should have said “public dissent” but you get it: He’s talking about the bus.
Adding insult to injury, this is not the first time Obama told McChrystal to get on the bus. The picture above was their first public spat over disparaging comments McChrystal made regarding Vice President Biden. Even though Obama called him to the carpet then, McChrystal was still full enough of himself to ignore his boss’s admonition and do it again a year later. Sheesh.
It was bad enough that McChrystal chose to attack Biden again and just about everyone in Afghanistan not in fatigues. But taking this matter deeper into the organizational toilet was how he did it. The article opens with him engaging in an expletive-laden whining session about having to have dinner with a French official. He could not have sounded more jingoistic and moronic. He is flipping the bird at his subordinates for getting him “screwed into” this Franco-mess and reminding them that they could not kick his ass (his words). Think of your own business, if this was one of your employees publicly discussing his disdain for a business partner in your local paper or similar media outlet, you would go crazy — no matter how troubled the relationship with that partner may be. If the relationship needs help, then work on it with a positive attitude. If it can be saved, then save it. If it cannot, then get out of it. But don’t stoop to the level of badmouthing your partners, co-workers or superiors in public. It is such bad form that I cannot come up with a pithy analogy that does it justice. My “moron” characterization is the best I can do.
I’ve written and spoken about organizational communication a lot over the years: It is the lifeblood of any successful organization. Successful organizations need to constantly work to keep the good, bad and ugly in plain view and on the table for discussion. But McChrystal’s actions were none of that. They were a violation of organizational respect, good manners and all of the lessons we learned (or not) in kindergarten . . . beginning with “works and plays well with others.”
